Sitting of 25 January 1966

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 22nd December, 1965, for the Christmas Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what instructions he or the Governor of Rhodesia have now given for the payment of interest due on Rhodesian public debt in this country.
  The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of 14th December to the Question asked by the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). I would add that the Governor does not by himself possess the necessary authority in Rhodesian law to order the payment to be made of interest due on the Rhodesian public debt.
  Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would appear from
  2
  the debate of 11th December that he has this responsibility? Is not this the first occasion on which a Secretary of State has connived at a default on Government stocks?
  Mr. Bottomley: I have not that responsibility. The responsibility rests with the Governor, and he alone is not the lawful Government of Rhodesia.
  Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has on the state of unemployment in Southern Rhodesia.
  Mr. Bottomley: In present circumstances, information is incomplete. Rhodesian organisations are themselves reported to be arranging special studies to assess the extent of unemployment.
  Such measures as the establishment of a national advisory scheme to help employers hit by sanctions, the setting up of advisory panels to guide employers in such measures as diversification, pooling imports, sending staff on leave and other recommendations, go to show that unemployment is increasing, and will continue to increase.
  Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous dangers inherent in unemployment among both black and white people? Will he keep himself fully informed of the details of the situation and strive to find a solution?
  Mr. Bottomley: Yes, indeed, that is the desire of us all, to try to find a solution to this problem. On the question of unemployment, that is not caused by the present Government; it is the making of the Rhodesian rebel régime.
  Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
  Mr. Bottomley: I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is proposing to make after Questions.
  Mr. Wall: Have not the Government received recommendations that the time is ripe for negotiations? In view of the rising costs of this dispute to the British taxpayer and the loss of markets in the whole of Southern Africa, will the right hon. Gentleman now open negotiations through the Governor with Mr. Smith?
  Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Member catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will perhaps have an opportunity of putting that question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Lomasasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he is aware that Rhodesian students at present studying or training in this country are liable to ill-treatment by the illegal régime of Rhodesia when they return home; and what provision he is making to protect them.
  Mr. Bottomley: I am not aware of any evidence that Rhodesian students returning home from this country have been ill-treated merely because they have studied here.
  Mr. Lomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fear of ill-treatment was strongly expressed to me by Rhodesian students at present at the Huddersfield Training College when I spoke to them some weeks ago? Is he in a position to inform the House what steps the Government intend to take to assist those students who are at present suffering great financial difficulties as a direct result of the illegal declaration of independence in Rhodesia?
  Mr. Bottomley: While the British Government have general responsibility for Rhodesia, I am sure my hon. Friend
  4
  will appreciate that I cannot in any way be responsible for the actions of Mr. Smith's illegal régime.
  Mr. Lomasasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the position of the wife of a Rhodesian student who desires to join her husband in Great Britain and is unable to obtain a valid passport.
  Mr. Bottomley: Entry into the United Kingdom would not be refused merely because the travel document held was not regarded as valid. I shall be circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the present passport arrangements.
  Mr. Lomas: While I am grateful for that reply, may I ask if it is possible for the Minister now to say if the statement will provide for the issue of United Kingdom passports in exceptional cases such as the one mentioned in my Question?
  Mr. Bottomley: In respect of this applicant and others admission or otherwise would not be affected by any kind of passport which was carried. If there were held a pre-U.D.I. Rhodesian passport no exception would be taken and she would be permitted to come into this country.
  Following is the statement:
  In general the passport facilities granted to persons known to be active supporters of the illegal régime, whether such persons are Rhodesian citizens, United Kingdom citizens or dual citizens, are confined to documentation for their return to Rhodesia, though exceptions may be made in compassionate cases.
  Persons not falling into the category of active supporters of the illegal régime but hitherto travelling on Rhodesian passports issued before 11th November, 1965, are treated more liberally. If their Rhodesian passports expire, they are provided on application with United Kingdom passports, valid in the first instance for six months. The question of further validity will be decided in the light of developments towards the end of that period. So long as their pre-I.D.I. Rhodesian passports remain current, however, the period of validity is not reduced and they are not normally replaced by United Kingdom passports. These Rhodesian passports, having been issued by the Governor in the name of Her Majesty, are fully recognised for the travel of Rhodesian citizens and of dual United Kingdom-Rhodesian citizens by Her Majesty's Government and most other Governments. Should any dual citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and of Rhodesia particularly wish, however, to have United Kingdom passports in exchange for their Rhodesian passports, they may exceptionally be given United Kingdom

  5
  passports valid for six months, provided they sign declarations to the effect that they do not require these passports for the purpose of furthering or assisting the objectives of the illegal régime, and that they are loyal to Her Majesty The Queen.
  Documents purporting to be passports issued by the illegal régime are not recognised by Her Majesty's Government or by most other countries. Earlier passports purported to have been renewed by the illegal régime are thereby invalidated. Such documents and passports should be surrendered to H.M. Consuls, immigration officers or other appropriate officials, and application should be made to United Kingdom officials for suitable replacement passports or other travel documents.
  Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations how many persons are known to be under some form of detention for political reasons in Rhodesia, giving the figures for Europeans and Africans, respectively.
  Mr. Bottomley: I regret that I have no accurate figures.
  Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what information he has as to the extent to which crude oil has been landed at Beira, destined for Rhodesia, since Her Majesty's Government announced sanctions on the supply of oil; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Bottomley: No crude oil has been landed at Beira since the announcement of the oil embargo.
  Mrs. Williams: Is my right hon Friend aware how strongly this bears out the fact that there is now an international support operation for oil sanctions against Rhodesia and how far it goes to show that some members of the Tory Party are in a minority internationally as well as in this House?
  Mr. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for her support.
  Mr. Boxasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what instructions he intends giving to British companies operating in Rhodesia regarding the payment of taxes to the illegal government.
  Mr. Bottomley: None, Sir.
  Mr. Box: Is the Secretary of State aware that a month ago the Prime Minister said that this matter was under urgent review? Is it not quite disgraceful that
  6
  some two and a half months after U.D.I. British firms paying taxes to the Smith Government should not know whether they are committing treason? Does not this demonstrate once again the utter folly and complete unpreparedness of the Government in regard to their Rhodesian policy?
  Mr. Bottomley: There has been no change at all in the Government's policy. The statement made by the Prime Minister at the time remains the same today.
  Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what reports he has received from Rhodesia about the audibility of radio reception from Bechuanaland.
  Mr. Bottomley: My information is that reception throughout the South of Rhodesia is apparently good. However, I understand that reception is poor in Salisbury, partly due to interference. I am having this looked into as a matter of urgency.
  Mr. Fisher: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of this, as I am from correspondents there, who inform me that the reception in Salisbury is very poor indeed and that it is very difficult to hear it. As it is probably becoming increasingly important now for our objective to be known by Rhodesians, can the Secretary of State take any steps to improve the reception and increase the volume of these broadcasts?
  Mr. Bottomley: I have had an expert team out reviewing the matter. As a result of their considerations, I am fairly confident that we shall be able to improve reception.
  Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the wavelength chosen is only 5 metres away from Radio Harari, which is a broadcasting service to Africans, the signal of which completely swamps any possibility of receiving the B.B.C. in Salisbury?
  Mr. Bottomley: This is one of the matters being considered by a member of the team of experts to which I have referred.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Could not all these difficulties have been avoided if, instead of buying an American transmitter, Her Majesty's Government had

  7
  taken up the offer of the British transmitter which was offered to them by the Marconi Company of Chelmsford last year?
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Bottomley: Why such a fair and reasonable question should be greeted with jeers by the other side I do not know. We considered this offer very carefully. We would have preferred the British transmitter, but it was not able to do the job required.
  Mr. Shinwell: Reverting to the observation made by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), can my right hon. Friend tell us what is the Tory objective?
  Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has received from missions and religious bodies in Rhodesia regarding the ban on the remission to Rhodesia of contributions to religious and charitable organisations; and what reply he has sent.
  Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in view of recent appeals from Christians in Rhodesia, he will now reconsider the existing ban on payments from this country to missionary societies, Christian missions and educational charities in Rhodesia.
  The Minister of State, Commonwealth Relations Office (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I am certainly aware that the Christian missions, charitable and similar organisations in Rhodesia are experiencing difficulties as a result of Mr. Smith's illegal declaration of independence. Steps have been taken, however, to ensure that such organisations are not prevented from carrying out their work in Rhodesia during the present emergency.
  Mr. Goodhart: While welcoming the withdrawal of the complete ban on the missions, may I ask the Minister of State why it is necessary to introduce a jumble of complicated rules to try and restrict payments? Is not it time that the Government dropped their unfortunate economic war on missionaries and crippled African children?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is a very unworthy supplementary question. He
  8
  knows that the measures which Her Majesty's Government have taken are in all the circumstances very reasonable and there is no doubt that the Christian missions appreciate them. I would inform the House that the general guiding principles are that missions, charitable and similar organisations making remittances of a continuing nature will be allowed normally to remit 75 per cent. of last year's remittances. Once-for-all cash payments up to a limit of £250 will also be permitted.
  Mr. Fraser: On a point of order. May I ask why the Secretary of State himself has not seen fit to answer these important Questions which affect hundreds of Christian missions throughout Africa?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Fraser: My supplementary question is simply this: would the Government show the same degree of magnanimity to Christian missions largely looking after black people as they have done to the largely European pensioners in respect of their pensions? Unless they show this it is scandalous.
  Mr. Hughes: The arrangements which Her Majesty's Government have made are reasonable and the House will be aware that the views of the Christian churches on the present state of affairs in Rhodesia are well known to hon. Members.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Can I ask the Minister and the Government to think again about this? I do not think that it is satisfactory that only 75 per cent. should be sent. Is there not every reason for allowing the same amount as was sent last year?
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman certainly puts his supplementary question in a reasonable way. Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to look at the matter but I repeat that we think that the arrangements made are very reasonable and generous in the circumstances.
  Mr. Paget: What is the Government's attitude towards amounts which did not arise last year? I refer particularly to the contribution of Oxfam in sending relief to try to feed children suffering from starvation in the famine areas and whose

  9
  contribution has been stopped by the British Government
  Hon. Members: Shame.
  Mr. Hughes: I am fully aware of the splendid contribution which Oxfam and other organisations have made. I am not aware that the British Government have frustrated the attempts of these organisations. If my hon. and learned Friend will give me the facts I will look into them.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the Minister aware, for instance, that a number of contributions sent through the Presbyterian Mission in Africa are salaries to European missionaries there who are teaching African children? Is he aware that these salaries are already far less than the salaries which these people would receive in this country and that to offer them three-quarters of those salaries when they are away from home living on a subsistence level is quite unreasonable?
  Hon. Members: Shame.
  Mr. Hughes: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. Perhaps he would be good enough to send details to me, which I will look into.
  Mr. Fraser: In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on his discussions with Sir Hugh Beadle.
  Mr. Bottomley: We have had a series of most useful meetings with Sir Hugh Beadle, but the details of these discussions must remain confidential.
  Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Hugh Beadle indicated anybody other than Mr. Ian Smith with whom negotiations could be conducted?
  Mr. Bottomley: As I have said, obviously these talks must remain confidential.

  MALAWI

    Southern Rhodesia (sanctions)
    Mr. Rowlandasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations have been held with the Government of Malawi about the impact on Malawi of sanctions against Southern Rhodesia.
    Mr. Bottomley: Mr. Tembo, the Minister of Finance for Malawi, had discusions on this subject with the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations on 7th December, with myself on 15th December, and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 16th December. The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations and certain officials had further discussions with Dr. Banda on 18th December in Zomba. Discussions at official level are continuing.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are over 100,000 citizens of Malawi employed in Rhodesia?
    Mr. Bottomley: This matter was brought to our attention and is being considered.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Overseas Students
    Mr. Bagierasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what progress has been made with the review of the overseas students welfare expansion programme announced last year; and what conclusions have been reached regarding the special difficulties of married students from overseas.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: As the £3 million provided by the Government in 1961 for this programme is now fully committed, the Government have decided to make available another £2½ million for hostel projects so that the scheme may continue for the next few years at approximately its present rate of progress.
    My right hon. Friend has also agreed that henceforth up to 30 per cent. of the total accommodation provided under this scheme may be made available for married students, their wives and children.
    Mr. Bagier: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is satisfied with the progress that is being made? Would he care to say what type of married accommodation is being provided?
    Mr. Hughes: Yes, Sir. At the beginning of January, 1966, a total of 88 projects were approved comprising 3,858 places of which 2,017 are in London. Another nine schemes now under consideration are likely to provide a further 369 places. If all these projects are completed the total beds provided will amount to 4,227 at a cost of £2,893,278. These will include 988 places for married students and their wives. The number of places actually available is 2,456 of which 850 are for married students, and the total grants paid amount to £1,561,130.
    Mr. Speaker: That answer was a little long in reply to a supplementary question.

    Commonwealth Law Conference (Sydney)
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps have been taken to implement the decisions arrived at during the meeting of law officers and other representatives of Commonwealth Governments after the Commonwealth Law Conference in Sydney in August.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Member is doubtless referring to certain matters discussed at the meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers held at Canberra on 2/3 September. Her Majesty's Government have made arrangements to consult other Commonwealth Governments on these.
    Mr. Hutchison: Can the Minister say what is happening to this idea of a Commonwealth Court of Appeal and what view do the Australian and New Zealand Governments take?
    Mr. Hughes: Her Majesty's Government take a very forthcoming view on this, but the fact is that there was no unanimity at Canberra. The Law Ministers agreed that they would ascertain the attitudes of their respective Governments and we are taking steps to obtain the considered views of other Governments of the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Gardner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the critical stage through which the Commonwealth is passing, many countries in the Commonwealth, including the West Indies, Singapore and Malaysia, still show an active interest in the idea of setting up a Commonwealth Court of Appeal to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? What steps are the Government taking to harness this interest?
    Mr. Hughes: I appreciate fully what the hon. and learned Member has said, but what we are doing is obtaining the considered views of other Commonwealth countries on this matter to see whether there is a basis from which we can make some progress.
    Sir J. Hobson: Was not the subject of the Fugitive Offenders Act discussed at Canberra? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when we are likely to have proposals to deal with that?
    Mr. Hughes: That is also under consideration.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Hattersleyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations which Commonwealth countries have established special trading relations with the European Economic Community since the breakdown of the Brussels negotiations for British membership.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: So far as my information goes no Commonwealth country has yet established a special trading relationship with the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Hattersley: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, although no official arrangements have been arrived at, at least five Commonwealth countries have opened negotiations with the Six, one of whom is prepared to accept terms detrimental to British interests?
    Mr. Hughes: The position is that the Nigerian Government and the European Economic Community have agreed in principle to the content of an association agreement, but I cannot say when a formal agreement is likely to be signed or implemented. As to the general principle, we would welcome greater trading opportunities for Commonwealth countries in

    13
    the market of the European Economic Community, but it remains our view that developing countries should not be required to give preferential advantages in their markets in return for concessions given to them by other countries.

    Sterling Area Trade and Payments
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will invite Mr. Arnold Smith to have the memorandum on Commonwealth and sterling area trade and payments prepared and submitted to the Commonwealth trade officials' meeting by the Commonwealth Industries Association circulated within the Commonwealth Secretariat and thence to other Commonwealth Governments.
    Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 14th December, 1965, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton f Mr. Turton).
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion say that the memorandum was not in suitable form? Would the Government consider suggesting in what form it should best be presented and circulated?
    Mr. Bottomley: This is a document which has been circulated to Commonwealth Governments by the Commonwealth Industries Association, and each one will consider their own view on the matter and make representations in due course to the Secretariat, should that be necessary.

    Commonwealth Consultative Assembly
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps are being taken to establish a Commonwealth Consultative Assembly.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: No steps are being taken at present.
    Mr. Jeger: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would be a very good thing for the state of mind of the Commonwealth, particularly at the present time, if there were opportunities, such as exist at Strasbourg, for delegates from the various Commonwealth Parliaments to meet to exchange views?
    Mr. Hughes: There is a good deal in what my hon. Friend has said. As he knows, it was hoped that the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association might extend its work in the direction desired by those in favour of the Consultative Assembly, but very little thought seems to have been given to this possibility at the recent C.P.A. Annual Conference in Wellington. However, I understand that it was arranged in Wellington that the C.P.A. should experiment with the committee system at its next Annual Conference in Ottawa, but there was no pressure for the establishment of a Consultative Assembly as such.
    Mr. Braine: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that there was no enthusiasm for this idea among the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at their last Conference? Would he give an assurance that the Government will not take any initiative in this direction, except through the medium of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association?
    Mr. Hughes: It was always intended that any initiative should be taken in full consultation with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

    Commonwealth Secretariat (Executive Function)
    Sir J. Edenasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the nature of the executive function the Commonwealth Secretariat will acquire; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bottomley: The functions of the Commonwealth Secretariat were laid down in Part III of the Memorandum agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in June, 1965, and presented to Parliament in July as a White paper (Cmnd. 2713). As indicated in the Memorandum, it is not intended that the Secretariat should have executive functions.
    Sir J. Eden: I welcome the establishment of the Secretariat as a symbol of the spirit of co-operation which should always animate the Commonwealth. Can the Secretary of State confirm that paragraph 13 of Cmnd. 2713 does not mean that the Secretariat will have executive powers to determine the constitutional advance of territories for

    15
    which this House now ultimately has responsibility?
    Mr. Bottomley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretariat has no executive functions at all.
    Mr. Fisher: Is a legal section of the Secretariat to be established? I understand that this was one of the matters which was agreed at the Law Conference at Sydney. What progress is being made with that?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am not in a position to say what progress has been made. This matter has been referred to the Secretariat.

  KASHMIR

    Dispute
    Sir J. Smythasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) what instructions have been given to the United Kingdom representatives in the United Nations with regard to debates on the future of Kashmir; and if he will make a statement; and
    (2) what steps he has taken in furtherance of Her Majesty's Government's efforts to help in the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.
    Mr. Bottomley: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my speech in this House on 22nd December, 1965.
    Sir J. Smyth: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that since I put this Question down Russian leadership at Tashkent has greatly reduced the tension between India and Pakistan? Will not the right hon. Gentleman now exert initiative through British leadership in trying to solve the problem of Kashmir?
    Mr. Bottomley: Through British initiative we are most anxious that the parties concerned should get together—through the initiative of the previous Government and the present Government, for this is not a party matter. In these respects we shall, therefore, continue to play a part in the Commonwealth and the United Nations, which is the only way to get the two parties together to settle their differences.

  ZAMBIA

    Oil Supplies
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the cost to date of the supply lift to Zambia; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cooperasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (1) what is the cost per aircraft per flight of the Zambian oil lift; and what is the value of oil off-loaded per flight; and
    (2) what is the estimated weekly cost of the oil air-lift to Zambia.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what quantities of oil have been conveyed to Zambia from Angola via the Benguela Railway since the recent oil-lift started; and what is the comparable figure for oil flown there from Dar-es-Salaam.
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what was the weekly rate of delivery of petroleum products in tons to Zambia since the beginning of 1966.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The airlift of oil to Zambia, which began on the 19th December, 1965, cost £100,000 up to 31st December, the latest date for which precise figures are available. I regret that it is not possible for me at this stage to reveal any details as to the costs of the British airlift since that date or to its capacity, except that I can assure the House that with the help of the airlift Zambia's oil requirements are now being met and stocks are being replenished. The airlift at the start was carried out wholly by the R.A.F., and I should like to take advantage of hon. Members' Questions to pay tribute to the officials, officers and men who went to work with such speed and effectiveness. The first supplies of oil were flown into Zambia by R.A.F. Britannias within 48 hours of the announcement of the oil embargo.
    With reference to the hon. Member's Question about the Benguela Railway, the supply of oil into Zambia by surface routes is the responsibility of the Zambia Government; and I am not in a position to give details.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Government come to their senses and lift this heavy burden upon the British and Zambian peoples resulting from their policy of sanctions? Should not the Commonwealth Relations Office be concerned with trying to restore full co-operative relations between the inter-dependent States of Rhodesia, Malawi and Zambia rather than with pursuing this disastrous policy?
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member speaks, of course, for himself as always. The fact is fiat the three parties in this House are committed to bringing this rebellion in Rhodesia to an end and the airlift is part of that operation.
    Mr. Cooper: Is not this a ridiculous waste of the nation's valuable resources? Is it not time, instead of the Prime Minister carrying on his personal vendetta, that the Government got down to the serious job of negotiating a settlement of this vital problem?
    Mr. Hughes: The British taxpayer had to pay some pretty formidable bills when the party opposite was in power for much less worthy causes than this one.
    Mr. John Hynd: Is not the total of the cost of this airlift to date about one-third of the lowest prize issued on the pools?
    Mr. Cooper: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the point of order has anything to do with giving notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the hon. Member should not raise it now.
    Mr. Cooper: On a point of order. Question No. 25, which the hon. Gentleman purported to answer with others, is on quite different lines.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order and it is wasting Question time.
    Mr. Fraser: Surely what the Minister said is a tissue of evasions. What we want to know is whether Zambia is getting requisite supplies of oil. He said that she is getting all she requires. Will lie then explain why there is almost no petrol in large areas of Zambia at the moment? What does he mean? Will he tell us?
    Mr. Hughes: Zambia is getting an adequate supply of oil by air and surface
    18
    routes, as the hon. Member knows perfectly well, to the extent that rationing in Zambia is being relaxed.

    Royal Air Force
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what decisions have been made about financing the Javelin squadron and the Royal Air Force Régiment in Zambia; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bottomley: The main costs of stationing these Royal Air Force units in Zambia will be borne by Her Majesty's Government. The question of a Zambian contribution towards local costs is under discussion between the two Governments.
    Mrs. Williams: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcome the satisfactory solution which has been reached on this problem?

    Commonwealth Preference
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations were held between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Zambia before the latter announced its decision to abolish Commonwealth preference; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bottomley: The Zambian Government informed us of their decision to introduce a single column tariff which removed our preferences. They maintained this position despite repeated representations.
    Mr. Blaker: In the course of the consultations which apparently took place before the decision was announced by the Zambian Government, did Her Majesty's Government put forward any practical counter-proposals—for example, for improving Commonwealth trade links—of a kind which might discourage the Zambian Government from taking this step?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. I myself saw the Minister of Finance about the proposed changes and suggested to him ways in which we might make improvements in the trade between both countries. This is still being considered.
    Mr. J. Amery: Is the Secretary of State aware that he and his colleagues

    19
    are really making themselves ridiculous by getting into the position where they are spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of British money on helping Zambia and getting kicked in the teeth for their trouble?
    Mr. Bottomley: What we want to try to do is to bring about the most happy relationships between the two countries. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour, as usual, suggests that he is trying to stop that.

  BECHUANALAND

    Radio Transmitter
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps have been taken to ensure the security of the recently constructed radio transmitter in Bechuanaland.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Because of the limited resources of the Bechuanaland police, it was arranged that the battalion of the Gloucestershire Régiment in Swaziland should provide a detachment of troops for guard purposes. Routine precautions such as the provision of security fencing etc. have, of course, also been taken.
    Mr. Hamilton: Why was it thought necessary to take those steps in the first instance? Do the Bechuanaland Government approve of and support these steps? Is the transmitter doing the job for which it was established in the first instance?
    Mr. Hughes: The troops sent to Francistown are there purely for the purpose of guard duties at the relay station and for no other purpose. They were sent there with the full agreement of the Prime Minister of Bechuanaland, Mr. Seretse Khama.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is the Minister of State aware, as I am from personal experience of trying to listen to it, that this radio is totally inaudible and is a complete waste of money?
    Mr. Hughes: My right hon. Friend will be answering a Question on that point shortly.

  INDIA AND PAKISTAN

    Secretary of State (Visit)
    Mr. Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what plans he has for visiting India and Pakistan.
    Mr. Bottomley: None at present, Sir. I regret that the pressure of business in connection with Rhodesia has not permitted me to visit other Commonwealth countries as I should much have liked to do.
    Mr. Jackson: Whilst accepting my right hon. Friend's statement at the moment, may I ask whether he will not agree that it is urgently desirable for a Minister from the Commonwealth Relations Office to visit India to discuss possible measures for further assistance to the Government in connection with famine conditions now existing?
    Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend will be aware that I made a statement a short time ago in which I said that we would do all that was possible in giving assistance in famine relief.

  NIGERIA

    British Citizens
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on recent events in Nigeria in so far as British interests are affected; and if all British people there are safe.
    Mr. Bottomley: There are approximately 18,500 United Kingdom citizens in Nigeria. The British High Commissioner in Lagos has been in continuous touch with me about their welfare. I have also received helpful reports from British business firms active in Nigeria. I can assure the House that, apart from one incident in Western Nigeria in the course of which a British citizen was slightly injured, no incidents involving our community have taken place. British citizens wherever they are working are reported to be in good heart. Nothing that has occurred during the past week suggests that British lives or property are endangered. But we are naturally keeping a very close watch on developments.
    Mr. Tilney: Would not the right hon. Gentleman, in common with all sides of the House, deplore the death of the Nigerian Prime Minister who dedicated many years of his life to his country? Does the right hon. Gentleman not regard it as a major blow to African government? Supposing that the present Nigerian Government should prove more unstable than expected, would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that British lives would be protected?
    Mr. Bottomley: On the latter part of the supplementary question the answer is, "Certainly". As to the late Prime Minister of Nigeria, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that on behalf of the Government and the country I have expressed our great sorrow at the loss of a Commonwealth statesman.

    Military Coup
    Mr. Jacksonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what official requests he has received for assistance from Nigeria following the defeat of the military coup there.
    Mr. Bottomley: None, Sir.
    But as the House will have noted, the British High Commissioner has been instructed to maintain close and continuous contact with the new Military Government. In the view of Her Majesty's Government no further formal act of recognition of the new régime is necessary.
    Mr. Jackson: Can the Minister say whether he considers the policy of the new military régime in Nigeria will be one likely to be friendly towards Britain and the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Bottomley: This statement has been made by General Ironsi himself and there is no reason to doubt his word.

  KENYA

    Settlers' Compassionate Trust Fund
    Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he has yet completed the review of the future of the Kenya Settlers' Compassionate Trust Fund and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about this, but at present there is nothing more I can add.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the Minister appreciate that it is over a year now since the Government's initial contribution to this fund was exceeded, that it is very nearly six months since I was told that the matter was being reviewed in the Ministry for Overseas Development and that it is six weeks since I was told that it was still being reviewed in his own Department? In view of the fact that there are deserving cases still awaiting payment, would the Minister kindly seek to expedite this matter?
    Mr. Hughes: I am well aware of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interest in this matter and his concern about a particular case, but, as he is aware, the whole matter is not without its complications. I can assure him that it is being given the most urgent consideration and I hope that there will be finality very soon.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Gas Industry (Clerical Workers' Pay Claim)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Power why, having sent the pay claim of clerical workers in the gas industry to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, he did not himself adjudicate on this claim, following the refusal of the National Board for Prices and Incomes to deal with it.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): This claim was not referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, nor did the Board refuse to deal with it. I have no power to adjudicate on wage claims in the gas or any other industry.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal to be said for the Government dealing with pay claims within their own sector where they have responsibility rather than passing the matter on to these overburdened members of the National Board for Prices and Incomes?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Peyton: I must press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer on this subject. Even if he thinks that his own intervention would be wrong, he surely ought to apply the same doctrines to the tiresome and noisome interventions of the First Secretary.
    Mr. Lee: It is the job of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary to interview the claimants in these cases and if agreement cannot be reached he decides whether they should go to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. In the instance referred to by the hon. Gentleman, as my right hon. Friend was not available I met the parties to the dispute.

    National Coal Board (North Sea Exploitation)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Power if he will give the terms of the agreements giving options to the National Coal Board to participate in the exploitation of the North Sea.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: No, Sir; these are commercial arrangements which it would not be appropriate for me to disclose.
    Mr. Peyton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is incontestably in the national interest that rapid progress should be made here and that if there should be delay to make even a short-term agreement it will be a serious discouragement to the exploitation of what we all hope is a most important national asset?
    Mr. Lee: I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments, and I have no reason to suppose that there will be any delay.

    Steel Nationalisation (Compensation)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Power if, as the circumstances at the time of nationalisation will, following its postponement, be different from those envisaged in the White Paper, he will reconsider the compensation terms so that they do not result in £120 millions being paid to the steel owners in excess of the Stock Exchange valuations of the shares at the date of publication of the White Paper.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham,
    24
    West (Mr. English) on 21st December, 1965.
    Mr. Allaun: As share price movements have shown that these terms wildly exceeded the expectations even of the shareholders themselves, will the Minister consider, in the new circumstances, laying a less onerous burden on the industry?
    Mr. Lee: The Government have already said that they regarded the compensation terms proposed as absolutely fair. They had been taken over a period of about five years. If, of course, there is any change in circumstances within the industry, this will necessitate looking at them again.
    Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend saying that there has been no rethinking on this matter in the light of the reactions of the market since the White Paper was published? Did he read the comment of one City editor the other day that, as the prospect of nationalisation recedes, shareholders have to fall back for their expectations on the results of the companies? Does not that mean anything to him?
    Mr. Lee: I know that the methods by which we determine values in this country are somewhat peculiar, but if one takes a period, not only as regards the economics of the steel industry but as regards questions of the Gallup Poll, one finds that values change sometimes by a considerable amount. We, therefore, took as a basis the whole of a 61-month period which included the cycle of the economics of the industry as well as of political forecasts.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Tanzania (Economic Aid)
    Mr. John Hyndasked the Minister of Overseas Development whether it is intended to continue providing financial and other economic aid to Tanzania; and what facilities now exist for the administration and supervision of such aid by his Department in that country.
    The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): My predecessor informed the House on 22nd December that we were prepared to continue our technical assistance to Tanzania and to meet existing commitments

    25
    of financial aid, provided the necessary administrative arrangements could be made.
    So far as technical assistance and existing loan agreements are concerned, these administrative arrangements have now been made. Some of the staff who, before the breach, were dealing with aid questions in the British High Commission in Dar es Salaam are now working in the Canadian High Commission, who are responsible for representing our interests in Tanzania.
    Mr. Hynd: Is it not rather absurd that we should continue to provide aid to a country which has broken relations with us when so many other countries which recognise us are in need of aid? Second, is it not deplorable that we should provide technical aid to Tanzania and have to operate through representatives of other countries because we are not recognised and cannot, therefore, intervene in the administration of the aid?
    Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest. There are really two aspects to this matter. First, as regards technical assistance, there is no doubt that the, withdrawal of technical assistance might well create administrative and economic difficulties in that country which would not be in the interests of ourselves, of Tanzania's neighbours or of the community as a whole. Second, if development aid is to be effective, it must be on a planned and continuing basis. If administrative delays flow from the breach of diplomatic relations, which we hope will be temporary, this is certainly not our fault.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Southern Rhodesia Stock (Trustee Status)
    Mr. William Clarkasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Southern Rhodesia Stock 4 per cent. 1972–74 has trustee security status.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Clark: Will the Financial Secretary explain how that can be so as no interest is being paid? Does he realise that this is causing tremendous con-
    26
    cern among trustees in this country holding Rhodesian stock, as it is the first time when there has been default on a Commonwealth Stock?
    Mr. MacDermot: Non-payment of interest does not disqualify the stock as a trustee investment [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Those are the provisions of the Act. The Trustee Investment Act 1961 requires trustees to take advice before investing in this stock.

    RHODESIA
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether he will now propose to the United Nations Security Council that the economic sanctions already being applied and those recommended in the Security Council resolution be made mandatory under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, that an oil embargo committee of the chief oil-producing countries be set up to apply this sanction, and that measures be concerted under Articles 49 and 50 of the Charter to help Zambia and Malawi to cope with the economic consequences to themselves of joining in United Nations sanctions against Rhodesia.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Does not my right hon. Friend believe that it would be easier to get co-operation from the members of the United Nations if it became their duty under the Charter to give that co-operation?
    The Prime Minister: It has been the desire of all of us in the House, I think, to see that this very difficult problem should continue to he handled by the British Government. There have been some very difficult moments when it looked as though that might not be possible, but my hon. Friend's suggestion would not contribute to what we have in mind.
    Sir R. Nugentasked the Prime Minister what communications he has had with the Governor of Rhodesia about opening discussions with a view to reaching a settlement; and what has been the outcome.
    The Prime Minister: I feel sure that, in the present situation, the House will

    27
    not expect me to disclose any consultations with the Governor of Rhodesia. I shall be making a statement on the question of a settlement of the Rhodesian problem after Questions.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister if he will deprive United Kingdom subjects serving in the police, army and air force of Rhodesia of their service pensions and warn them that if they continue to serve after one month's notice they will be liable to be tried for treason, whereas if they return home their pensions will be restored, they will be compensated for loss of property, and they will be assisted to find suitable employment.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that one-third of the Rhodesian Army and Air Force officers and almost all the police officers are United Kingdom subjects, and so long as they draw Service pensions they do not believe that there is any real conflict of loyalties, whereas if the measure proposed in the Question were taken, would it not bring home to the waverers—there are many of them—that there really is a conflict of loyalties and compel them to choose?
    The Prime Minister: The question of the conflict of loyalties is most difficult—we have debated it many times so far as Rhodesia's public servants, not only the police but others, are concerned. The answer that we have given is the most realistic way of dealing with the question. This was fully dealt with by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14th December. It would be wrong to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

    CORPORATIONS, COMPANIES AND TRADE UNIONS (CONSULTATIONS)
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to consultations between corporations and companies and the trade unions representing their employees.
    The Prime Minister: The Government's policy is to encourage consultation between employers and trade unions.
    Mr. Mikardo: Has my right hon. Friend noted the statement made in the Standing Committee by the—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for an hon. Member to refer in a question to debates in the current Session of Parliament.
    Mr. Mikardo: I am much obliged for your correction, Mr. Speaker. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that it has been said in at least one responsible quarter—
    Mr. Speaker: In the context of the hon. Gentleman's previous remark, that is exactly the same thing.
    Mr. Mikardo: May I try again to behave myself, Sir? Would my right hon. Friend approve of any suggestion made, if it were made, that managements in public corporations and companies should consult about their decisions with trade union representatives only after those decisions have been made?
    The Prime Minister: If such a statement did come to be made, and if it were in order for me to say that I had seen it, if it had been made, I should take the view that such a statement, if made, should be interpreted as meaning that the public corporation itself, whichever it be, has the duty to decide the main line of its policy—it must do that before it can enter into consultation on most things—but, having taken consultations, it should then reach its final decision when it knows the view of the trade union concerned.

    NUCLEAR DETERRENT
    Mr. Mikardoasked the Prime Minister if, following his meeting with President Johnson, he will state Her Majesty's Government's present policies in respect of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what progress he has made since the beginning of December in the sharing of Great Britain's nuclear deterrent.
    The Prime Minister: Our policy is unchanged from that stated in this House on many occasions. Progress in internationalising the deterrent is being sought through the special committee of defence Ministers set up in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Mikardo: As some of the statements to which my right hon. Friend refers are a little obscure, could he say simply, for the benefit of a simple mind like mine, what, if anything, remains of the policy of giving up the independent British nuclear deterrent on which he and I and all of us on this side of the House fought the last election?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the major premise about the simplicity of my hon. Friend's mind, but on 16th December, 1964, as my hon. Friend knows, I described this in greater length than would be possible at Question Time, and our position is that we are seeking, on terms which will stop the spread of nuclear weapons, to have the so-called independent British deterrent internationalised within the alliance.
    Mr. Marten: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in the last foreign affairs debate just before Christmas, he said that the Government accepted a worldwide defence rôle? If this is so—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer in questions to debates in the current Session of Parliament.
    Mr. Marten: If it is the Government's policy that there should now be a worldwide defence rôle for this country, shall we not need our nuclear deterrent in areas outside N.A.T.O., and ought we not, therefore, to keep it independent or at least have the right to withdraw it from N.A.T.O.?
    The Prime Minister: The position about the right of withdrawal from N.A.T.O. was fully stated previously, and there has been no change in that. With regard to the wider defence rôle, the hon. Gentleman must await the statement which will follow the present defence review and the talks in Washington this week. I have said many times that it is our role to internationalise the deterrent in the N.A.T.O. context and in other parts of the world.
    Mr. Heath: Should not the right hon. Gentleman enlighten his hon. Friend by adding that if after the talks in Washington the Government decide to buy the F111 they will be not only maintaining
    30
    the nuclear delivery capacity of this country but increasing it?
    The Prime Minister: That is a very interesting suggestion. No decision has been taken about the F111, but it is a very interesting suggestion from the right hon. Gentleman that what he considers to be an independent deterrent will be more effective with the F111 than with his TSR2, which this Government had to cancel. We are concerned at the moment with two things. One is the Polaris submarine programme, which we have fully debated and which will be internationalised. The other is the existing bombers, whatever nuclear rôle they have, and, as we have said, these also should and must be internationalised.
    Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear answer, yes or no? If he decides to purchase the F111, will it increase the nuclear delivery capacity of this country or not? In fact, it will.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will put a clear question, he will get a clear answer. As to the way in which he has now formulated the question, if there were a purchase of another aircraft which had the power to deliver bombs—we have already got the Canberras, as he knows—if there were such a purchase it would increase the power of delivery, but this is going to be internationalised. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's belief that we have an independent deterrent is, of course, a completely false assumption from the start. What we have will be internationalised with or without any further purchase of aircraft.

    VIETNAM
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister what proposals he made to President Johnson at his meeting in December to bring the Vietnam war to a speedy end.
    The Prime Minister: During my visit to Washington and subsequently I offered, and President Johnson accepted, British assistance in the President's efforts to promote negotiations. So far there has been no positive response to the various approaches we have made to this end.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend say, as a result of these negotiations and conversations, what practical steps to bring about peace are planned by President Johnson and the British Government and what steps are being taken and with what result?
    The Prime Minister: When I returned from Washington I made clear that further steps were being considered. There was the Christmas truce, and the bombing truce, which has gone on for a month since it was introduced. The House will be aware of the very widespread system undertaken by the United States Government and the British Government in trying to get a message through to the point where we needed to go—to Hanoi—but so far there has been no response. However, we have played our full part in this operation.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the North Vietnam Government has proposed to the United States of America peace negotiations without demanding the prior withdrawal of United States troops; whether this was one of the subjects he discussed with President Johnson; and with what result.
    The Prime Minister: I know of no such proposal by the North Vietnamese Government. The rest of my hon. Friend's Question does not therefore arise.

    LAGOS (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
    Mr. Rowlandasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent visit to Lagos.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in Lagos.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the communiqué issued at the end of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in Lagos. Copies are already in the Library, and it will be published as a White Paper later this week.
    Mr. Rowland: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on ensuring that responsibility for dealing with Rhodesia still remains primarily with Britain, but is he
    32
    aware that in Rhodesia itself it is still not sufficiently realised that Britain is resisting yet further pressure from many States in Africa and from the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: This has been right through one of the most difficult problems. That is why we attach so much importance to keeping the settlement, if we can, in our hands. There might be times—there could still be if we were not seen to be doing all in our power—when the matter would pass out of our hands, and this could lead to very serious consequences, not only in Rhodesia but more widely.
    Mr. Tilney: Whatever may have been the corrupt practices of some Nigerian Ministers, would not the right hon. Gentleman deplore what has happened to the Nigerian Prime Minister, who was well known for his selfless devotion to his country, and will he say whether what has happened in Nigeria vitiates any of the decisions made at Lagos?
    The Prime Minister: I regret the hon. Gentleman's last few words, but I agree with what he said at the beginning. The whole House, especially those who in any capacity had dealings in the past with Sir Abubakar, will deeply regret the tragedy which occurred in Nigeria a few days ago. I should like to add—I am sure that I speak for all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers—a tribute to his splendid chairmanship of what could have been a very difficult Commonwealth Conference. He as much as anybody was, I believe, responsible for the satisfactory outcome of it. I regret the hon. Gentleman's going on with the last few words of his question.
    Later—
    Mr. Tilney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Prime Minister must have misheard what I said at the end of my supplementary question earlier. I merely asked him whether events in Nigeria in the past week had vitiated the decisions of the Lagos Conference.
    The Prime Minister: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is what I thought the hon. Gentleman said, and I rather regretted his putting it that way. Certainly it is true that the deeply deplorable nature of what happened in

    33
    Nigeria, not only in relation to Sir Abubakar but in relation to Nigeria generally, has in no way vitiated the success of the Conference.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go back to a Question.

    PIRATE RADIO STATIONS (POSTMASTER-GENERAL'S STATEMENT)
    Mr. Bryanasked the Prime Minister if the public statement of the Postmaster-General at a Press conference regarding pirate radio stations on 8th December represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bryan: As the Postmaster-General has said a number of times over the last 15 months in his most dynamic way that he intends to legislate against pirate radio stations and yet nothing has happened, will the Prime Minister tell the House and, through it, the millions of listeners who are interested in this, first, whether he intends to stop the pirate radio stations by law and, secondly, if so, how he is going to replace the programmes thus destroyed?
    The Prime Minister: It is not only my right hon. Friend who said it in his dynamic way. His predecessor said it in a much less dynamic way. But the policy has not yet been fitted into the legislative programme of either Government. The position is that it will be when we can get it into the legislative programme. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the very acute pressure on Parliamentary time. That is why we are expecting full cooperation on this and other Measures from hon. Gentlemen opposite. As to the two points raised, because of the dangers arising from clashes of wavelengths and interference with really important broadcasting channels on the Continent and elsewhere, including lifeboats and other things, it is necessary to legislate. We are internationally committed to do so. With regard to replacing the programmes, I agree that this is certainly desirable and there are discussions going on at the present time to ascertain what can be done to replace these programmes, which are certainly popular with a great many people, if not with the hon. Gentleman.

    MALAYSIA AND INDONESIA
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will invite Tunku Abdul Rahman to London at an early opportunity to discuss the Malaysian-Indonesian conflict.
    The Prime Minister: The Tunku and Mr. Lee Kuan Yew are always welcome visitors, but there are no definite plans for either to come to London in the immediate future.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are many people in Asia who regard the conflict as essentially a British war and not a Malaysian war? Will he discuss urgently with the Malaysians how we can provide them with training facilities for their own forces, thus creating conditions for a phased British withdrawal from Singapore, Malaysia and Borneo?
    The Prime Minister: Whatever else it is, it is not a British war. We followed on the policy started by our predecessors of honouring our commitments to our Commonwealth partners when they came under attack from Indonesia. There is no doubt about that. I and my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss this at Lagos with Mr. Lee Kuan Yew and the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia. Our policy is to look forward to the end of confrontation at the earliest possible moment. Until then, there can be no question of any defaulting on our commitments there.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend give further careful thought to the suggestion in case the Russians intervene first?
    The Prime Minister: The previous Russian intervention to which my hon. Friend has referred occurred at a time when the Kashmir matter was before the United Nations, and we quite deliberately took the view that we should not cross the wires in the urgent action being taken, but in this case the Malaysian-Indonesian confrontation is not before the United Nations because, most regrettably, the Indonesians left the United Nations.
    Mr. Heath: There is widespread understanding throughout Asia about the nature of the confrontation. The British

    35
    forces there have done an admirable job in getting on top of the situation, and they have been assisted very fully by the Malaysians, including the creation of two battalions which are going to stay there. Would it not be foolish at this point to start to withdraw British forces at the moment when they are achieving success in the hope that Indonesia will do the same?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House will have welcomed some of the pronouncements that he made when he was in that part of the world. What we all regret—the right hon. Gentleman will have seen evidence of this on the spot—is the less satisfactory relations at present between Malaysia and Singapore. It must be the primary aim of all of us to get better understanding between Malaysia and Singapore because of the strain which the present situation puts on our commitments.

GAS SUPPLY, WEST MIDLANDS
Mr. Peyton Mr. Peyton (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement about the gas supply position in the West Midlands.
The Minister of Power (Mr. Frederick Lee): Because of a series of breakdowns at the West Midlands Gas Board's plants at Tipton and Coleshill the Board was forced to impose severe restrictions on the use of gas by industry on Thursday, 20th January. Practically the whole of industry in the area, except where supplies were needed to avoid damage to plant, was without gas until Monday, 24th January, when supplies were restored to about 270 firms in the Birmingham and Stoke areas including the Potteries.
These difficulties have been due to technical failures and not to miscalculation of demand. The Board had planned to provide sufficient capacity to meet a daily peak demand this winter of 490 million cubic feet, well above the demand actually experienced. However, last Thursday, 20th January, both streams at the Coleshill plant were out of commission because of the failure of boiler feed pumps, causing a loss of 50 million cubic feet of gas a day. One stream was brought
36
back into operation the following day but the other had suffered damage during the emergency shut-down. The first stream at Tipton was already under repair and on 21st January the second stream developed boiler trouble and had to be shut down. The Board was thus deprived of a large proportion of the gas which feeds the Board's high pressure grid.
With one stream at Coleshill working and the fall in demand due to the recent warmer weather a partial resumption of supplies became possible yesterday. But supplies of high pressure gas into the grid are still inadequate and resumption in those areas relying exclusively on the grid, in particular, the motor car centres of Coventry and Longbridge, is still not possible.
The Boards and the contractors' engineers are working round the clock to repair the damaged plants. It is too early yet to say precisely when supplies can be fully restored, but it is hoped that this may be possible in the next few days.
Mr. Peyton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this very serious situation does not go a long way towards making the case for the establishment of a gas grid and more effective centralised control of the industry? May I further ask whether he does not agree that the situation shows up the appointment of the Winter Emergency Committee as the "gimmick" that it really was?
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's admission that there was no miscalculation of demand, was it not odd of the Prime Minister, whose habit of blaming other people is only too well known, to seek to blame the Opposition for the consequences of two breakdowns of plant—[Interruption.]—If only the right hon. Gentleman would listen for once. Is it not odd of the Prime Minister to blame the Opposition for the consequences of two breakdowns which took place 15 months after the Opposition left office? Do not these flimsy alibis mean that the Government are running out, not of gas, but of power?
Mr. Lee: The Winter Emergency Committee has not the ability to mend pumps or to repair boilers. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about looking into the possibility of a gas grid. In fact, we began to do precisely that shortly

37
after we came into office. The House will have noticed that the Gas Council has now amended its internal organisation so as to facilitate this.
I remember hearing and reading that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were suggesting that we were to blame as well. However, both these plants were commissioned long before the present Government came to power and, therefore, it was ridiculous of the Opposition to assert that we could in any way be blamed for the breakdowns. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was on very strong ground in suggesting that the Tories had not properly planned the capital programmes for both gas and electricity.
Mr. Palmer: If there is any technical blame to be apportioned in this matter—and I say "if"—does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is the responsibility of the private contractors who supplied unsatisfactory plant?
Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) is quite right.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If my hon. Friend is not right, how is it that new plant breaks down the moment it goes or stream? I would have thought this the authentic reply to those who believe that my hon. Friend is wrong.
Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the cause of the breakdown? Is there no other reserve in the event of such a breakdown?
Mr. Lee: As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, I have paid a visit to Tipton. [Laughter.] If the kindergarten will listen for a second, I repeat that I have been there and have looked at the cause of the breakdown. This was a great gap in a header pump, which is a 40 per cent. brittle pipe that should not, according to the strength of pipe required, have been in danger of suffering this kind of damage. An inquiry is to be made as to why it broke.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that Coleshill, as well as Tipton, broke down. When we have so much bigger gas works than previously, it means that when there is a breakdown supply falls well below demand. I remind the House, however, that the second Tipton plant is to be in production by next year and that it is hoped that this will enable the West
38
Midlands Gas Board to have supplies well above any possible demand.
Dr. Bray: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the experience of the West Midlands Gas Board points to the need for increased underground storage? In the inquiry to be made, will he compare the experience of the gas industry in operating this plant with that of the chemical fertiliser industry in operating similar plant?
Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend will recall that, in legislation last year, we gave the gas industry power to store underground. My hon. Friend will also be aware that this plant used to be known as the "I.C.I. plant." The gas industry is quickly expanding. Last year, demand was up by 12 per cent., which is a very rapid rate of growth. It may well be that, in view of this, the industry will have to look at the type of reserves it needs to have against the possibility of breakdowns of this sort.
Mr. Heath: If the Minister is intending to hold an inquiry into the way in which the equipment functioned, should not he await the results of that inquiry before he damns the reputation of British manufacturers greatly concerned with exports? Secondly, will he reread his statement again and realise how grateful we are that he has repudiated the Prime Minister's statement of last Saturday? We are grateful to the Minister for the action that he has taken.
Mr. Lee: Awaiting the results of inquiries before giving answers is not something usually to be attributed to the Leader of the Opposition. I think that he has anticipated quite a few inquiries. I did not in any way damn any institution or firm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, I did not. I was asked whether it was a fact that certain plant coming from a certain source had broken down. The answer is "yes".
Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that shop stewards have approached industrial managements in Birmingham with a view to asking the Minister to make up their rates of wages to what they would have been under normal working conditions? Could he tell us his attitude to this?
Mr. Lee: When I was in the area yesterday I was approached not by shop

39
stewards but by owners in the car industry on the subject and I suggested that this was a question for the lawyers and not for me. However, it may well be—and I am thinking aloud—that if the principle of compensation were to be involved some people who now think they have a good case might find themselves paying more out than they would be getting now.
Mr. Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he appears at any rate to be endorsing the charge against private manufacturers made by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Mr. Palmer)? In view of the pendance of an inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate his answer?
Mr. Lee: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have been listening very closely. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) rightly pointed out that certain plant that had been delivered from certain manufacturers had failed. I endorsed that. No matter how the right hon. and learned Gentleman tries to twist things, that is the fact. Therefore, when I am asked whether I should not withdraw my answer before the inquiry, I say that there is no need to withdraw. It is an obvious fact. What the inquiry will look at are the reasons for the breakdown. All I say is that certain equipment did break down.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There has been generally too much power. We must get on.

RHODESIA
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement on Rhodesia.
The first aim of the British Government is to bring the Rhodesian rebellion to an end as quickly as possible, without lasting damage to the country. To this end, they will maintain and, as necessary, intensify economic measures with a view to a speedy settlement. But it is equally the purpose of the British Government to help the people of Rhodesia, without rancour or recrimination, in making a fresh start
40
towards establishing—in the words of the Lagos communiqué—
"a just society based on equality of opportunity to which all sections of the community could contribute their full potential and from which all could enjoy the benefits due to them without discrimination or unjust impediment".
This fresh start must begin with an unqualified return to constitutional rule. It must also engage from the outset the capacities of all Rhodesians of good will in the work of overcoming the fears and antagonisms of the past and of setting Rhodesia on the road to independence in a spirit of inter-racial trust and collaboration.
The illegal declaration of independence and the subsequent actions of the rebel régime have created a new situation. Rhodesia's future course cannot be negotiated with the régime which illegally claims to govern the country. There is no confidence inside or outside Rhodesia that they could be relied on to lead the country forward to an independence in which racial harmony would be ensured. The Governor is authorised to receive from the régime any proposals about the means by which the rebellion is to be brought to an end. But discussion of Rhodesia's constitutional future must be with responsible persons representing all the people.
Rhodesia obviously cannot proceed at one step from rebellion to independence. For all the reasons given by Her Majesty's Government repeatedly inside and outside Rhodesia, and as I said at the United Nations on 16th December, 1965,
"a return to constitutional rule would not and could not mean an immediate advance to majority rule".
That process must be renewed without delay or impediment: but it can come only with time—and time measured by African advancement and achievement.
Once there has been a return to the rule of law and the constitution, the British Government will immediately act to reverse the economic measures taken during the rebellion, in order to permit the resumption of Rhodesia's external trade, the reopening of markets for her exports, the inward flow of essential supplies such as oil and petrol, and the renewal of investment and the planned development of the country. The necessary Statutory Instruments are ready and could be made effective immediately.
This will be the first step in a period of economic and political rehabilitation

41
during which passions may cool, the economic and social strength of the country may be restored and the energies of all Rhodesians may be enlisted in the tasks of reconstruction.
Assuming that there is a speedy and peaceful return to constitutional rule, the best provision for the first stage after this return would appear to be for the Governor to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible to him, comprising the widest possible spectrum of public opinion of all races in the country and constituting a representative Government for reconstruction. During this period, the police and military forces will come under the direct responsibility of the Governor.
The first responsibility of this interim Government, as of any Government, will be the maintenance of law and order. This will require not only the normal precautions against domestic disturbance and illegality, but also, in the special circumstances of Rhodesia, guarantees to prevent a repetition of the rebellion and to protect human rights. The British Parliament will need to be assured about the adequacy and effectiveness of these guarantees.
Urgent action will be needed to restore the Rhodesian economy. The British Government will be ready to contribute to the economic needs of the country and, in particular, to assist, in co-operation with other Commonwealth Governments, with schemes for the advancement, education and training of Africans so that they may as soon as possible play their full part in the development of the country' economic and political institutions.
Problems of political rehabilitation will also have to be tackled. Persons restricted or detained for purely political reasons will have to be released provided that they give guarantees that their political activities will be conducted constitutionally. The aim is to create conditions in which, while law and order is maintained, political activities may be conducted in security and freedom from intimidation from any quarter.
How long this period of interim government may last cannot immediately be foreseen; neither can the date at which Parliamentary institutions can be restored. Clearly, the period of interim government
42
will last until conditions can be stabilised and the social and political wounds inflicted on the country can be healed. The views of the people of Rhodesia will have to be sought on the amendments and changes necessary in the 1961 Constitution to secure a resumption of full constitutional government on the basis of the five principles which have been proclaimed by successive British Governments and which, to avoid wearying the House, I will circulate again in the OFFICIAL REPORT. To these must now be added a sixth principle, namely, the need to ensure that, regardless of race, there is no oppression of majority by minority or of minority by majority.
The course of constitutional development in Rhodesia after this towards independence must be based on the implementation of these principles and it will be necessary in due course to consider the means of ensuring this, for example, by a Royal Commission in preparation for the constitutional conference which will, in any case, need to be held before independence can be achieved.
The British Government have maintained throughout that, while Rhodesia is a matter of world concern, it remains a British responsibility and they continue to accept their full responsibility. They intend to discharge their task in the interests of all the people of Rhodesia. The British Government are convinced that there cannot be lasting peace, freedom or prosperity in Rhodesia until constitutional rule is resumed and the country is fairly set on paths leading to a just and democratic society in which full equality of opportunity is assured, racial discrimination is removed and the rights of Europeans and Africans alike are safeguarded.
Every week that passes while the rebellion continues increases the economic and political strains within Rhodesia and makes the eventual task of reconstruction more difficult. It now rests with all responsible Rhodesians who have the true welfare of their country at heart to bring the rebellion to an end before it is too late and to support the representative of the Queen in upholding constitutional law in Rhodesia.
Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that on this side of the House

43
and, I believe, also in Rhodesia—the great majority of people in Rhodesia—it is believed that the Government ought to be prepared to talk to any in Rhodesia who demonstrate that they want to return to constitutional development, and that that includes Mr. Smith and any of the members of his group? This is necessarily so, because the objective of the economic measures which have been taken and which we have supported is to persuade people to change their minds and return to constitutional rule. To ask otherwise is to ask for unconditional surrender, which can only increase the bitterness and damage in Rhodesia. I therefore ask the Prime Minister to stop hedging on this point and to say that without qualification.
Secondly, we believe that he should indicate quite definitely and clearly that there will be no question of direct rule from Westminster or through the Governor and, therefore, that the statement in the Lagos communiqué does not hold good.
When the Prime Minister included the sentence in his statement that the initial stage was a return to the rule of law and the constitution, to which constitution was he referring? On the basis of his statement there is no constitution to which the régime can return, and we therefore believe that the Government should indicate that there would be an immediate return to constitutional government with the Governor inviting all those who want to make such a return to serve in it.
Surely we are agreed that it is right that the offer of help for education and economic purposes should be made to Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about "stopping hedging" on Rhodesia, I hope that that is his new year resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the questions."] I will answer all the right hon. Gentleman's questions and I will say what they mean, too. His first question was whether I was aware of a feeling in Rhodesia, in the House and in the country, that the Government should be prepared to talk to anyone, including Mr. Smith, and that anything else looked like unconditional surrender. I think that the right hon.
44
Gentleman would not want to give the impression that what he was proposing was to give to Mr. Smith and his associates by negotiation what Mr. Smith had tried and failed to take by illegal action. If I have him right, what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that we should now legalise the swag of an illegal action.
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that Mr. Smith is demanding as a condition of talks that we should first recognise the independence of Rhodesia and his Government. That is what Mr. Smith has said. If the right hon. Gentleman wants us to accept that, all I can say is that he is asking the British Government and the rest of the world who are fighting against this illegal action to accept unconditional surrender to those who have started the rebellion. That deals with the first question.
I have made it clear in my statement that the Governor is, and has all along been, authorised to receive any proposals from Mr. Smith and either discuss them himself or forward them to us. If those proposals are for a return to constitutional rule, they can be acted upon immediately. But if Mr. Smith is going to try to dictate from a position of rebellion—not through anyone except the Governor, because only the Governor is authorised to speak to him—to this Parliament and to this Government, to say nothing of world opinion outside, the terms on which Rhodesia can have her independence, or the terms of her constitutional future, that would be a surrender which we on this side of the House are not prepared to accept.
Any proposals on the lines which he keeps airing in public, to say nothing of what he says in private, for a little fiddling with the 1961 Constitution—which he refused to accept in free negotiations, choosing the path of rebellion as an alternative—are unacceptable, because they do not provide a basis on which the future of Rhodesia, under the five principles can be assured.
I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the issue of direct rule. There may have been misunderstanding before. It was never intended to be direct rule from Whitehall or from Westminster. I think that that is clear from what I have said in the House on a previous

45
occasion, when I said that it might be minutes or hours, depending on the conditions, and that what we had in mind was the Governor and not direct rule. I said that at the earliest possible moment —and I said that it might be minutes—there should be a Government, responsible to him, which was representative of Rhodesian opinion.
The right hon. Gentleman asked which constitution I had in mind when I referred to a return to constitutional government. At this moment, the answer must be the present Constitution and the present Constitution is the 1961 Constitution, as amended by some fundamental changes to which this House has agreed. That is the proved and legal Constitution of Rhodesia today. That is the position from which the interim Government would start and I have set out the basis on which I think there should he further talks to get the constitution in Rhodesia under which elections could be held.
Mr. Heath: Is the Prime Minister aware that in his opening remarks he put into my mouth words which I have never used? While we may be accustomed to this, that does not make it any the less objectionable.
Is the Prime Minister aware that in his statement he said that the Governor was authorised to receive from the régime any proposals about the means by which the rebellion could be brought to an end? The point is whether the Governor is authorised to discuss them with people who wish to return to constitutional rule, including Mr. Smith and his colleagues. That is what the Prime Minister has never cleared up and that is what we want a clear answer about.
The present legal Constitution, as the Prime Minister describes it, puts all powers in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Governor and is, therefore, direct rule by the Secretary of State and the Governor, unless the House were to return to the 1961 Constitution, in which case we could have constitutional government, in the Prime Minister's sentence, in its real meaning.
The Prime Minister: There need he no misunderstanding about this. The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted the sentence saying that the Governor is authorised to receive from the régime
46
any proposals about the means by which the rebellion is to be brought to an end, and the right hon. Gentleman asked whether that included Mr. Smith. That phrase has always included Mr. Smith. I have made it very clear on a number of occasions. In fact, I remember using the phrase "nuts and bolts" in this connection. If he wants to discuss the means of bringing the rebellion to an end and arranging what happens about troops, the Civil Service, the police, and so on, I do not see who but Mr. Smith could make such proposals. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman read out the next sentence, which says that discussions of Rhodesia's constitutional future must be with responsible persons representing all the people. The illegal régime cannot negotiate the future constitutional basis upon which there will be a return to constitutional government.
The last point is that representations from any representative group, covering all opinions, including a member of the Rhodesian Front, provided that he is prepared to return to constitutional rule, would be contemplated. What there cannot be is negotiation exclusively with the Rhodesian Front. Negotiations cannot be on the basis that their racialist ideas will represent the future of Rhodesia. But if there were to be a group representing all sections of opinions, a very wide spectrum, it could include a member of the Rhodesian Front if he had forsworn rebellion and was prepared to agree to constitutional rule, the condition which the right hon. Gentleman asked for. I hope that that is clear.
I was asked "which constitution?" T thought that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that this would have to be the 1961 Constitution for this Government under constitutional rule, more or less from the word "go". I have pointed out the difficulties of the 1961 Constitution in previous exchanges in the House. Under the 1961 Constitution one has an elected Parliament. It is not a representative Parliament, but it is elected. That Parliament today would be totally unfitted for handling the constitutional future of Rhodesia. It has sat in rebellion, it has promoted, perhaps even forced, a rebellion.
One could not have a Smith Parliament providing the legislative side of the

47
new constitution, nor, in my view, would it be a reasonable proposition to say that one should then elect a new Parliament on the basis of the present electoral provisions and franchise, or else this reasonable and representative Government under the Governor may become involved in an eternal clash with a racialist and, as we now know, semi-Fascist Parliament.
The interim Government would have executive power. The legislative power would be non-existent, except in so far as this House transferred legislative powers to the interim Government, which we could do under the Southern Rhodesia Act. I think that the House would want to insist on a tight control over questions of human rights and racial discrimination.
After that, there would be consultations throughout Rhodesia to find upon what constitution free elections could be held, and then a return to full constitutional rule, not only executive but also legislative.
Mr. Grimond: In view of the speculation that there has been about the purpose of today's statement, would the Prime Minister make it clear, beyond all doubt, that this is not what has been referred to as an offer of negotiation, but a statement of the British Government's aims? The statement makes it abundantly clear that, so far as the future of the country is concerned, the Government are not prepared to negotiate with the present régime. Would the Prime Minister also bear in mind, when looking to the future, that the 1961 Constitution gives extremely inadequate guarantees to Africans and that it would be impossible to go back to that Constitution unless it is not only amended, but amended in a very radical way?
The Prime Minister: This was a statement of aims, but it was more than that. It was a spelling-out, in greater detail than before, of the way in which we think that these aims should be pursued. I have said much which I have said before. On two separate occasions in December I spelt out more fully how we see the interim Government and this very thorny problem—I think that the whole House must agree that it is a thorny problem—of the question of legislative power.
48
When the right hon. Gentleman says that we must not negotiate with the Smith régime, this was the point with which I was trying to deal. We cannot deal with an illegal régime anywhere, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition very fairly said this when he was in Rome last week, and challenged Mr. Smith on this and other points. I do not think that there is any disagreement about this, at any rate.
There can be no negotiations with the illegal régime. We can consider their propositions for ending the rebellion and give quick effect to them, but the negotiations as to the constitutional future of Rhodesia, even under interim Government, must be with a wider-spread and more representative group of persons.
Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that what he has said this afternoon is the most reasonable approach to the resumption of negotiations? Does he further appreciate that no reasonable person, unless hopelessly biased against the present Government in their attitude on the Rhodesian issue, can object to the Governor being authorised to receive representations from anyone in Rhodesia, including Mr. Smith? The only difficulty appears to be whether the Governor, being apparently under house arrest, has the facilities for receiving representations, and, when he does receive representations, conveying them to my right hon. Friend.
The Prime Minister: I think that this is a reasonable statement and it is a statement of the terms for a settlement. It goes hand in hand with the tightening of the economic sanctions which occurred before Christmas and went further last week and which, in due course, will be still further tightened.
Mr. Goodhew: Negotiation under duress.
The Prime Minister: We are dealing with a rebellion, and the word "duress", coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite, is an extraordinary use of the English language. I hope that it will be agreed that this is the most reasonable course. I believe that it is the only honourable course so far as this country is concerned, and more particularly, so far as the world is concerned. Some hon. Gentlemen think that this is a problem only between Britain

49
and Rhodesia. I assure them that this is the biggest delusion under which not only Mr. Smith is suffering, but under which they, too, are suffering.
Mr. Smith can go to Government House at any time he wants, but he will have to get it clear in his own mind that he is going to see the Governor, because he believes that Mr. Dupont is the Governor, or legal representative. He can go to see the Governor whenever he wants, and he has had informal talks with him, through Sir Hugh Beadle. No doubt this will go on.
Mr. J. Amery: Is the Prime Minister aware that it would be quite unrealistic to believe that he will find any responsible body of Europeans prepared to co-operate with him on the basis of the terms which he has just announced? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Can he clarify the reference he made, in the context of the security forces, to the need for certain guarantees? Can he clarify the statement he made about the need for certain guarantees to be given? He was speaking about the security forces. Is he thinking of the introduction of British troops after the rebellion has come to an end?
The Prime Minister: First of all, I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is unrealistic to feel that any responsible body of Europeans could accept these terms. I am not a defeatist about the Europeans of Rhodesia as he is. Is he really telling us that they are, all of them, a bunch of racialists who will—
Mr. Amery Mr. Amery indicated dissent.
The Prime Minister: It was his own leader who joined with other party leaders before Christmas in referring to Rhodesia as a police State. I cannot believe that the majority of European Rhodesians want a police State and want to impose censorship. I cannot believe that the terms upon which they would insist for any breaking up of the rebellion must mean a rejection of these perfectly reasonable twentieth century terms. If that is his definition of reasonableness, then it tells us much about him as it does about the Rhodesian situation.
Perhaps, because I was reading rather quickly, I did not make myself clear on the guarantees. I think that I used the
50
word "guarantees" twice. In the context of security, I said that we should require guarantees from detainees who had been arrested under the emergency regulations, that they would pursue their political aims on constitutional lines and not have recourse to intimidation.
The other use of the word "guarantees" was, I think, in the context that this House would require guarantees about human rights and about racial discrimination. By that I mean that when we delegate what I loosely call the legislative responsibility to the interim Government of Rhodesia, I think that this House would be right in seeking, as a condition of this, full guarantees about human rights, whether by making it an entrenched reserved position, covered only by the British Parliament, or in some other way. It is too early to say, but that is what I mean by guarantees.
Dr. Bray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be examined with the greatest interest by many people in Rhodesia who will see it as offering an alternative to the Smith régime, including many former supporters of the Rhodesian Front? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that it goes as far as is practicable while maintaining the support of the African majority in Rhodesia?
The Prime Minister: I hope that my statement will have the effect which my hon. Friend has said. It may well be that there are some who think that it is perhaps early to be making a statement of this kind because while the economic measures are biting very deeply and quickly into the economic situation in Rhodesia it is a fact that they have not yet been felt to any great extent by the general public—with the possible exception of the petrol rationing.
One hopes that this will all come to an end before the sanctions are felt more deeply and make more difficult the job of reconstruction. But there are some who feel that more people will have to be aware of these economic sanctions before that can be accepted. I hope that that is wrong. This was meant as a declaration of the terms on which we can return to constitutional rule. If it is not accepted this week, I hope it will be accepted next week, because each week that passes will make it more difficult politically and

51
economically. This statement glands from today as a permanent invitation to those Rhodesians who want to return to constitutional rule as a means by which they can do so.
Sir G. Nicholson: I wish that the Prime Minister had been with me in Rhodesia earlier this month. He would then have understood the deep distress with which I listened to his words today. Surely his words will be interpreted in Rhodesia as meaning that, unless the Smith régime is overturned by internal action, sanctions will be applied to their ultimate and logical limit, with the complete destruction of the Rhodesian economy, leaving behind a legacy of unutterable bitterness which will never be retrieved or eradicated.
Will not the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, think again and realise, as anyone who has been to Rhodesia will tell him, that if he does not negotiate with the Smith régime now there is nobody who can negotiate with him in the foreseeable future? The right hon. Gentleman, by his words today, has condemned Rhodesia and possibly all that part of Africa to the most ghastly tragedy.
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that my words have caused regret to the hon. Gentleman. It would have been, I am afraid, quite impossible for me to be with him in Rhodesia, because I for one, in common, I feel sure, with most hon. Members—and I am sorry about this, in view of the line which the hon. Gentleman has taken in the past—would never have stayed with a Minister who is a member of an illegal régime while it was in illegal rule.
It is not for me to say what pressures were put on. One gets so many reports from inside Rhodesia. But the message with which the hon. Gentleman came back—it might have been better if he had perhaps remained more at arm's length from this very, very competent brain-washing police State. But the reports which one gets from other Members of this House who went there, and who did not come so closely into contact with this particular Minister but met Mr. Smith, give a very different picture of the situation in Rhodesia.
At least, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very difficult. I agree
52
with him that passions are very deep there. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that one of the main reasons for that is the systematic censorship, slanting of the news, and control of television and radio over a period of two years by the very men from whom he was getting the arguments which he has used this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rowland.
Sir G. Nicholson: On a point of order. The Prime Minister has made a personal attack if not on my integrity at any rate upon my sincerity. May I have the opportunity of replying to the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister said. I do not think that he made any attack on either the hon. Gentleman's sincerity or his integrity. It may have been on his judgment. But this is a matter of political argument between the hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister.
Sir G. Nicholson: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but, with great respect to you, I cannot accept that. The Prime Minister said that I deliberately submitted myself to propaganda on the part of the enemies of this country. He implied that I made no attempt to see the Governor, Sir Hugh Beadle or anybody else. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that when honourable and very respected Members of the House are saying something which is very personal and important to them the House will listen to them in silence.
Sir G. Nicholson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker; I am truly grateful. I very much regret what the Prime Minister said to me. I hope that he will withdraw the imputations. I assure him and the House that I kept a perfectly open mind in Rhodesia and saw whom I liked. I was not brain-washed or propagandised in any way whatever.
The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order. I made no such imputations against the hon. Gentleman's integrity or his sincerity. I made strong imputations against his judgment. I made strong imputations—and I would do so again—against what I considered to be a most serious error of judgment made by

53
hon. Members in staying with someone who, under our law, is committing treason. We know that this is perhaps one of the problems of the legal situation, but I believe that it was wrong to do that.
I never said that the hon. Gentleman did not see the Governor or Sir Hugh Beadle, because I knew perfectly well that he had seen the Governor and Sir Hugh Beadle. But I believe that when one comes in close personal contact from the beginning with a person as notorious as the one to whom I referred this cloud's one's judgment. Because of my respect for the hon. Gentleman, which I have often expressed in the House, I expressed my deep regret that he should have spoken in this way today. It is a reflection purely on his judgment which, I am sure, will be shared by other hon. Members.
Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order. The Prime Minister clearly referred to my hon. Friend as having been brain-washed by the person with whom he was staying. Should not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that?
Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled that nothing out of order took place. I let the matter continue so that the personal feelings which arose in the mind of the hon. Gentleman who raised it should be cleared by the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that they have been cleared in the hon. Gentleman's mind. However, no point of order arises
Mr. Rowland: I should like to put two questions. Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that any suggestion from any quarter of the House, responsible or irresponsible, that there should be negotiations with Mr. Smith has a profound effect in Rhodesia? In other words, it would encourage Mr. Smith to persist in the policy to which he has committed his country. Any such suggestions have to be regarded in this light. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, from conversations which some of my colleagues and I had with Mr. Smith, the situation at the moment is that Mr. Smith is interested only in negotiating something which would ratify the independence which he has seized?
Secondly, is my right hon. Friend aware, as I trust he is, that his statement today that any future Government would be comprised of Rhodesians will be
54
treated with the greatest pleasure by large sections of opinion in Rhodesia, not only those opposed to Mr. Smith but what I call the present reluctant patriots who are going along with him because they know of no other course at present?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's first point about statements made by hon. Members is a very difficult one. I tried to deal with it in the debate which we had before Christmas. I think that we all welcome the fact that as many hon. Members as are able to go to Rhodesia should do so, although there is always the dilemma of any hon. Member in making pronouncements there, with whatever degree of sincerity, giving the impression that this House as a whole is less than fully resolved in bringing the illegal régime to an end and, therefore, even taking the risk—I know that it would never be taken deliberately or consciously—of stiffening the régime or supporters of it to remain in this illegal posture longer than they would otherwise do.
I agree that there has been misunderstanding about my hon. Friend's second point. It was right to spell out the intention that the interim Government should consist of Rhodesians and not, as some mistakenly thought, of a covey of civil servants sent from this country.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: If I may ask a question on a rather different point, I think that the objective of us all in this situation is that there should ultimately be majority rule. The Prime Minister said in his statement that the time that this will take will have to be measured by African advancement and achievement. I take it that there is no question of an arbitrary time limit.
The Prime Minister: Yes, that is absolutely right. This is really a repetition, with which I may have bored the House before but it needs to be said again and again, of something which I said on my last day in Salisbury: that one cannot set a date by clock or calendar time. It has to be set by the extent of achievement, particularly the willingness of Africans to come into Parliamentary government and to come into Ministerial government, and the willingness of others to give them a chance to do it, as well as the point, which both sides of the House have so often stressed, of the need for

55
education and training, particularly training in Parliamentary work and in administration.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Not at this stage. The next business is a statement by the First Secretary.
Following are the five principles which were originally circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 718, No. 174, col. 646, on 1st November, 1965:

1. The principle and intention of unimpeded progress to majority rule, already enshrined in the 1961 Constitution, would have to be maintained and guaranteed.

2. There would also have to be guarantees against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.

3. There would have to be immediate improvement in the political status of the African population.

4. There would have to be progress towards ending racial discrimination.

5. The British Government would need to be satisfied that any basis proposed for independence was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION CORPORATION
The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): Last week the Government announced a new system of incentives to stimulate investment in the sectors of industry and parts of the country where it is most needed. To complement these measures, we are now setting up an Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to help British industry to adapt its structure and its organisation so that it can meet international competition more effectively.
The structure of many industries has undergone substantial changes in recent years. But in some sectors British industry still cannot match the scale of operations of highly integrated groups abroad. The Corporation's task will be to search for opportunities to promote rationalisation schemes which can yield substantial benefits to the national
56
economy, especially in terms of increased exports and more rapid technological advance.
The Corporation will work in close co-operation with industry and existing financial institutions and will make full use of the facilities offered by the market. It will not act as a general holding company, but it will be able to provide finance from its own resources to promote sound rationalisation schemes—by making loans or taking an equity interest in new groupings. It will also be able to provide capital for new projects or expansions of special importance to the national economy.
The Government propose that the Corporation should be given the right in the first instance to draw, as needed, up to £150 million from the Exchequer.
These proposals are set out in a White Paper which I have laid before the House today and the necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Sir Frank Kearton has accepted the Government's invitation to become Chairman of the new Corporation.
Mr. Barber: We shall, naturally, wish to study the White Paper carefully. I should like to put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman. How does the proposal to provide capital for new projects of special importance to the national economy fit in with the work of the National Research and Development Corporation?
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said in his statement that the new Corporation will have power to take an equity interest in industry. Will the Corporation have power to acquire a majority equity interest in any particular industry or company? If so, is that not in reality an extension of nationalisation?
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Corporation
"will also be able to provide capital for new projects or expansions of special importance to the national economy"
Does this mean that the Corporation will have power to take a majority equity holding? If so, what is the difference between this proposal and the establishment of a new nationalised industry?

57
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said today, and, perhaps, more significant, what has been leaked to the Press over the past few days, confirms our suspicion that the purpose behind this proposal is not so much to improve industrial efficiency as to extend the field of public ownership?
Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman has a bit of an obsession with this. He said this in connection with Fairfield's—when there was no question of a majority holding, but only a 50–50 holding—and was then soundly ticked off by his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that he will find himself in trouble about this again.
On the question of leaks, I have nothing to do with that. I can only repeat, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, that if I consult and people do not respect the confidence which I place in them, that is a matter for him to take up with others outside the House, but not with me.
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will study the White Paper before he pronounces judgment upon it. That was at least an improvement on the behaviour of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the National Plan. I thought, however, that he went very near to giving away what he said at the beginning.
The three questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman were really only two. As to capital provided by the Corporation and N.R.D.C., obviously they will work closely together, and the sort of things that one helps along the Corporation will be able to help bring to fruition.
On the question of the equity interest and majority holding, if and when and in such circumstances as seem right this is done and the Corporation operates by way of taking an equity interest, how much of the equity is taken will depend upon the circumstances in any particular case. Obviously, I cannot give a blanket answer to a blanket question which in that form does not really help. What I can make plain—and I hope that this will be the answer to the obsession that is troubling the right hon. Gentleman—is that the Corporation will not be
58
empowered to acquire anything compulsorily.
Mr. William Clark: How long does the right hon. Gentleman think that the £150 million will last? Is the right hon. Gentleman, who dodged the question of the amount of equity, prepared to say that the spirit behind the White Paper is not to take a majority holding in any one company or venture? If he were to say this, it would, as I am sure he would agree, allay the fears of many industrialists.
Mr. Brown: I simply cannot say that there will never be a case in which the taking of a majority holding would not be the right thing to do. On the other hand, the more that the Corporation can use its funds, withdraw them and turn them over again, the better job it will be able to do. Its purpose is not to acquire majority holdings and to hang on to them—that I can say—but it would be ridiculous to say that there will never be an occasion when a majority holding is not the right thing to take.
As to how long the money will last, this will turn upon the success of the Corporation in picking the right exercises and its success, and in putting its money in, getting things started, turning it over and being able to start again. If the Corporation can do that really well, the money will last for a very long time.
Mr. George Y. Mackie: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that when he has achieved his objective the Government's share should be sold to the public and to the employees, as was done in the case of Volkswagen? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman give an example of what he regards as a project of special importance to the national economy?
When the right hon. Gentleman says that the proposal is designed to help industry to
"meet international competition more effectively"
will he bear in mind that the only way in which it will really meet international competition is by being able to compete, and that 10 per cent. is not a very great help in this respect?
Mr. Brown: I do not think that the question of the 10 per cent. arises on this point. I do, however, accept the hon. Gentleman's last point in general. We

59
want British industry to compete with industry overseas. One of the things which stops British industry competing at the moment is that we have far too many companies which are not of a size to have the facilities, the resources, the services to stand up to competition by these highly integrated corporations overseas.
Therefore, what my colleagues and I visualise this Corporation would do, perhaps above everything else, would be to reorganise or help to reorganise British industry so that we are in a position to compete with them, and on even terms. I cannot give examples. It would be invidious to do so, and in any case it would lead to misunderstandings. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that.
On the first question he raised, about the selling of shares—to anybody he likes to mention, employees, the public—I repeat that the exercise is not primarily one of holding on to an equity interest. There may be an occasion when that would be the right thing to do, but the exercise primarily is in taking an interest, by way of providing loans, by way of providing grants, by way of equity interest—whatever it may be; taking an interest in seeing that things happen—mergers, rationalisation, reorganisation—and then the Corporation getting its money out and being able to use it again. That may not always be the right thing to do.
I do not want to be forced—and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would be a party to this—into saying that where things succeed as a result of using public money the public must get out, but that when things do not go too well public money must stay in to bale out private industry.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are those of us on this side of the House who would view with equanimity the situation which might arise as a result of the operation and if the extent of public participation in industry were enlarged? Will he give an assurance that when the Corporation explores the various possibilities the emphasis will be on the acquisition of equity or on providing loans and not upon the policy of free public doles or grants which
60
was operated by the previous Administration?
Mr. Brown: Well, I am quite clear that that would be the view of some of my hon. Friends. I can only repeat—I want to make this absolutely plain—that it is not the purpose, a main purpose, of this exercise to nationalise by the back door. The purpose of this exercise, which industry well understands—the willingness of Sir Frank Kearton to take the chair shows that industry well understands—is to provide an agency that can get things done in British industry, things for which there is a great need and which so far nobody has been able to help, and which will, with the investment grants we announced the other day, help to put British industry in a position to compete. That is the purpose. That is the real purpose. That is what I hope it will do.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. Will my right hon. Friend reply to my second point which was—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order.
Mr. Doughty: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? One is, why cannot this affair be left to private industry, as in the case of sound industries they have always found the money required? Is it the intention of the Government to bolster up industries which are financially inefficient with Government money? If so, it is a very bad business.
Secondly, will the Corporation have power to build factories and start businesses with Government money and go into competition with private industry?
Mr. Brown: On the first point, if the markets of the wholly private enterprise sector of our economy had been able to do these things they would have been done. What is only too clear, not only to Socialists like me, but to many people in this country, is that a good many things of this kind which ought to have been done have not been done because private markets would not find the resources for them. Therefore, we are filling the gap.
On the second point, whether it will go in for building factories and start up

61
in competition, I would not have thought so, or intend it should. Its business is to get things started, and I would expect that in all cases it would be operating with private enterprise. I do not want to put too many restrictions on what it does so that the job cannot get done. What I want is to bring about that reorganisation of industry—rationalisation, mergers and improvements in British industry—which is necessary. That is what, I am pretty sure, it will concentrate on.
Mr. Carol Johnson: As this proposal will obviously involve legislation, can my right hon. Friend say how soon the Bill will be introduced and when he thinks this new agency will come into existence? Secondly, can we be assured that when created it will have a considerable degree of independence in its operations?
Can my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the constitution of the board of directors? He has mentioned who is to be the chairman. Can he tell us how many other members there will be and on what basis they will be chosen?
Is it not quite clear from what my right hon. Friend has said that these proposals do not visualise large-scale nationalisation but a fruitful opportunity of a creative partnership between the State and industry which is so necessary in this country?
Mr. Brown: I can agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. I would hope that, on reflection, when they have read the White Paper, it will be seen this way by the Opposition, too. I would make it clear that this is a great, fruitful partnership, in a mixed economy, between private enterprise and the Government, in which public resources can stand behind some things which are highly desirable and which it cannot be expected the market alone could do.
On the question of the composition of the board, I do not want to go any further today than I have gone, and I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me. The chairman has been selected. I am quite certain that he will commend himself throughout industry and the City and the trade union section, and, indeed, the community as a whole, as a very great industrial leader with a very great record,
62
and I want to sit down with him and discuss with him who the other people should be. We obviously want other industrialists. We want other people who know about the whole area of the board's business. We want different kinds of interests to be represented on the board.
On the question of when legislation will come in, I am afraid that, since I am not responsible for the legislative programme of the House, I can only say, and deeply mean it, "As soon as possible".
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what sort of Ministerial control there will be? Will this come under his Department, or will it come under the Board of Trade? Is he aware that many of us here feel that if he had really wanted to help small-sized and medium-sized firms the Government would have introduced a different Budget to extend the investment grants so that they applied to research and development, which is, after all, the seedbed which enables the small firm to grow into a medium-sized one and a medium-sized one into a big?
Mr. Brown: I am sure that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had really wanted these things they would have done them in a different way, but they did not do them either through their Budget or the two measures we have announced.
On the question of the relationship of the Corporation with the Government, the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs is the Minister responsible for the Corporation, but, in practice, in its day to day life, it will live much more closely with those Ministers who have sponsoring arrangements with parts of industry. It will work very closely with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Technology and, of course, the President of the Board of Trade in those parts of industry with which he is concerned. That is where its work will normally lie. But the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs is the member of the Government responsible for the Corporation.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but we must move on.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
On Thursday, it will be proposed that the Committee stage of the Winter Supplementaries should be taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on the Cost of Living.
The House may wish to know also that the business for Monday next, 31st January, is the Second Reading of the Land Commission Bill.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With reference to Monday's business, can the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? He will be aware that there is on the Paper, preceding the Land Commission Bill, a Ways and Means Motion in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to provide in Committee of Ways and Means the necessary authority for the imposition of taxation.
Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up when it is intended to take that Ways and Means Motion, and can he give an assurance that there is no intention whatever of seeking to telescope that Motion, authorising the imposition of taxation, during the one day allotted to the Second Reading of a major Bill?
Mr. Bowden: I think perhaps that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary and I could discuss this point.
Sir G. Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman said—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to call the hon. Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson), but I had not yet called him.
Sir G. Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Supplementary Estimates will be taken formally. It has recently been the practice to use the form of words, "If the House so agrees". Will he continue that practice to enable the House to debate the Supplementary Estimates, if necessary?
Mr. Bowden: I regret the exclusion of those words, but there is a further opportunity to discuss the Winter Supplementaries on Report.

DEFENCE EQUIPMENT (OVERSEAS SALES)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
In July this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation and I invited Sir Donald Stokes, the Managing Director and Deputy Chairman of Leyland-Triumph, to look into our policy and organisation for selling defence equipment abroad and to suggest in what ways they could be improved. Increased sales of British equipment will help significantly to reduce the burden of our military commitments by enabling us to win back some of the foreign currency which we have to spend on keeping our forces overseas and equipping them for their tasks.
While the Government attach the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable commercial market.
Sir Donald has now let us have his recommendations and I think that the House would like to know what the Government have decided already about the more important points in his proposals.
First, we agree with Sir Donald on the importance of having a closely-knit organisation within the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Aviation to handle arms sales and to help British firms to secure overseas defence orders, under the centralised control of a Head of Defence Sales. He will be a man of high calibre with direct access to Ministers and a suitable supporting staff both at home and overseas. He will be responsible jointly to my right hon. Friend and myself for all the arms sales work in our Departments.
At the same time, we are taking steps to ensure that when our own equipment requirements are formulated the present and future requirements of the overseas market are taken fully into account.
In setting up the arms sales organisation we will have regard to the recommendations of the Plowden Report and of the seventh Report of the Estimates

65
Committee dealing with electrical and electronic equipment in the Services, to the extent that they cover the field of export sales. The more detailed proposals made by Sir Donald as to how the organisation might operate most efficiently are still under examination.
I should like, on behalf of the Government, to thank Sir Donald Stokes for undertaking this important task. I am sure that he is recognised by everyone as having sent a breath of fresh air through this tiresome and complicated subject.
Mr. Powell: While the House will wish to consider these proposals in more detail, there are two questions that I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm, with regard to the fourth point in his statement, that there is no question of British firms being precluded from securing orders otherwise than with the help of the new organisation? Secondly, are these practical steps to ensure that the country secures its rightful share of this valuable commercial market part of the proposals foreshadowed in the General Election manifesto of the party opposite to stop the private sale of arms?
Mr. Healey: On the second question, "No Sir." On the first question, of course private firms Will not be precluded from seeking markets on their own, and it is our conception that firms should be primarily responsible for actually making these sales. But, in some cases, Governments prefer to deal with Governments, and in all cases a Head of Defence Sales, with a suitable staff, can help firms both to find out what are likely to be the requirements of foreign markets and to aid them in securing contracts.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side would much prefer it if all this activity and energy were put in to the sale of peaceful exports rather than warlike exports, that his announcement will encourage Governments and private armament manufacturers in other countries to do the same, and that we do not want this gentleman to turn into another Krupp or Zaharoff?
Mr. Healey: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we want to see a world in which the public or private sale of armaments is under international control;
66
indeed, a world in which there is no public or private sale of armaments.
The House will be aware that some countries already have extremely extensive sales organisations. This is an international market which is worth about £1,000 million a year, and British industry has the same right to a share of that market as the industry of any other country.
Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the feelings expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) are shared by other people? This trade has long been held not to be a respectable one. Would the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the work of the new section and the gentlemen appointed to it are open to the closest Parliamentary scrutiny?
Mr. Healey: On the second question, "Yes, Sir", but I would point out that as far as Britain is concerned a major part of these sales is in co-operation with our allies in the production and sale of equipment for our collective defence. I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination, unless one is a complete pacifist, one can object to more efficient co-operation between countries in this field.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend's statement not likely to intensify the arms race? Is he telling us that we have to get into an economic conflict with America, which is supposed to be our greatest ally?
Mr. Healey: The answer to both those questions is, "No, Sir".
Mr. Marten: While giving general support to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I understood him to say that he would still allow the private sale of arms. What did the Labour Party manifesto mean at the time of the last General Election?
Mr. Healey: A very good example is that we are not in favour of selling arms to countries which are hostile to us. [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for all his love of free trade, would be prepared to control international commerce to this extent. Perhaps he will tell us if that is not so.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: There is real concern about this trade. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that all forms of trade are not the same, and that it is desirable that we should encourage trade which does not have the effect of increasing tension and the possibility of war? Would he not give a more extensive answer to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)?
Mr. Healey: On the first question, I am even more anxious that national trade in peaceful exports should be extended, but my Department is concerned with defence and the sale of defence equipment, and I want it to be done as efficiently as possible in the context of our overall foreign policy. I would make it clear to the House that it is a field in which normal commercial considerations cannot always apply. It is always necessary to have regard to the political consequences of a potential sale, and we intend to do so under the new organisation.
Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously expect the House to believe that when the party opposite, at the last election, referred to stopping the private sale of arms all it meant was that we should not sell arms to our enemies?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a considerable volte face, particularly when, during the first hundred days, vast opportunities to sell arms to Portugal, Spain and South Africa were forgone? Could he tell us whether he has it in mind to publish Sir Donald Stokes' Report so that we may have an opportunity of seeing some details of the new organisation, and could he tell us whether it is his intention to use the military, naval and air attaches and civil air attaches as the network for feeding back the information to the new section within his Department?
Mr. Healey: I have considered the question of publication of the Report, but I have decided that, on balance, it goes into too much detail on too many questions which involve national security for publication to be desirable.
On the latter question, the defence attachés in the various embassies are the
68
prime sources of information on the likely requirements of possible markets, but we intend also to increase the specialist staff which already exists in certain embassies for that purpose.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Paget: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order with regard to the Motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 9. The rule sets out that the Motion has to be moved after Questions, and before the Orders of the Day, but it does not lay down that it has to be moved at any particular point in the interval.
Earlier, I observed an indication from the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that he intended to seek leave to move such a Motion, but I think that he has probably since changed his mind. Nevertheless, as a point of order, would not it be more convenient, where such a proposal to adjourn the House arises out of a statement made after Questions, for the Motion to be moved after the particular statement has been dealt with? Unless this is done, the consequence may well be that those interested in that particular issue will leave the Chamber while a number of other statements are made, and there will no longer be 40 Members available in the House interested in the subject and prepared to rise if the Motion is made.
I just put this forward as a suggestion, that it is within the rules of order, and would perhaps be convenient on another occasion.
Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to discuss the reform of Parliamentary procedure on a point of order, except to make the simple observation that if a matter were deemed of sufficient importance to be raised under Standing Order No. 9 it would be most likely that, at any moment when it was considered, there would be 40 Members wishing to rise in support of the argument that it should be considered. But on the simple point of order as it stands, what I ruled was correct. This would have been the moment for the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) to

69
bring up his Motion under Standing Order No. 9—and not when he attempted to do so.
Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. There may be wisdom or unwisdom in raising it, but I do not think that there can be any doubt that there is great interest in this House in the Rhodesia question. I cite that as an example. If the Motion cannot be moved at the time, hon. Members who go away can have no means of knowing that it will be, or that it is intended to be, moved. I submit that within the rules of order as they stand—and I am not suggesting that they be altered—the Motion can be moved at any time after Questions and before—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member has understood what I was saying. What he is suggesting is a reform of the present procedure. Like every other hon. Member, the hon. and learned Member is issued with the traditional Order of Business at the beginning of every Session of Parliament. I must read it now. It says:
"1. After Prayers"—
a number of items, then—
"Questions"
70
then—
"After Questions
Ministerial statements…
Introduction of new Members."
and then the item raised by the hon. and learned Member—
"Proposals to move the Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9."
What the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests would involve reforming the procedure, rather than be a point of order at the moment. I expect that those who are interested in procedure, and the Select Committee on Procedure, will take note of the hon. and learned Member's argument.
Mr. Paget: I am most grateful, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Further to that point of order. Is it not unprecedented, and a discourtesy to the House, for an hon. Member to give notice of his intention to move the Adjournment of the House, and then, for some strange reason, to absent himself from the House when the time comes to do so?
Mr. Speaker: The Chair has enough to do dealing with real points of order. The Chair is not concerned with explaining to some hon. Members the behaviour of other hon. Members. That is a matter between the two hon. Members concerned.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT SERVICE (REPORT)
4.55 p.m.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ray Gunter): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report of a Working Party of the National Youth Employment Council on the Future Development of the Youth Employment Service.
To prevent any possible misunderstanding arising out of the title of this Motion on the Order Paper, I would repeat that what we are debating today is the Report of the Working Party over which Lady Albemarle presided on the Youth Employment Service, not the Report of the Committee, over which Lady Albemarle likewise presided, on the Youth Service in England and Wales, which was presented to Parliament in 1960.
It is indeed a tribute to Lady Albemarle's untiring efforts on behalf of young people that her name should be associated with two such Reports, each so important in its own field. I should like to take this opportunity once again to thank her and her colleagues on the Working Party for their thorough and authoritative survey of the problems facing the Youth Employment Service and for their positive and forward-looking Report.
I would remind the House that in the statement I made to it on 14th December, the day of the Report's publication, I announced that the Government accepted the Report as providing valuable guidelines for the development of the Youth Employment Service over the next few years.
My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, my colleagues and I have thought it right that the House should devote a day to a full discussion of this Report as an efficient and effective Youth Employment Service is of vital importance not only to our young people but also to the nation as a whole. By helping boys and girls to choose careers suited to their capacities and inclinations by diverting them from dead-end jobs and encouraging them towards openings which provide opportunities for training and further education, and by helping to distribute our limited resources of young people in accordance with national needs, the Youth Employment Service can make
72
a unique contribution to the country's social and economic life.
I recall that as recently as last February the House accepted without Division a Motion by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies), recognising this special rôle of the Youth Employment Service and calling on Her Majesty's Government to promote the further development of the service.
Before I come to the Working Party's Report and the action we propose to take on its recommendations, I wish to say something about the employment situation, for this is the background against which the Youth Employment Service operates. However efficient the service may be, its usefulness will be seriously curtailed if there are not enough openings for young people to enter.
Fortunately the employment situation for young people is generally very good. During the whole of 1965 the number of employment opportunities exceeded the number of young people seeking them and last summer's school leavers were, as the House knows, generally speaking rapidly absorbed into employment. In most regions there is now a considerable unsatisfied demand for young workers. In the Midlands, for example, there are 15 jobs for every unemployed young person. It is also gratifying that there has been a distinct improvement in the employment situation on Merseyside, though of course in that area there is still a shortage of training opportunities for youngsters.
Some areas still give concern. I am thinking especially of parts of Wales, Scotland, the North of England and Cornwall. Here unemployment among young people is one aspect of the structural unemployment of these areas and the Government, by their plans for regional development, are vigorously tackling these deep-seated problems.
Statistics of employment are only a crude yardstick. It is not enough that a boy or girl has simply secured a job. What matters is that as many as possible should obtain progressive jobs which provide training for skill and prospects of advancement. In this connection it is heartening that the proportion of boys who obtained apprenticeships in 1965 was a record, representing 2 out of 5

73
of all boys entering employment. I hope that we are seeing here the first effects of the Industrial Training Act and that the training opportunities provided for young people at all levels will steadily increase.
Competition for the services of young people has been accentuated by the decline in recent years in the number of school leavers. The number of young people reaching the age of 15 this year is 737,000—less than four-fifths of the figure for 1962, the peak year of the bulge. The number will now remain fairly constant for the next four years. We have thus a breathing space in which to take stock of the work of the Youth Employment Service and to press ahead with measures for its development before numbers start to rise again in the early 1970s.
This is only part of the reason why the present review of the Youth Employment Service is so timely. Rapid changes are taking place both in education and industry. In education there is the trend towards later school-leaving, which will he given a further impulse by the rise in the statutory minimum school leaving age to 16 in 1970; there is the new thinking about the curriculum which has been stimulated by the Newsom and Brunton Reports, and there is a considerable expansion in further and higher education.
On the side of industry there is the accelerating pace of technological advance and the radical developments in industrial training to be expected from the widening effect of the Industrial Training Act. It is significant that the Working Party considered that these developments in education and industry did not lessen, but indeed reinforced the need for a comprehensive and effective Youth Employment Service.
In developing the service which we hope to do, we have sound foundations on which to build. It is reassuring that the Working Party found that despite the changes in education and industry the four main traditional objectives of the service are as relevant today as when they were first proposed by the Ince Committee in 1945. These are, first, to provide young people, their parents and their schools with accurate information about employment and careers; secondly,
74
to give vocational guidance to young people at school and subsequently; thirdly to help them to find suitable employment, and employers to find suitable workers; and, fourthly, to review the progress of young workers in employment and give any further help and advice needed.
Although therefore the objectives of the service may remain unchanged, the methods by which these objectives are attained have already been adjusted in many ways to meet changing needs and conditions and will require further considerable adaptation and development. This brings me to the Working Party's Report.
In considering the Report I propose to follow very much the same order as the Report itself. I shall deal first with the work of the youth employment officer, which is discussed in the early chapters of Part I of the Report, and then turn to the questions of staffing, training and premises, which are dealt with in Part II. I shall then say something about the work of the central executive; and finally I shall refer briefly to the legislation proposed in Part III of the Report.
In Chapter II the Working Party has considered in some detail the work of the Youth Employment Service with pupils at school and at further education colleges. The chapter contains much wise advice on the development of this work in schools. It is particularly timely that the Department of Education and Science has recently published a complementary booklet for teachers entitled "Careers Guidance in Schools". This booklet and the Working Party's Report are indispensable reading for all concerned with assisting pupils to choose their careers.
I would underline two points in particular. First, the Report recognises that the provision of careers information and guidance should not be deferred until the pupil's last months at school. This is much too late. An earlier and more continuous approach is needed if youngsters are to be able to reach sensible and informed decisions about their future without feeling under pressure at having to make up their minds in the last few months before they leave school.
Secondly, vocational guidance must be a team effort. In a matter as complicated

75
as this no one person or section of the community can have a monopoly of wisdom. As the Report states, the work of the careers master and the youth employment officer are complementary to one another. Young people and their parents—on whom, we should always remember, the responsibility for the decision rests—may well, in the words of the Report,
"wish to turn both to the teachers who have watched the child's development and also to the Youth Employment Officer who can speak with authority of the world of work in which the pupil's future lies".
In this team approach both the Youth Employment Service and the school have a part to play, and both need to be efficient. The work of the school will be impaired if expert advice and assistance are not forthcoming from the service. Similarly, the service in its work with pupils will be greatly handicapped unless there is a systematic programme of careers preparation within the school on which it can build. I will be dealing in the rest of my speech with measures to develop the Youth Employment Service and my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for the Department of Education and Science, in winding up this debate, will speak on the steps being taken to further careers work in schools.
Before leaving the subject of preparatory work in the school I would mention particularly one activity which has recently attracted a good deal of publicity. I refer to "work experience schemes", which involve releasing boys and girls from school to take part in the work of a factory or other place of employment. I know that many teachers are most interested in the possibility of developing such schemes. I know, too, that many trade unionists—for reasons which I can understand—have serious misgivings about the wisdom of introducing school children to work in factories. The best hope of resolving these differences of view lies in the accumulation of further information about such schemes and its careful assessment.
I have therefore asked my National Youth Employment Council to make a thorough investigation of all the pros and cons of work experience schemes, from the standpoint of vocational guidance and the transition from school to work. I
76
recognise, of course, that work experience has a wider purpose than this, and I understand that the Department of Education and Science and the Schools Council are gathering information to enable them to evaluate work experience from the broad educational viewpoint also.
In another chapter the Report discusses the industrial aspects of the youth employment officer's work. The whole point of having a Youth Employment Service is that its officers should be expert in all matters pertaining to employment, training and further education.
The youth employment officer's effectiveness in this rôle will depend upon his contacts with industry, and his knowledge of industry, both nationally and locally. It will depend upon his personal contact with employers, particularly training and personnel officers, his knowledge of future manpower requirements and the ever-increasing facilities for further education and industrial training.
Thus, in the words of the Report:
"One of the main issues facing the Service is the need for its officers, while confronted with the growing demands of their work in co-operation with the schools, to give sufficient time to keeping their basic knowledge of industry up to date".
In this story of co-operation I have left the most important partner until the last. As the Report stresses:
"The aim throughout must be to associate the parents as closely as possible with the work of the Youth Employment Service at all stages".
With this in view, the Central Youth Employment Executive will shortly be seeking the views of local youth employment committees on the best methods of developing more effective contact with parents. The Executive has also commissioned a film aimed at helping parents to appreciate how the service may best be used in dealing with careers problems.
I turn now to the question of staffing and training in the Youth Employment Service. If the service is to be able to discharge satisfactorily the wider responsibilities outlined in Part I of the Report, then it is essential, first, that the staffing of youth employment offices should be adequate and, second, that youth employment officers should be fully trained for their duties. As I said in my statement on 14th December, staffing

77
and staff training are the two main priorities for the further development of the service.
First, staffing. The Report refers to the steps which have been taken, both by the local education authorities concerned and by my Department, to keep the staffing of the service under review and to create additional posts where these were needed. As a result, the total number of youth employment officers has gone up from slightly over 900 in 1956 to just over 1,560 at the end of last year, with a corresponding increase in the supporting clerical staff. More significantly, in the three years since the peak of the "bulge" in 1962 there has been an increase of about 175 youth employment officers.
This improvement in the staffing position, during a period when the number of school leavers was falling, has led to progressive reductions in the average caseload for youth employment officers. Those with inside knowledge of the work of the service have frequently maintained that a youth employment officer cannot be expected to do his job efficiently with a case-load much above 500, and that, in areas where special factors must be taken into account, a case-load below 500 would be fully justified, according to local circumstances.
I am glad to say that this position has now been reached. By the beginning of this year the average case-load was down to 500 for the first time in the history of the service. But I must emphasise, first, that it is a national average—these are always dangerous things—from which there are still considerable local deviations, both above and below; and, second, that the reduction in case-loads does not mean that the staff are doing less work, but that they are able to develop their work in greater depth and so provide a better service to all concerned: young people, parents, schools and employers alike.
Even so, the Working Party recommends, and the Government accept, that the staff of the service should continue to be built up. This is necessary in order to bring the work of the service generally up to tine standards already achieved in the more progressive areas and to permit further development of the work on the lines now advocated in the Working Party's Report.
78
It is, however, important to ensure that further staff increases should be made with discrimination and with due regard for the most effective and economical deployment of qualified personnel. Recent surveys by the Central Youth Employment Executive have shown that a youth employment officer's ability to carry out extensive work in schools is related not so much to his numerical case-load as to the strength and quality of his supporting staff in the office.
They enable him to get away from his desk and devote more time to his duties in the schools and with industry. Inspections of the service today increasingly tend to bring out the need for strengthening the clerical and supporting staff, rather than expanding the number of youth employment officers.
There is also a growing need to develop more specialisation within the service. Already the majority of academically able young people can be advised by specialist officers and the Working Party recommend the extension of such posts. There are areas, we all know, where there are insufficient young people in this category to keep a specialist fully occupied. These areas present particular difficulties, and I fully endorse the Working Party's recommendation that smaller local authorities should consider making joint appointments to such posts.
Experience is also showing the advantages of officers specialising, after suitable training, in the particular problems and opportunities of handicapped youngsters. Here again the possibility of joint appointments should be considered by local authorities, where numbers do not justify a full-time appointment.
I agree too with the Working Party's recommendation that, in areas where my Department runs the service, there should be some senior posts with duties and responsibilities similar to those of a local authority's principal youth employment officer. I am now taking steps to introduce such posts at appropriate points in my Ministry's part of the service. A start will be made in the next few months with posts to cover Gloucestershire, Renfrewshire, Oxfordshire and the Ipswich area.
One of the most important parts of the Report deals with the training of the

79
staff. If the need for more staff is one of the two main priorities for developing the Youth Employment Service, the other—I think it is at this time the more pressing priority—is the need for better-trained staff. The Report disclosed how far we have still to go before we have a fully-trained service. It is my intention to see that measures are taken to step up training of all kinds and that this matter is pursued with a sense of urgency.
In this, the Central Executive will act in close co-operation with the Youth Employment Service Training Board. I should like here to pay tribute to the Training Board, which, in its comparatively short existence, has already done much to expand training facilities for full-time training of local authority officers, to review the contents of these courses and then to insist on appropriate standards of entry to training.
The Working Party recommended that I should seek powers to enable me to require all new entrants to the local authority's service to undergo the one-year course of full-time training as a condition of first appointment. This recommendation underlines the importance we all attach to providing a fully trained service. I do not propose to say more about that at this stage, since there are a number of things in the Report involving legislation, which I shall be discussing with the local authorities before reaching a decision. This is one of them.
As the Report recognises, however, it would not in any case be immediately practicable to make such a requirement. While there has been an encouraging increase in recent years in the number of those taking the one-year training course, the number of suitable candidates coming forward for these courses still falls significantly short of the needs of the Service.
Dr. Wyndham Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman be dealing with Appendix VI of the Report, which deals with an analysis of staff turnover, since a great number of people in the Service are not worried solely about training schemes but about the loss of trained people from the Service?
Mr. Gunter: I would not wish my speech to be too long extended by dealing with all these matters. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken note of the point he makes.
I am confident that, in the light of the Working Party's Report, the Training Board will consider, as a matter of urgency, whether more can be done to encourage increased numbers of recruits for training and will ensure that the necessary training facilities are available for them.
The Board is, I understand, already exploring with groups of local authorities in the Midlands and the Greater London area the possibility of their formulating joint arrangements for employing supernumerary staff to facilitate the secondment of existing staff for professional training. I very much hope that these discussions prove fruitful and that it will be possible for groups of authorities in other parts of the country to introduce similar arrangements. The question of establishing a third training centre, possibly in Scotland, in addition to existing centres at Lamorbey Park at Sidcup and the Manchester College of Commerce, also deserves very careful consideration.
In addition to promoting full-time training for new entrants, there is a pressing need to step up the facilities for intensive short-course training for existing staff. I am, therefore, proposing, as I said in my statement to the House before the Recess, to set up a training unit under the direction of the Central Youth Employment Executive. Steps are being taken to engage a principal psychologist to take charge of the unit and the Central Executive will shortly be moving to new quarters, which will allow the unit to be accommodated in the same building. This will ensure that the close connections which have hitherto existed between the Executive's training and inspection functions will be fully maintained, to the benefit of both. The establishment of the training unit will enable a considerable expansion in the Central Executive's provision of training, both for experienced officers and for new entrants who have not had the advantage of the one-year pre-entry course.
Sir Keith Joseph: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give

81
the figure of the anticipated number of places for training in this new unit?
Mr. Gunter: Not at the moment, but I will find out and let the right hon. Gentleman know.
While the Central Executive is in a favourable position to undertake the lion's share of short-course training, it is also important that the contribution which can come from the resources of local education authorities should not be overlooked. I am glad, therefore, that the Training Board, in co-operation with the Executive, have approached the West Midlands Advisory Council for Further Education and the Leeds and West Riding local authorities and invited them to run pilot "refresher" courses for experienced staff.
Last, but by no means least, is the need for more systematic in-service training to be provided by individual local authorities for their own staff. Some progressive authorities have set an admirable example, but I should like to see each and every authority which runs the Service having its own carefully-planned programme of training, tailored to the needs of its staff, both professional and clerical. This, again, is a sphere in which there are opportunities for joint action; by large authorities inviting the staffs of smaller authorities to participate in their training programmes or by smaller authorities joining together for combined training.
All this adds up to a formidable programme of training. I am sure that it is the wish of all of us that this important matter is tackled vigorously through the combined efforts of the Training Board, the Executive and local authorities.
The Report also deals with the subject of premises. Young people normally make their first contacts with the Youth Employment Service in their schools, but sooner or later they and their parents are likely to visit a Youth Employment Office. It is important that this should be an attractive place, centrally situated in the area it serves and easy to find. I agree with the Working Party that in its standards of accommodation, appearance and furnishing a Youth Employment Office, which may be the first real contact with industry for youngsters, should be up to the general standards young people are now accustomed to find in the other
82
places they now attend, for example in the newer schools, youth clubs and technical colleges.
I am glad to say that much has been done, and is now being done, to modernise the premises occupied by the service, and as long-term projects mature some of the gloomier, old-fashioned offices are giving place to quite attractive buildings. But some black spots still remain, as I have seen for myself, and I hope that local education authorities and others concerned with these will now press forward with the necessary improvements.
Before concluding my remarks I must comment on the work of the Central Youth Employment Executive, particularly in the spheres of careers information and research, which are discussed in Chapters VI and VII of the Report.
The individual officer who is engaged in an exacting programme of counselling must be able to count on a regular supply of comprehensive and up-to-date information on careers and their related courses of education and training. Nowadays careers literature comes from a wide variety of sources, including industrial and professional institutions, commercial publishers and specialist organisations. Much of what is produced is of high quality. However, it is significant that despite the considerable expansion which has taken place in recent years in the supply of careers information from other sources, the Working Party concluded and was unanimous in thinking that there is a continuing need for the Central Executive's own publications, which can be relied on to be impartial in their presentation and which are kept regularly up to date.
I would mention particularly one new source of information which is of growing importance to the careers adviser. I refer to my Ministry's Manpower Research Unit, the reports of which are providing, for the first time, objective information on occupational trends. This is of special value in correcting misapprehensions or over-simplified views which may be commonly held.
One increasingly complex matter is the need of sixth-formers for information on the whole range of possible courses in further and higher education, and their implications for careers. There is scope here for development, both by the Central

83
Executive and private organisations. The Working Party has made certain recommendations and these will be followed up. Particularly useful should be the suggestion of what it calls a "consumers' panel" to feed back information to the Central Executive on its own publications and to help it to keep up to date in meeting information needs.
The Working Party found almost unanimous agreement in the evidence submitted to it on the need for more research in the youth employment sphere. There is a particular need at the present time for more systematic investigation and appraisal of the various procedures and techniques used in helping the young people to choose their careers. The main effort in the research field should, of course, continue to come from the universities and other research institutions, but I wish to see the Central Youth Employment Executive assume a more active and positive rôle in promoting and co-ordinating research, with the help of its psychologists in the training unit. I am sure, too, that individual youth employment officers will welcome the opportunity to participate in these field studies.
As I said in opening, there was mention of legislative recommendations in the Working Party's interesting proposals for the amendment of the Employment and Training Act, 1948, Part II of which provides the present legislative framework for the Youth Employment Service. I am sure that hon. Members will accept that it would be rather premature for me at this stage to express any views on these proposals. I have already said that before I reach final conclusions on these matters I propose to consult the interested local authority associations. This I shall shortly do. However, I shall be interested to hear the views—and I hope that views will be expressed—of hon. Members on this question, and hear what they think might be desirable in terms of legislation. I will give the most careful consideration to anything that emerges from this debate.
There is one final matter, in which hon. Members opposite have been greatly interested in the last months. They have suggested that the present Youth Employment Service should be expanded into a careers advisory service for adults as well as for young people. That view has
84
been held by some hon. Members opposite, and by some of my hon. Friends, but I believe that it raises wider issues than the proposal for raising the upper age limit of the Youth Employment Service, which I shall be discussing with the local authority associations.
I agree that there is a strong case for a vocational guidance service for adults, but I feel that this can at present best be dealt with by developing and improving the employment exchange service. As I told the House on 14th December, my Ministry is to start an experimental scheme for this purpose in 11 areas at the beginning of March. This is one of several measures we are taking to strengthen and improve the employment exchange service, and it is designed to help all adults who, for any reason, are in real doubt about their future employment.
Some of those who use this new service will, of course, come from the 18–25 age groups—those, for example, who, for some reason, have made a false start in their training or find that they would rather take up another craft. But the new service is not designed only—or, indeed, primarily—for them. We expect that there will be many other adults who, if the experience of other countries is anything to go by, will find this service extremely helpful. There are those who will face an enforced change in their way of life —perhaps because of redundancy. There are also those whose talents are not being fully used, and there is reason to believe that there are many of those in the country. Specially trained officers of my Department are being assigned to this work. Many have previously been youth employment officers or careers advisory officers, and this should facilitate close co-operation and understanding between them and the officers of the Youth Employment Service.
In conclusion, I would emphasise that I have today deliberately concentrated on the deficiencies of the Youth Employment Service and the action that now needs to be taken to remedy those deficiencies. But we should not overlook the great deal of good work the service is already doing, and the progress towards further development that has been made in recent years, particularly by the leading authorities. The first necessity now is to raise the standard

85
throughout the service to that of the more progressive areas.
The Report of Lady Albemarle's Working Party provides a springboard for action—action by the Central Youth Employment Executive along the lines I have indicated; action by local authorities and by the Ministry in developing the Service in their particular areas, and action by schools, which have an indispensable part to play in the process of career counselling. Through our joint efforts, we must seek so to equip and strengthen the Youth Employment Service that our young people are given the best possible help in making the crucial transition from the world of education to the world of work, to their own benefit and to the great benefit of the community.
5.36 p.m.
Sir Keith Joseph: We on this side would join the Minister in thanking Lady Albemarle and her Working Party for this Report. The House has debated this subject before during the last 12 months, thanks to the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies), and I know that all hon. Members would wish me to say how glad we are to welcome some of the announcements the Minister has made today—particularly about the rise in training opportunities for school leavers, which is due to industry, and about the rise in training courses, due to the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, which may now be available to youth employment officers.
I shall depart from the order of the Report. I shall seek, first, to deal with the scope of the Youth Employment Service, and then say something about its effectiveness. I want to comment on the state of the service, and the state of the career teaching process in the schools and in further education. I would then wish to say a few words about industry, turn to what is possibly the major theme of Lady Albemarle's Report—professionalism—before touching on parents and young people, with the need to follow up on vocational guidance, before finally coming to the structure of the service.
I wish to deal, first, with the aim of the service which we are now dis-
86
cussing. It is, as the Minister emphasised, entirely associated at the moment with young people—but is our aim wide enough? The answer to that question has implications for the Youth Employment Service itself and, therefore, for our discussion of this Report. Of course, we must see that there is a guidance service, and a good guidance service, for the young—but what about the others? I was glad to hear the Minister's generally approving comments on the need to widen the vocational guidance available to adults, and we on this side welcome his pilot schemes in his own employment exchanges.
The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that just as we have seen a dramatic shrinking of the proportion of the labour force engaged in farming, so we may well now witness for the next decades an almost equally dramatic shrinking in the labour force engaged in manufacture and in offices, and the great growth in employment will no doubt come, as the country's technological skills develop, in the services—I do not mean the Armed Services, but the services—where ability and the chance to do independent work will be probably far greater than in the factory and the office.
If we are to have very many new skills, and so much need for more skills we on this side believe that great increases in adult training will be necessary. We know that both the previous Government and this Government have been increasing the number of Government training centres, we know of the work of the Manpower Research Unit, but it is still true that there is virtually no advice available to the unskilled adult or, indeed, to the skilled adult who, while his skill is not actually obsolete, wants to change his skill, for perfectly good personal reasons.
The only figures I have been able to come across were given in a lecture by Mr. Leicester to the B.A.C.I.E., in 1963. I do not know their authority, but the lecturer spoke of the growing need we have for 150,000 new skilled jobs a year, and the danger of the obsolescence of about 150,000 existing skilled jobs. We can generally agree that the scale of retraining needed will grow rapidly upon us. If we are to finish up in a few years with a vocational guidance service, public and private, for adults as well as

87
for young people, plainly this possibility must be borne in mind in considering the Youth Employment Service and this Report.
I should now like to turn to perhaps the hardest of all the subjects—the Youth Employment Service and its present effectiveness. Everyone acknowledges the zeal and hard work of the individual officers of the service. That is not in question. What I think we ought to address our minds to is whether the youth employment officers are enabled to be fully effective. There are very few measures of how effective they are. We know something about quantity. We know that they see 50 per cent. of grammar school leavers and help place 25 per cent. We know that they see about 90 per cent. of secondary school leavers and help place about 50 per cent.
It is quite clear that the Youth Employment Service is not at the moment effectively penetrating the grammar school section of the school-leaving population. I think it is a great shame that the officers did not manage to penetrate that class of the population better but, as always, when there is work to be done, some enterprising people manage to try to fill the gap.
Of course, there is the Careers Research and Advisory Centre to which the Minister made, I think, oblique reference as filling a demand from the grammar school sector for information both about further education and careers. One would hope that by the steps which the Minister is taking and, further, which we shall press him to take, the Youth Employment Service and private enterprise—though this private enterprise is, in any case, non-profit making—will compete with each other for the public benefit.
Then—this is still in pursuit of testing the effectiveness of the service—we know that the present age rule limits the access of the Youth Employment Service to people in further education, particularly those who have not perhaps succeeded as well as they would have wished at the technical college or at whatever college they attend, and those who are on general courses and may like guidance for a future career.
88
I think that Lady Albemarle's Committee makes it plain that it hopes that more measuring instruments for quality will be evolved. There is no criterion by which at the moment we can judge the quality, as opposed to the quantity, of the service. It is easy enough for me at this Box to suggest various ideas. I am glad to know that there are university departments active in the field, and we may expect proposals to come from them; but we really do not know the degree of job satisfaction or, indeed, the number of job changes which result from the advice given by Youth Employment Service officers. We do not even know very much about what sort of jobs the people take, and in what sort of firms.
There is the work of Joan Maizel, in the British Journal of Industrial Relations, in March of last year, which seems to show from a survey in Willesden that the bulk of those advised by the Youth Employment Service went to unskilled and semi-skilled jobs in the smaller firms. These are the very jobs which will tend to decrease as skills and the need for skills grow.
It is easy enough to talk about these measures of effectiveness, but how can we improve the effectiveness? Here, I should like to come on to the subject of the service itself. It seems to me that two things above all would increase the effectiveness of the service. The first is better backing with information, guidance, publication, pamphlets and films, and here one can only note how much the pamphlets, career conferences and productions of the Career Research and Advisory Centre seem to have been seized upon by the grammar schools and hope that the National Youth Employment Executive lives up to that standard in its service to the secondary modern stream.
The second thing that would make the service more effective seems to us to be more research and knowledge on how to improve vocational guidance, how to interest and help the young people and their parents. These technical improvements will, we hope, come from the combination of active intelligent employing authorities and university departments.
I am very glad that the Minister has told us that he is asking the Central Youth Advisory Employment Executive to follow up a number of suggestions

89
for increased research contained in Lady Albemarle's Report. In particular, we hope that there will be a much more determined attack on the extent to which tests can be used in judging vocational suitability for different careers. We note with interest Lady Albemarle's suggestion that there should be research into the way in which the youth employment officers spend their time so as to spare them from the more routine jobs and free them for the counselling and liaison between industry and schools of further education for which they should be trained.
We are very glad that the Minister agrees that there would be virtue in a consumer viewpoint on the publications; and we should like to know his view—perhaps the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, will answer some of the questions that I shall be asking—on Lady Albemarle's suggestion that there should be a number of pilot schemes into the best way to carry out this necessary process of follow-up when the young people take their jobs. We should like to know also—and this is appropriate for the Department of Education—what is the Government's view of the recommendation that there should be a central information service for higher education, as recommended also in Lord Robbins' Report.
All these things I have mentioned are recommended by the Working Party, but I should like to make two or three suggestions on which Lady Albemarle does not touch. The first is that perhaps there is a lot for us to learn from other countries. I saw an article in "New Society", by Professor Lady Williams, pointing out that the French, because of their war experience, had an enormous job of training to do, and perhaps we can learn something from their procedures.
The second suggestion I want to make comes from industrial practice. Industry is now straining to define more precisely performance standards for managers, so that just as a man on a machine has his or its output measured, a manager's relative success or failure can be measured in a way that the manager himself agrees is fair. I wonder whether, after reading the tapestry of detailed proposals in the Report, what is needed is, not a sort of discipline that sees exactly what each youth employment officer does, but some
90
sort of job performance standard which youth employment officers themselves can recognise as fair and by which, on a sampling technique, effective performance can be judged. It may be that this is not practicable, but I put it forward as something that industry is seeking very hard to find.
The Minister was informative in what he said, but he flinched from giving us his own view on the point of raising the age which is, of course, central to the scope of the service. He asked for opinions elsewhere in the House. We on this side of the House are convinced that the age limit should be raised, and that it should be raised before 1970 if possible. There is a large sector of those needing help in further education and who, because of the increasing tendency to stay longer at school, let alone because of the increased statutory minimum age, are in need of the service and are out of reach of it. We therefore hope that the Minister, after his consultations with the local authorities, will bring forward legislation on that subject at least.
Still on the question of the effectiveness of the service and the methods for improving it, I am a little nervous to see that the Report suggests that the inspectorate should turn much of its attention from inspection to what the Report calls pastoral duties. I should have thought this a field, above all, where inspection is valuable. After all, what is being judged is the effective liaison between different bodies—industry, schools, further education and parents. This is a field where inspectors, by judging the knowledge that the youth employment officer has of all the separate sectors, can set a standard and improve a standard—set a standard by seeing that good practice is adhered to and improve a standard by imparting to others the improvements he learns when going round from the pioneers.
These are all suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the service. Now I come to the state of the service itself. Everyone can agree that the youth employment officer has a very heavy job to do even with the dip in the school leaving population we have at the moment and the net increase in the number of youth employment officers. I very much agree with Lady Albemarle's Committee that there is scope for more

91
research into the right size of case-load. We talk about 500 in the average caseload, but we must remember that that 500 includes half the grammar school population who do not in fact patronise the service, so it is probably a little less than 500 on average.
Youth employment officers have an immense amount to do. They have to steep themselves in local industry, really understanding what the jobs involve. They have to be familiar with the management of the firms, familiar with the schools—and there may be many in their areas. They have to be familiar with further education in all its complexity and have to find time for parents. If what we want goes through and counselling is a continuing process and not one lecture one interview, they will be handling not only the 500 who leave school in one year, but the 500 from the previous year and 500 from the pre-penultimate year, whose interests they will be trying to arouse. Not only have they the fit and healthy, but the infinitely time-consuming and infinitely worth-while job of advising the handicapped.
It is not easy at all to judge what the establishment should be. I hope that the Minister will take up Lady Albemarle's suggestion that there should be research into this. There is, clearly, need for more youth employment officers. I am glad that the Minister spoke of strengthening the supporting staff, but he did not exactly commit himself to any of the proposals in the Report for making this practicable. I hope that the Minister will tell us clearly what the Government view is on the career structure, the nationally agreed salary scales for posts of comparable responsibility—that will involve negotiations through the negotiating machinery—the salary differential for full-time training, the need to try to attract married women after their household duties become lighter, and the need to employ sub-professional staff as youth employment assistants.
The Minister did not mention the car-user's allowance to which reference is made in the Report. Although we do not expect a detailed answer for all of them, we should like to know something about the attitude of the Government to these crucial questions. I hope that the Government will realise, as I am sure they do, that as a result of the Industrial Training
92
Act industry is itself engaging many employment officers and the competition for staff will grow more. I am sure this is something to do with the wastage of trained staff to which my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr referred in an intervention.
I turn to the state of the schools. The House will note that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), who speaks for us on the Opposition Front Bench on education, is here to follow the debate. As the Minister said, this is a partnership between the schools and the Youth Employment Service. We know that under the influence of Newsom the schools are trying to make the last year in school an outward-looking year. We agree with the Minister entirely that counselling must be a continuous process of planned operation to overcome the indifference and ignorance which is only too common. We realise that this is yet another burden on the Youth Employment Service who have to help careers masters, at least at the beginning, in setting up their careers programmes and in such things as careers conferences.
There are two or three questions to which I hope the Minister of State will address himself if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. First, according to the Report, some schools deal only with young people who ask for help. It is commonly agreed that often those who most need help do not ask for it. Can we hope that the Department will try to overcome this over-narrowness of the Service? We note from the Report that the treatment of youth employment officers varies sharply. The treatment of Members of Parliament varies sharply, too! In so far as this means that some schools are not giving proper seriousness to the subject, we hope that Her Majesty's inspectors of schools will keep their eyes open for any lack of seriousness in treatment of the Service.
The Report refers to doubts which the Working Party had on whether careers teachers have the time, training and facilities they need. We cannot expect perfection at once, but we want to know that in the complete reappraisal of the curriculum which is going on in preparation for the higher school leaving age this vocational guidance will be given a most serious part in the curricula. It is also important that the Youth Employment

93
Service should be equipped both to give advice to school leavers about further education and to give advice to those in further education when they need advice. At the moment, this is largely left to private enterprise—I am exaggerating but it is substantially left to private enterprise. This is fine, but there should be an attempt by the service to serve this section, also.
London, under the L.C.C. I think, had a splendid advisory service. I regret that the Youth Employment Service did not make use of it and spread the material over the whole country. I am glad that the Minister agrees that there should be specialists in further education in the service and is urging the smaller local education authorities to join for this purpose. I press the Government to come to a prompt decision about the age limit on the Youth Employment Service because it cannot properly serve those in further education unless the 18 years limit is raised.
I wish to say a few words about industry where, of course, the Industrial Training Act will help the service by bringing in many more training officers who will define much more closely than many firms have so far defined the type of boy or girl they need. This will make the whole process of vocational guidance much more articulated. The youth employment officer should enter upon a series of systematic visits to employers in the neighbourhood areas to get a grip of what the jobs are. The Minister did not refer to Lady Albemarle's suggestion that youth employment officers should be guided as to the way in which they should make these visits and the method of classifying the information which might be useful. This guidance might be very helpful.
I turn now to the main theme of the Report, which is professionalism. The Minister has helped us a lot by his announcement this afternoon of extended training facilities. We welcome those. There still remain a number of anomalies. For instance, the Minister of Labour's staff are considered to be adequately trained with only three months' training, whereas L.E.A. staff are expected to have a year's training. We recognise that there are certain obvious causes here. The Ministry of Labour selects and does not
94
recruit. It selects from people with some employment experience. But there still seems to be a very wide gap.
We welcome the Minister's acceptance in general of Lady Albemarle's proposals that there should be specialists in further education and specialists in the handicapped, and that there should be a knowledge of the social services. Though we also welcome the Minister's proposal to retain in the service a second tier of his own departmental officers, as suggested by the Report, we would like to be reassured that this will provide some sort of added use of those officers who show a particular flair during their normal four or five year tour of duty in the Youth Employment Service. We welcome the general approach to the need for specialist training and increased training for the officers concerned.
As for parents, we recognise that some are indifferent, that some are over-keen and ambitious, and that there is often all too little talk at home before a child faces theses decisions. Therefore, we welcome the Minister's proposal to ask the C.Y.E.E. to pursue ways of involving parents more than they are now. We recognise also that the more parents are involved the more evening work there will be on the case load of the youth employment officer, but we are sure that in many cases this will be well worth while.
Turning to the young people themselves, I have taken a good bit from a book by a Mr. Carter called. "Home, School and Job", which, on the basis of certain surveys, warns us that a large number of children are scarcely aware of the choices before them or of the importance of the choice and that a minority of them do not have any conception of long-term satisfaction and do not look for any interest in their jobs. We must recognise that there are large numbers of jobs which are not very interesting but that this number will tend to decrease and that the school curriculum will no doubt be trying to stir the indifferent into interest. I suggest that there would be some value in research into how teachers could best awaken this interest. Perhaps the new university departments will help us all on this.
I return to the rôle of the inspector in watching the performance of different schools and how they handle the lectures,

95
the careers programmes and the interviews. It would be a great shame if the helpful eyes of inspectors were withdrawn from this whole service. I want to make one particular reference to one local authority, though I am sure that what I am about to say is equally true of all. I have been sent the Annual Report of the Youth Employment Service for Hertfordshire. I was impressed by the variety of the handicapped and their needs. There are listed here no fewer than 130 different handicapped children leaving school in that one year in that county in 50 or 60 different forms of disability.
It must be an enormously satisfying, though extremely difficult, service that the youth employment officer, in cooperation with specialists, and by case conference and with the social services, gives to the handicapped. I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the proposal in the Report and his own decision this afternoon that there should be training for specialist officers to help them further in this service.
There is an even harder job that the Youth Employment Service has than the handicapped, and that is the unsettled. Here, I would ask the Minister of State whether the Government will follow up Lady Albemarle's suggestion that there should be pilot schemes for referral of those people who need intensive help and counselling—the unsettled. Most of us remember the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) in the last debate to the young boy who had had 17 different jobs in a matter of months. This imposes a big responsibility on the Youth Employment Service. It will need guidance.
I come now to perhaps the hardest of all the problems. That is the job of following up the school-leaver through his first jobs until he reaches the age of 18. We all recognise that this is important, not least to provide feed-back to the youth employment officer himself. Some people think—I have read Dr. Herford's book on this—that the appointed factory doctor has a part to play in this. My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr referred to this in the last debate. The Minister himself announced in the last debate that the appointed factory doctor's
96
position was under review. We would like the Minister to consider, before making this impossible, whether the appointed factory doctor system would not be of considerable help, if it were kept as now, allied to the whole process of follow-up. I do not say this with authority. I say it simply with a request that the Minister should examine this possibility.
Finally, I come to the question of structure. Lady Albermarle shies from the decision or judgment as to whether this service should be primarily under the Ministry of Labour or the Department of Education and Science. I must say that I sympathise with her. Before legislation is embarked upon, the Government should consider whether they should embark on a wider vocational guidance programme, involving adults as well, than we have at the moment. If we are to have a larger system of vocational guidance, this will colour the decision that is made about where the main authority lies.
It may very well be that partnership is the right answer. I do not think that we can decide it for the Youth Employment Service without looking at the larger question. Whether, for the Youth Employment Service, there should be an option for those L.E.A.s which did not use it in 1948 or no option or no change should be decided within the larger framework. We on this side believe that legislation should come soon, at least to raise the age limit. We hope that the Minister will be able to make training compulsory, as recommended by Lady Albemarle's Working Party.
As for the larger issue, we shall not for a moment quarrel with the Minister about names. Lady Albemarle herself has some slightly rude things to say about the name adopted by us of Careers Advisory Service. What matters is the idea. I doubt if here there is much difference between the parties. We hope that the Government will adopt the proposal that comes from us, but which has friends on all sides, that there should be a larger vocational guidance service and we are determined, with the Government, that, either on its own or within the larger service, the Youth Employment Service should be a splendid service for those it seeks to look after.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. Peter Shore: As a result of reading the Albemarle Report and listening to the two Front Bench speeches we have heard, everyone would reach at least two broad conclusions. First, we are debating a very important service. Secondly, we are debating a service—the Youth Employment Service—which has a long way to go before it develops its full potential.
I need not devote more than a few sentences to the first point. Obviously, this is an important service, because it affects the great majority of boys and girls, and it affects them at an extremely important moment in their lives. They come into touch with the service when they reach the crossroads in their development, when they are about to say goodbye to their life in school and enter the very different life at work. Therefore, the range of facilities open to them at this time and the quality of this service are obviously of very great importance to them and to their parents.
I think that there will be general agreement on the second point that the service has a long way to go before it achieves its full potential. This is obvious from reading the Report. It is a very polite Report. Nevertheless, it says some critical things. From reading the Report and previous articles and reports written about the Service, it is all too clear that there have been, and still are, three main deficiencies.
One which has been fairly well discussed by my right hon. Friend is the lack of really first-rate training, and facilities for training, available to the officers in the Service; and, additionally, until very recently, inadequate numbers. I think that the figure in 1956 was 900 youth employment officers and today it has reached something like 1,500. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) pointed out, one cannot get the dimensions of the work load that falls on individual employment officers by simply dividing the number of school-leavers by the number of officers. One has to consider their continuing work over a number of years with the number of school-leavers who pass through their hands. I recall, however, that numbers and training have been debated and bandied about since 1951. There was the
98
Percy Report, in 1951, which made all the splendid points which we heard earlier today, but not very much has happened since.
The second obvious deficiency in the service is that until recently there has been no manpower planning or thinking about manpower planning in this country at all. I often wonder what youth employment officers used to do when asked for advice by young people about the prospects of employment or about the future of a particular industry. What did they say? I suppose that they said, "The industry is here now and we hope that it will continue to be there in the years ahead", but they certainly had no one whom they could consult, no one to whom they could turn, because in those days planning, whether manpower planning or any other kind of planning, was a very unfashionable concept. But owing to the "bright young things", the radicals, who took over the party opposite in the last two years of their period in office, some of these things were put right and the Manpower Research Unit was established, as it should have been many years before.
A third deficiency in the Youth Employment Service which has not been remedied at all, and which is a deficiency or failure which goes beyond the field of youth employment, is that there is very little study of work going on in this country anywhere. It is rather difficult for intelligent advice to be given to individuals, taking account of their particular aptitudes, if one has little knowledge about the effects of work on particular kinds of people. We are terribly lacking in any serious study of work and the effects of work in this country. It is hardly touched upon even in this most recent Report.
Those are the deficiencies which underlie a great deal of the Youth Employment Service today and provide the framework within which one should look at the proposals now put forward. I shall not go over them all in detail—they are far too many—but I should like to take up my right hon. Friend's invitation to put forward some suggestions and put half-a-dozen points to him. I shall make four suggestions which have arisen in the Inner London Education Authority, of which I am a member, and

99
have been discussed in the sub-committee there which was appointed to consider the state of the Youth Employment Service and which was involved in submitting evidence to Lady Albemarle.
First is the question of the upper age-limit. Should it be 18, as it is today, or 21? I am a little disappointed that Lady Albemarle's Working Party, which discussed this question, did not come to a conclusion. I think that it should have come to a conclusion and that that conclusion is fairly obvious. The limit should be 21, because otherwise it will be too narrow a band with which the Service will be dealing, particularly when the school-leaving age goes up, to make an effective Service. The need for this kind of career counselling exists way beyond 18. It is an artificial restriction to impose that age ceiling. I therefore press upon my right hon. Friend that he should accept this suggestion.
The second suggestion is that schools should be required to send reports on all their pupils to the Youth Employment Service. I understand that the present situation is defined in one of the regulations under the 1949 Act and only requires such information to be sent to the Youth Employment Service in respect of young people who are actually leaving school at the statutory school-leaving age. This explains the very low figures for grammar school students in their use of the Youth Employment Service. It means that the older the pupils are the less the number who get through to the service and the less use is made of its facilities. Therefore, I think that there is a case there for making sure that this obligation under the regulations is extended to all school-leavers and should not be confined to those leaving at the statutory school-leaving age.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Would the hon. Gentleman explain that point a little more? It is important. Is he saying that all schools should be required by law to send a report on the future capacities of all children who go through those schools, irrespective of whether they or their parents wish that report to be made?
Mr. Shore: As I understand it, the present regulation requires all local authorities to make a certain report. This
100
is not a very elaborate one and it is discussed in the Lady Albemarle document. They are required to report to the Youth Employment Service on all young people, whether those young people like it or not, who are leaving the school at the statutory school-leaving age. Therefore, all that I seek to do here is simply to extend the regulation to a slightly higher age bracket. There is nothing sinister in this. It means that the service will have an opportunity of counselling them if they wish to be counselled. There is no requirement on them to accept this, but it means that they will be brought into touch with the Service.
In making my third suggestion it surprises me that it is not the case already. There appears to be no obligation on employers to inform the Youth Employment Service if they have vacancies for young people. I find this extremely odd. I see no reason at all why this notice should not be given to the Service. It must be extremely restricting for it not to be able to know what jobs are available in an area except when it happens to hear about them or when employers voluntarily report those jobs. It would be a great help if employers were required to inform the service of jobs they have for young people.
I am also in favour of the point put by the T.U.C. on a number of occasions, that employers should be asked to give even more information than that and that once they have young people working for them they should be required to give such extra information as, for example, particulars of training facilities and reasons for dismissal when young people are dismissed from their employment. I am sure that this would help.
My fourth suggestion relates to the future of the Service. As we know, 80 per cent. of the Service is run by local education authorities and only 20 per cent. by the Ministry of Labour. I am not in favour of great upheavals—although I think that these are fairly minor matters—but, on the whole, there is a case for letting the local education authorities which had not previously exercised their right to have a chance to do so and to operate their own service. I cannot see that this would cause any great difficulty to anyone.
So much for those points. I think that all of them will be found in the evidence

101
submitted by the I.L.E.A. to the Albemarle Committee, but they are worth repeating because they have a good deal of substance.
Now, two further suggestions which are entirely my own. The first is very small, have never understood why we have to wait three years to get a report from the Youth Employment Council. This is an important body. We are interested in the statistics about employment and so on which appear in the appendices to their Reports, and we are interested also to know what the Council's appraisal is of the youth employment situation. Why should we have to wait three years to obtain reasonably adequate statistics about how young people are being placed in work and to what extent the service is being used by them? This should be put right, and an annual report would do it.
My last suggestion relates to research. I have mentioned already that, in the past, we lacked manpower research units nationally and that this has been a great deficiency. In my view, the Albemarle Report did not go quite far enough. As I recall it, Lady Albemarle's Working Party contented itself with recommending that the Central Executive should, as it were, sponsor and encourage more research. This is not really good enough. I should like to see set up a small, youth employment research unit. To some extent, it would, of course, be a junior partner of the Manpower Research Unit which now exists, but there is quite enough to do in this whole subject, and the setting up of a small research unit such as I suggest would certainly be justified. It would keep in touch with the senior Manpower Research Unit in order to know what the general manpower picture was likely to be nationally. It would also make a point of keeping in touch with the D.E.A. on regional employment statistics, a particularly important aspect of the problem, and in addition, it could well be given the particular job of collating information and studying the effects of work on young people.
6.23 p.m.
Dame Joan Vickers: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate. I took part in the previous debate on
102
5th February, 1965, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies). My hon. Friend asked, on that occasion,
"Has the Youth Employment Service become the Cinderella of the social services?"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1965; Vol. 705; c. 1399.]
The fact that we have had two debates in such a short time and a further Report serves only to prove the interest which we take in the subject.
In that same debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber)—his words are reported in col. 1439 of HANsARD—promised that we should have evidence of keenness and enthusiasm in any report brought forward by Lady Albemarle, and we see today that he was, of course, absolutely right. I pay my tribute to her keenness and enthusiasm, although I regret in some ways that she has not come out more firmly with some more definite proposals. In the circumstances, I intend to stick my neck out a little today and make one or two suggestions of my own.
I was very interested to hear what was said by the Minister of Labour about employment and dead-end jobs. In the light of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) on this subject and the mechanisation is increasing, I feel that far more attention should be given to the mentally handicapped. We do quite a lot for the physically handicapped, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, but it is the mentally handicapped who could be helped to become useful citizens.
In Plymouth, now we have a definite example of what can be done in our mentally handicapped centre. It has been going for only a comparatively short time, but already 11 young people who have never worked in their lives before are now doing a job in outside industry. What we call dead-end jobs ought to be related to what we have in mind for people of this kind, they could well be encouraged to take up such work, and perhaps graduate as have done those at the previously-mentioned centre.
What happens now—the Minister spoke of the difficulties in certain areas such as Cornwall particularly—is that, to get a job of any kind, many really intelligent people are going into dead-end jobs rather than be mobile. This raises one

103
of the disappointing features of the Report, in that nothing is said about encouraging mobility among young people. In my view, we should have what I think of as a "roving" senior youth employment officer who could go round telling youth employment officers of jobs in other areas. It has to be recognised that some people, if they want to make a really adequate start in life, will have to be mobile and not just go into dead-end jobs which would keep them on a very much lower standard than they could have if they were prepared to be mobile. I, therefore, would recommend also the establishment of a central register to which youth employment officers could apply for jobs in other areas.
Next, I should like to see the whole of this Service put under the Ministry of Labour. I do not wish to stop cooperation with the schools, and I am very keen also on further co-operation with the appointed factory doctors and with careers officers in the schools, but it seems to me that, when young people are leaving school, they want to feel that they are getting away from school, they want to think of themselves as becoming grownup and be made to feel rather important. Moreover, when young people get a little older—I hope that the suggestion for raising the age to 21 will be taken up—they will go automatically to the Ministry of Labour employment exchange.
In my view, it would be the best idea to improve facilities at the employment exchanges, having, if one likes, the delightful room spoken of by the Minister in the same building. One would then get continuity, with the young person going there at the beginning of his career and then later continuing to go there when he may need a more adult job. In this way, we should also, perhaps, get away from the fear of many young people of the "labour exchange" itself. The follow-up would be very much easier if it were all done through the employment exchange. For these reasons, I myself would come down on the side of gradually turning the service over to the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour.
This would be a very good moment to begin taking action. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right to stress the
104
excellent work done by the youth employment officers, but, of course, the youth employment officer does not have very much difficulty now in finding jobs for young people. The situation is rather the other way round, with more jobs than there are young people to fill them.
In paragraph 23 of its Report, "The Future development of the Youth Employment Service", the Working Party of the National Youth Employment Council said that it was convinced that
"in the interests of the young person and the employer alike this should generally be regarded as a function which is proper to the Service rather than the school".
This seems to support my idea of having it attached to and coming under the Ministry of Labour itself.
I said in my speech on 5th February last that this is probably the most important service which can be given to individuals, in giving them a happy life. As the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, the first job is the most important. If a young person does not get into the right job the first time, he or she can very often be frustrated, and this can contribute to delinquency. I was most interested to note in the Report that reference is made to contacts with borstals, approved schools and detention centres, but, regrettably, not remand homes.
This is a serious omission. I know that young people are, very often, in remand homes for only three weeks, but I am sure that, if the court knew that they had a good job to go to, it might well not be thought necessary to send them on to approved school or borstal. It would appear important, therefore, that contact be made with remand homes.
No reference has been made to joint appointments, or to places in teacher training colleges for careers courses. I hope that this will not be thought inconsistent with what I have just said about the Service coming under the Ministry of Labour. We will have careers teachers in schools even if the Service does come under the Ministry of Labour entirely, and, in my view, there could well be courses in the training colleges. It seems that the Report does not favour interchange, but I gather that it would be possible to train an officer in about a month. I should have thought that if

105
we were short this could be done during the course of a teacher's training.
Paragraph 23 of the Report says that where a school establishes contacts with employers, this will limit the choice of pupils and the selection by employers of candidates. I should not have thought that to be true. I should have thought that it followed up the remarks made by my right hon. Friend about grammar schools in that the headmaster would know his pupils extremely well and he generally has been in the area longer than the youth employment officer and be able to get the pupils very adequate jobs.
In many cases it can be done without the help of the youth employment officer. I recognise that this very often leaves the youth employment officer with a very difficult problem because he gets the young people who are less easy to place. Therefore, there should be as much cooperation as possible between the school authorities and the youth employment officers so that both know exactly what the other is doing.
The Minister mentioned apprentices and said that there were more than ever in training this year. Paragraph 27 says that in the recruiting of apprentices employers are likely to attach greater importance to the standard of education than to the possession of vocational skills. If this is true, which I doubt, it is a great pity. Not everyone can pass examinations or get passes at "O" or "A" levels, but they can be very adequate apprentices and do excellent work. We are probably losing many young people through relying too much on examinations and not enough on natural skills, so in my view it was a great pity to put this in the Report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies), in col. 1302 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of our debate on 5th February, referred to the Dale Committee of 1951, which inquired into the Industrial Health Service and drew attention to the need for special training for the appointed factory doctor. I gather from what my right. hon. Friend said to the Minister that the future of that the training of the appointed factory doctor is still under consideration, but I should have thought that he would have a special relationship with the youth employment officer. Read-
106
ing reports, one finds that so much time is wasted through ill-health. Often the first person to realise that a young person is not fitted for his job is the factory doctor. He knows when the child is over-fatigued and has to keep on having days off, and I should have thought that he should be brought far more into co-operation with the youth employment officer. I gather in this regard that unique work has been done at Slough by Dr. Herford.
I am sorry that nothing has been said in the Report about more co-operation with the appointed factory doctor and also with the medical officers of the schools. I should have thought that the school medical officer should definitely be in contact with the youth employment officer so that they could be helped to appreciate the type of work—after all, physical fitness means a great deal—for which the young person is most fitted.
I am glad to see from the Albert Thomas Report, referred to in paragraph 95, that a course of training is to be established for youth employment officers wishing to specialise in the need for handicapped leavers. As, fortunately, the very physically and mentally handicapped are few and far between compared with the numbers being employed, it would be asking a great deal to suggest that all the officers concerned should be trained in this way, but I should have thought that we could have had a specialist category who could be called into an area by local authorities when children were leaving school in order to deal with these young people specifically. There might not be the right kind of job for the mentally or physically handicapped in the area, and such an officer would know where better facilities could be found. I do not think it is practical to expect all the youth employment officers to be fully trained in this respect.
I want to say one or two words about the employment of young girls. There is not sufficient realisation—if there is, it is not expressed in the Report—of the changing pattern of the life of young women. I say this because they marry so much earlier, they also have far better standards of education than ever before. Far too many of them are put into dead-end jobs. The youth

107
employment officer should encourage employers to take on girls even if it involves training. I was astonished to find from the 1961 figures that there were only 83 girls then in employment as, for example, chartered accountants.
I should have thought that this was a very valuable job for women to do because they could take work home at times when they did not wish to go to the office, for example, during pregnancy. But a great many employers will not take on girls for work which involves long training because of fear of losing them within a comparatively short time. If more girls were taken on in more worth-while jobs perhaps they would not marry so young because they would feel more independent, and when they had had their families they would probably be willing to go back to the job for which they had been trained again. The Central Office of Information reported that, on making inquiries, 60 per cent. of girls said they wanted to go back to work after they were married, so I believe that we are losing a great many of these young women by not fitting them into interesting jobs.
I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Stepney about the difficulty arising from not knowing where these jobs are. This must be a very frustrating thing for a youth employment officer. We tried an experiment in Plymouth of getting employers to put on an exhibition of the work in their factories. This was done specially because a factory making womens dresses was short of young women, and we wanted to encourage young men to take employment there because there were a number of unemployed young men locally. This was considered a useful experiment, and I am glad to say that young men took up the employment. There was a little teasing at the beginning, but I pointed out that Hartnell and others who make "posh dresses" are men. Young men did go into the factory, and now some of them have good careers.
I should have thought that television could have been used more. Surely a programme could be put on showing careers more frequently; I have not seen many good ones recently. A programme indicating the sort of careers that one could take would be much more useful
108
than a programme showing how one could shoot one's neighbour or blow open a safe, which we see all too often at present.
The Jubilee Trust Report of 1955, dealing with the industrial welfare society, reinforces my point about co-operation between medical staffs and youth employment officers. I think that is one of the most important things to be looked into in the future. I should like a questionnaire to go to school leavers rather earlier than at the moment; they change their minds so often about what they want to take up. It would be interesting to discover what they are thinking and get some idea of the type of job they are looking for when they leave.
There seem to be serious shortcomings in getting jobs for those in some secondary schools because their curriculum appears to be rather limited. I read a report about the Westgate County School, where counselling is engaged in. This was particularly interesting. It gave the reasons why young people were not satisfied with the first jobs they took up. I should like to see employers obliged to report to the youth employment officer when a young person changes his job. We have been told by my right hon. Friend of one young man who had 12 jobs in 39 months. I do not think that anyone in authority knew of the changes. This is most unsatisfactory.
Paragraph 21 of the Report says:
"While broad fields of responsibility can be distinguished we recognise that in practice the respective functions of the careers masters and the Y.E.O. are bound to overlap."
I do not think that that is needed. Surely we can have co-operation. I should have thought that this was a major point where there should be co-operation. At the bottom of that page the words of the Headmasters' Association are reported:
"This entirely depends on personalities; with tact and a realisation that no one person or service can ever be complete, a valuable partnership can be developed."
I should like to see a valuable partnership being developed in future, and under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour.
I recall the point made by Sir Alfred Owen, that 50 per cent. of our youth think not in terms of having a career but only in terms of getting a job. This is a difficult matter to get over not only for young persons, but also for parents.

109
Even today parents are very keen that their children should get a job and earn good money, and perhaps they do not look for the best job for the child. There may also be a little fear that the child—this happens in some cases—may earn more money than his father. We have girls earning, for instance, as typists, more than their fathers get as unskilled workers in the dockyard, and this may make for family difficulties. This is where the youth employment officer can help.
Then there is the question of rural employment, which is becoming more mechanised. Surely some form of cooperation with the N.F.U. could have been mentioned in the Report. Whatever happens, we need to keep a certain percentage of young people on the land and we have to make it seem to be the important job that it is, but no mention in the Report was made of workers in rural areas. I hope that the Minister will look into this and see whether special training cannot be given in courses for youth employment officers so that they may know the problems of rural areas.
There is to be an extra year at school, but I am not certain that all individuals will be able fully to benefit from the extra scholastic study. Would it not be possible for them while still at school to make more visits to factories, perhaps even to get some small jobs sent into the school for them to do so that they could get the idea of work while still at school? I hope that the Minister will consider this point, because I am a little worried about some of the young people who are not very scholastically inclined and may find the last year wearisome and boring.
Perhaps we could arrange to fill in the final year at school by the provision of some occupational work of a type done in factories. Some handicapped people have work sent in to them and there is no reason why work could not be sent to schools to let young people know what happens in industry. I welcome the Report and this debate and I hope that some of my suggestions may be considered.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong: This debate is about a very fine Report. But I must admit that my first reaction on reading the Report was one of frustration. So many excellent reports about young people have been
110
issued in the last 10 or 15 years. They have all been very exciting. They have all tempted us to feel that we are doing such a great deal of good work among young people. But then one realises the tremendous difficulties facing the nation.
In this case, I was frustrated when I thought about how much we should be doing, even about the minimum, if we are to help our youngsters to adjust themselves to this modern, complex society. I am glad that I have not to make the decisions on what are the highest priorities. Above all, the Youth Employment Service suffers from a lack of resources. First, it needs a great deal more money. Secondly, it needs much more manpower to do its very difficult and vital job. On balance, I believe that the Department of Education and Science should be responsible for the Y.E.S. It may well be that, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said, a partnership is the most efficient way at the moment, but, nevertheless, I feel that, in the end, this is a job for the Department of Education and Science.
I am becoming rather concerned about the number of those who talk about schools going to industry, about youngsters visiting factories, and so forth. That talk goes on every day. I think that there is as great a need for people in industry to realise what is going on in the schools. Too many people think of school as it was when they attended and do not realise the tremendous changes that have taken place in secondary education. While I am all for pupils and teachers seeing what is going on in industry, I wish that industry could have a clearer idea of what is going on in the schools.
The area I know best has suffered somewhat because, where there has been an excessive number of school leavers unable to find jobs, we have looked to the Y.E.S. and, therefore, the Service has been seen by ill-informed outsiders, if I may call them that, as a new device to help youngsters who would not otherwise have found a job. In all too many instances, the Service has been regarded as one which brought a youngster in touch with a job, almost any job, thereby fulfilling its purpose. We know, however, that we are getting out of that kind of situation. I envisage the time when there will be much more choice all over

111
the country for youngsters taking up careers. There are, however, three things which should be central to our organisation of youth employment.
We need to know, first, far more about the school leavers, about the youngsters themselves. We should know more about their background and their potential. I was interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about research into aptitudes tests, and so on. In the United States a great deal has been done on this subject and here there is certainly room for a great deal of research. We want to know far more about the school leavers, both boys and girls.
Secondly, we need to do far more about informing youngsters and parents of the opportunities for further education. I am often horrified by the fact that so many youngsters have no idea of what is going on in further education colleges in their areas. Indeed, one finds a similar lack of knowledge among those who should know —people in the schools, and so on.
Thirdly, there must be closer liaison with prospective employers. Perhaps I shall say something that will tread on some toes, but I much regret the trend in the past few years—which has been welcomed by some of my colleagues in the profession—of extending the examination system to more and more youngsters. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) that we have laid far too much stress on the production of pieces of paper indicating so many O-levels, or whatever else may be required. We now have even department stores demanding two and three O-levels for their assistants.
As a headmaster, I can tell the House that if an employer came to me I could point out to him the youngsters likely to be good employees in his concern. I could show him those likely to make good in his industry. I think that we have gone a bit far in imposing examinations on youngsters and in being so anxious to produce pieces of paper which will be passports to particular careers.
I concede and, indeed, assert that young people in school need expert guidance from people outside who are in close touch with industry and who have an intimate knowledge of the requirements of a particular job and the changes likely
112
to take place. In the United States, it is taken for granted that the up and coming generation will change jobs on average every ten years. No doubt there will be much more mobility here than before. Young people therefore need guidance from some person with outside experience. But such persons must be part of the educational system dealing with the youngsters in the schools.
I am not introducing this view to score points, but in my experience the development of the larger school—the comprehensive school—will help with the development of the Y.E.S. Where there is a school with a ten-form entry, normally there will be about 300 school leavers in a year. Such a figure enables a full-time career adviser or master to be appointed who will be in close touch with the local authorities and the youth employment officer, basing his work on detailed knowledge of the youngsters and of their potential.
Dr. Wyndham Davies: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned research work in the United States in relation to career placement. Does he also know that work done in the United States shows how unsatisfactory a careers master in a large school can be in comparison with the system of having the job done by someone outside who knows something about the jobs in the area rather than about the children in the schools?
Mr. Armstrong: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I suggest that it all depends on the training and responsibility given to the careers master. I am not saying that he should be a teacher in the school, but that he should be employed full-time on his job. Such a system would mean that he would be in constant touch with those requiring advice and would be doing an effective job.
The Report reminds us of the vital decisions taken in the life of a youngster at the age of 13. It is rather terrifying to meet so many youngsters, some of them above average intelligence, who, at 13, have taken a decision, probably on limited advice, on which they look back with some regret. Here again, children could have the benefit of the advice of professional people so as to ensure as far as possible that right decisions are taken at 13 plus.

113
Another advantage of the large school in this context is the careers convention, to which outside employers are invited so that youngsters, teachers and parents can investigate what is required. They can thereby make a wiser choice.
For the Newsom child, the vocational approach is tremendously important. We must not try, when a child is 13 or 14, to decide a particular job and lay on a course in the school which will channel a child into a narrow occupation but it is possible—and is being done successfully in many schools—to lay on the sort of courses which will cover a number of occupations. In this context, I was interested in what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport has to say about the extra year at school perhaps not being profitable to all our youngsters.
In a large school, the offer ought to be made to youngsters at the age of 13 or 14, "This is the sort of course that, on all the evidence we have, we think that you ought to take to prepare you for some kind of occupation in this range." They would not be told that they are to stay at school for another year. They would be told that it was a two-year course which they would begin in their third year in the secondary school.
In the north of England, unfortunately, we have rather a bad reputation for children not staying on after the statutory leaving age. From my own experience, I can state that there are many reasons for it. It is not because our children are different from those in the South. Obviously, there are other factors. At the school which I know, for the last two years they have had a careers convention, which involves a great deal of work, and each child in the third year at that school has been invited to undertake a two-year course. The percentage of those who have accepted and stayed on after the statutory leaving age is well above the national average. Certainly, we had never anticipated that that could be achieved in the north of England, but it is being done now.
That brings me to the other point, and that is how the Youth Employment Service can have such an influence on the education service, once the child and the parents begin to realise that what is going
114
on in school is relevant to what the child wants to do when he or she leaves school. It changes the whole attitude of the home and the child to school, and the interest not only in the narrower field of engineering or whatever it is the child is doing but over the school curriculum as a whole changes remarkably. Once children recognise that what they do at school is relevant to what they are going to do in adult life, the great changes have to be seen to be believed.
I am concerned about the status of the service. If we are to have outsiders —by that I mean those who are not actually within the school—visiting schools on equal terms, they have to have parity not only in salary and conditions of work. In my view, most of them ought to be graduates. If they really are to do this job with the grammar school type of child, they have to meet the people in school on equal terms and, as a result, status is very important for the future of the Youth Employment Service.
I do not like the dual system. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), I think that we should make a gesture, and make it fairly soon. Mention has been made of the 20 per cent. who are working for the Ministry of Labour, and one of the difficulties is that a number of them have been so good in the job that they have been promoted and have had to leave the Service. It cannot be a good thing that as soon as a man becomes any good in the Service he is upgraded and leaves it.
The adjustment of youngsters into a very complicated adult life is a tremendous problem which confronts those in school every day. They recognise all the difficulties, and I would pay tribute to what the Service has already accomplished. Those in the Service are certainly dedicated and, when we look at their conditions of service, it is clear that some of them have stayed because they regard what they are doing as being well worth while.
As a result of the Report, I hope that we may feel that the Service ought to have rather higher priority than it has had in the past, because I am certain that it can make a vital contribution to the future happiness of our youngsters.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. John Hunt: I am very pleased to have an opportunity of making a brief contribution to the debate. As a former Chairman of the Youth Employment Committee in my constituency of Bromley, naturally I read the Report of the Working Party with great interest. But, having read it, I feel bound to say that I cannot join wholeheartedly in the praise which has been showered upon it in the debate so far. I agree very much with the verdict reached by the Institute of Youth Employment Officers, which found it a generally disappointing and uninspiring document.
I have always felt that the absence of any practising youth employment officers on the National Youth Employment Council was a serious disadvantage to it in its work and, as the Working Party was drawn exclusively from the ranks of the National Council, it meant that that lack of anyone with practical experience in the field was perpetuated in the membership of the Working Party. It may be that that accounts for some of the woolliness of its recommendations.
It has been said, rightly I think, that developments such as the Industrial Training Act, 1964, and the proposed raising of the school-leaving age will have the effect of extending enormously the scope and opportunities of the Youth Employment Service. I am sure that that is so, and I am quite convinced that there now has to be a corresponding advance in the status of the profession.
The Report brings out a very disturbing fact when it tells us that of nearly 1,300 youth employment officers at present in local authority service, 250 have received no training at any time. That is very disturbing. The Report goes on to tell us that the majority of them have merely attended courses for a few weeks. That is really not good enough, and I was delighted to hear the Minister say earlier that the Government firmly intend to step up the quite inadequate training facilities which are available.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), who told us that we had to face up to far greater expenditure in this vital service. We really have to allocate more than the £5 million or so a year which, when one considers the responsibilities of the Service, is a piti-
116
fully small amount. It is an expenditure which has lagged far behind the level of expenditure on education generally over recent years.
Again as the hon. Member for Durham, North-West said, for many years the Youth Employment Service was regarded as almost the last resort by the youngster who failed to find a job anywhere else. Over recent years, happily, there has been some improvement in the image of the Service, but it is still an unhappy fact, which is brought out in the Report, that the job-finding facilities of the Service today are being used by a shrinking proportion of school leavers, mainly the younger and less able ones.
It is estimated in the Report that only 40 per cent. of school leavers in the United Kingdom are at present finding jobs through the Youth Employment Service. As my right hon. Friend mentioned in his speech earlier, far too often the Service tends to be one for the secondary modern rather than for the grammar school leaver, and he brought out figures showing that the proportions of leavers being interviewed in each category are 90 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively.
It seems to me that facts such as these tend to be glossed over in this Report, and in this respect I think it can be accused of some complacency. For example, nowhere in the Report is it mentioned that 1,300 schools in this country now subscribe to the private agency Careers Research and Advisory Committee, to which my right hon. Friend referred, which specialises in finding opportunities for young people in industry, particularly sixth-formers.
In this way the youth employment officers are being by-passed and ignored. This is a reflection on the Youth Employment Service, and also, of course, on the Government's attitude to it, and I hope that the Minister's speech this afternoon heralds a change of heart in this respect, because there is an urgent need to improve the status of the profession, not only in the training and remuneration of the officers, but also in the appearance of the premises in which they are asked to work.
On that point, I am glad that the Minister supported the criticism in the Report of the dingy and badly sited

117
offices in various parts of the country, because as the Minister rightly pointed out, it has a bad psychological effect on youngsters who have grown up in the modern and exciting buildings which, happily, today form part of our schools to have to go to ancient and depressing offices to seek advice for their future careers. An additional point is that old premises of this type make it that much more difficult for youth employment officers to compete successfully with the more brash and brassy private employment agencies.
On the question of pay, I strongly support the plea which the Report makes for a nationally agreed and implemented salary scale. I am sure that this is long overdue, and there is no doubt that the present quite illogical disparities between one area and another are a contributory factor to the high level of turnover within the Service, which is one of the disturbing aspects of it.
Is it not time that the Minister intervened to stop the quite archaic system in Scotlaid—I think that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) knows the point I am going to raise—whereby women youth employment officers are forced to resign immediately they marry? This seems to be a scandalous situation, and I think that it calls for a direct statement by the Government. We have to improve the status of youth employment officers. We have to acknowledge, too, that in future they will form a more integral part of the schools which they serve.
Careers masters have been mentioned in this debate. They have a rôle to play, but, as we all know, the effectiveness of their contribution depends partly on the personal inclination of the headmaster concerned as well as on the individual commitments of the careers master who happens to be appointed. For example, if a sports master is in charge—and this happens from time to time—it is often found that he has not the time, particularly out of school hours, to give advice on careers.
I think that in future youth employment officers will have to become more and more directly involved with the curricula in the schools in their areas, at the same time co-operating very closely with the teaching staff in those schools.
118
As an example of the sort of thing which we ought to encourage, I would quote the initiative of a number of headmasters in Kent who invited the local youth employment officer to be present, in a consultative capacity, at a meeting with the parents of third-year pupils when additional subjects for the fourth and fifth years were being discussed.
That is the sort of thing that we want to encourage, and the same officer also gave a preliminary talk to third-year pupils to assist them in their choice of subjects as they progressed through the school. I am sure that with the raising of the school-leaving age this kind of vocational guidance within the school as a regular part of the school curriculum from the third year onwards will become increasingly vital.
I think that this growing involvement of the Youth Employment Service with the actual working of the schools, and also its involvement in the sphere of further education, highlights what I consider to be the anachronism and irrelevance of its retaining links with the Ministry of Labour. Here I am diametrically opposed to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who, happily, has now left the Chamber. I think that it illustrates one of the difficulties in which any Minister is placed in this respect.
It seems an absurd anomaly that most youth employment officers are employed by local education authorities, and yet are subject to inspection by the Ministry of Labour. This dual system dates hack to the pre-1914 era, and I believe that the time has come for us to go much further than the Report recommends. It is not enough for the small number of local authorities which in 1948 opted to remain with the Ministry of Labour merely to be given a second chance. I think that we should take the far more radical and realistic step of making it mandatory on all local authorities to set up a Youth Employment Service.
It is an absurd situation that employment officers under the Ministry of Labour can be expected to remain in this field of work for only four years. This point was made by the hon. Member for Durham, North-West. It is equally ridiculous that those who show the greatest flair and aptitude for their work find themselves automatically promoted to

119
another sphere of the Department's activity and are then lost to the Youth Employment Service.
I am, therefore, convinced that the entire responsibility for this Service should now be vested in the Department of Education and Science, and if it is wished, as I hope it will be, to retain many of the Ministry of Labour youth employment officers who have done excellent work, we shall have to face up to paying them realistic salaries and presenting them with comparable prospects to attract them into the local authority based Youth Employment Service.
My final point is on the question of the title and upper age limit of the Service. In some ways I think that the two issues are inter-related, because, with the extension of the Service into the spheres of further education, industrial training, and work experience, youth employment officers are tending to deal with more adult and mature youngsters. At the same time, as the Report rightly brings out, it is very important that during this transition period from school to work the young people concerned should be able to expect continuity in the advice which they receive.
As we all know, it is during this period that so much depends on mutual trust and confidence between the two sides, and in these circumstances I agree with the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who urged that the upper age limit of the Youth Employment Service should now be raised to 21. If we decide to do this, it will become imperative to change the name of the Service, because to someone of 21 the word "youth" is automatically associated with his acne-ridden past. Therefore, to that extent, we shall need to think again about a name.
I am sorry that in our debate a year ago the Government spokesman appeared to dismiss this growing pressure for a change of title, and I was not impressed by the Working Party's rather lame objections to the title "Careers Advisory Service", which I think has been suggested from this side of the House, and which to me seems the most appropriate of all the names and titles which have been suggested so far.
Although the recommendations of the Working Party are less dynamic and
120
dramatic than many of us had hoped, it has, nevertheless, produced a useful and workmanlike Report. In spite of my earlier criticisms I wish to place that on record. Not the least of its virtues is the fact that it has given the House the opportunity of a comprehensive and wide-ranging debate on this very important subject, and I am grateful for having had the opportunity of making a small contribution to it.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. Richard Crawshaw: All the excellent points the brief of the Institute of Youth Employment Officers now having been exhausted, I hope that I may be able to make a few observations showing why I am very disappointed in the Working Party's Report. When we think of youth employment we consider those people who are going to benefit most by the services offered. We must face the fact that, generally speaking, a large percentage of our young people, especially those who are academically gifted, will obtain employment off their own bat, and that many others who are not so academically gifted will do likewise. What I am concerned with is the small percentage of people who, because of their mental or physical handicaps, will have a difficult time finding any suitable employment.
I am particularly disappointed in the Report in view of the wonderful report on the youth services prepared by the Albemarle Committee a number of years ago. I was hoping that this Report would contain radical thoughts as to the use to which youth employment officers might be put. Having had the opportunity, over many years, of seeing people appearing before school attendance committees for being absent from school—people with a background of bad homes, who have become backward academically because of their absences; who have been placed in unsuitable employment, and have eventually landed themselves in court, where I have had the opportunity of discussing these matters with them—I am convinced that despite what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Parry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies) said, what is required is a youth employment officer who is also a welfare officer, if possible associated with a certain school.

121
I believe that merely to provide that we shall have a teacher in a certain school who, time permitting, will give some attention to the best employment of his pupils, is to shirk the issue. In nine cases out of ten a teacher who is given that responsibility cannot possibly find the time to do the job properly. However gifted he may be, no youth employment officer, by mere contact with a boy's tutor, on perhaps one or two occasions, and by means of an interview with the boy, can possibly know for what type of employment that boy is best suited.
Miss J. M. Quennell: I am not sure that I have understood the hon. Member's intention. Does he envisage a youth employment officer and a welfare worker, together associated with one school, or is he saying that the youth employment officer should be trained as a welfare worker?
Mr. Crawshaw: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the opportunity to elucidate that point. The youth employment officer should also be a welfare officer. It is necessary for such an officer to know the family background of the person with whom he is dealing. Unless that officer is employed whole time at the school, doing one job—or, perhaps, in the case of smaller schools, being employed at two or three schools—it is not possible for the job to be done properly.
We read in the Working Party's Report that:
"We wish to see the Youth Employment Officer regarded in the school not as an occasional visitor from outside but as an essential member of the school's' career team'".
That tells us what goes on today. The officer visits the school occasionally. Does anybody really believe that, however gifted such an officer may be, he can do a good job with a young person with whom he comes into contact on only one or two occasions?
The people to whom we should be paying attention are those with bad home backgrounds. They are the ones who will have difficulty in life. Unless the officer has had an opportunity of seeing that home background and discussing all the problems not only with the boy but with the parents he will not be able to make a success of his job, and we shall not be able to make a success of any youth employment agency.
122
The handicapped pupil is handicapped in every way in life, and not simply academically. If we raise the school-leaving age to 16 it will serve no purpose to keep young people at school if they are never going to be gifted academically so that they can take up a job in which their extra year's tuition will be of some use.
I am very interested in work experience schemes. I know that difficulties exist with that type of scheme, in which a young person is enabled not only to visit work on one or two half days a week but also to assist in the work, but too many of our young people today are destined to go to a certain factory either because it is the local one or because their fathers work there. Until the boy gets there he has not the slightest idea of what the work will entail. If he went there for two or three half-days he might say to himself, "That is not the sort of work that I want to do", but having left school, and it being necessary for him to have a job, he cannot get out of it. A great deal of research is necessary in connection with work experience schemes, but I believe that we can get untold benefit from them.
Many of the problems which affect a young person, not only in his studies but in the type of job that he has to take up, can be dealt with only by a welfare officer. We read in the Report that there may be some overlapping. Those of us who know anything about local authorities know that there is often so much overlapping that some officers are almost submerged. When a case conference is called concerning a boy who has not been going to school regularly and it is found that difficulties exist at his home, one department is called in, and then another is called in. In the end there may be 10 or 12 different officers, each visiting the house in question for a particular purpose. Furthermore, there may be 8 or 10 different views as to what the family should do.
These are the sort of problems that exist also in relation to the employment of our young people. Until we get this work centralised, in the hands of one officer who knows the whole backgrounds of the young people with whom he is concerned, and all the difficulties that they are experiencing, this Service will not be a real success. I had hoped that

123
the Report would give some idea of a radical change. All it has done is to say, in effect, "We have been giving a certain amount of medicine in the past, which has brought some results: let us simply double the dose and thus, perhaps, bring greater improvements". That is not the way in which we should tackle this problem. A radical change is needed. I cannot see it in this Report.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. James A. Kilfedder: I had been looking forward to the publication of this Report, but, like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt), I felt some disappointment on reading the results of the Working Party's labours. The principal recommendations in the Report are mostly based on views expressed by youth employment officers and youth employment committees for a number of years. There is little new in the Report, though, of course, one is glad to see that many of these ideas are at last receiving official sanction.
Part 3 of the Report is concerned with the Employment and Training Act of 1948 and I should like to comment mainly on this aspect. The Report mentions the dual system of administration at local level, where responsibility lies sometimes with the local education authority and sometimes with the Ministry of Labour, with the Central Youth Employment Executive providing a "headquarters" representing both educational and employment interests. The Report says that this is-not the time to make a change in the existing arrangements. That is not the proper attitude to take, and I am sorry that the Working Party should have shirked a decision in this respect.
One reason for the Report is the great industrial changes, particularly the technological advances, which have caused the decline of old skills and the emergence of new ones. One of the great problems in industrial training today is that the skill for which a young person is trained may not be required in ten or twenty years. What is needed is a good solid education, coupled with flexible training schemes, which would enable the young adult to move from one technological environment to another without
124
too much difficulty. The average young person will in future, it seems, have to be prepared to change his job perhaps two or three times before he reaches retirement, not by choice, but because of the introduction of new processes and new methods.
The other reason for the Report is the development in education. Of course, the Report refers in this respect to the Brunton and Newsom Reports There are two factors at work here—the tendency to remain at school beyond the minimum school-leaving age, a trend which will be consolidated, as the Report points out, when the minimum age is raised from 16 by 1970, and the use which is made by schools of the extra time which they will thus be given. Both Brunton and Newsom suggested that the final years of secondary education for the average child—I paraphrase what they said—should be deliberately outgoing and outward-looking towards employment and further education, so that the school leaver is prepared for the outside world.
There is no greater disease in employment than frustration. This danger can be lessened by education and guidance and proper placement in employment. I believe that part of the reason for the tremendous delinquency problem which we have today is frustration, caused not only by dead-end jobs in which there is no interest but by the fact that a youngster has taken up the wrong employment and therefore moves from one job to another. In general, most of the young people who appear before our courts have a record of having been in many jobs.
Today, of course, parents cannot provide the guidance to a son or daughter because many of them have not the experience needed to help their boy or girl find the right job. Even teachers do not have a full knowledge of industrial work. The youth employment officer has a most important job to perform, because he will influence the young person by placing him in a job which may be his for the rest of his life.
I read recently that it is possible to identify over 2,000 jobs in this country. Their geographical distribution makes the task beyond the competence of either parent or teacher and places a very difficult burden on the youth employment

125
officer. I, like other hon. Members present, feel that the Youth Employment Service has not yet been fully developed and I am disappointed that the Working Party did not examine any of the very interesting organisational developments which have taken place in other parts of the Continent.
If the vocational guidance services are to be introduced into the school curriculum at a much earlier stage—as envisaged by both Brunton and Newsom—than the final term or year, both the nature and length of the co-operation between youth employment officers and teachers will be affected. In France, where the school-leaving age has been 16 since 1959, vocational guidance centres have been established. The centres are intended, to quote a Council of Europe publication:
"… to provide adolescents, families and social services with aid in resolving every guidance problem."
Since 1959, the rôle of the centres has been extended to include educational guidance. Thus, all pupils at the secondary stage are entitled to the advice of the centres, both educational and vocational.
Of course, in France, the responsibility lies with the Ministry of Education, and a similar situation is found in Belgium, Luxembourg and Austria. It seems logical—I disagree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers)—that the attachment in this country should be to the Department of Education and Science. There is a very interesting example of this practice not far away, in Northern Ireland. It is a pity that the Working Party did not examine the system in Northern Ireland. Vocational guidance and placement of young people in employment there are in the hands of a statutory board, the Northern Ireland Youth Employment Service Board, which receives four-fifths of its finance from voted money and one-fifth from local rates, and is representative of both educational and industrial interests. In Northern Ireland, too, the responsibility is that of the Ministry of Education.
There are three other matters which I should like to mention briefly. First is the title of the service. This is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley has already referred to the
126
subject and, like him, I believe that the emphasis should not be on "youth." I should like to see the age of the people with whom the service is concerned increased to 21. The present title of Youth Employment Service is also wrong, because it emphasises the employment rather than the educational aspect of its work. To the list of names which are suggested in the Report, I should like to add another—the Vocational Guidance and Employment Service. This seems to help to emphasise the two main functions of the Service: vocational guidance and placement. A change of name is also needed for the youth employment officer. His present title is not truly descriptive of his job. I should suggest some such title as "Vocational Guidance Officer".
I cannot end my speech without dealing with the question of the payment of unemployment benefit to young persons who find themselves out of work. Entitlement to unemployment benefit does not arise from an assessment of individual needs, but from the satisfaction of statutory conditions. The decision that must be given on a claim may frequently be at variance with the professional opinion of the youth employment officer as to what is best for the young person concerned.
I understand that opinions on this question are fairly evenly divided, but I suggest that to make the youth employment officer responsible for the payment of unemployment benefit puts the wrong emphasis on his work and associates the officer too closely with the "dole" and not enough with employment, placing and guidance.
It has been said by a number of youth employment officers that the system provides an opportunity for them to see those most in need of help—the young unemployed. In Northern Ireland we have a splendid and simple expedient, because while the complex machinery required to pay unemployment benefit is retained by the Ministry, the unemployed young person has his claim dealt with at the youth employment office by staff from the Ministry who visit the office for that purpose. There the youth employment officer has an opportunity of seeing the young person. Thus, when the youngster visits the office twice a week, the youth employment officer can

127
make whatever arrangements he considers are necessary and give his professional guidance.
I welcome the Report and hope that the Minister will lose no time in examining what amendments might be required to the Employment and Training Act, 1948. This is a valuable service and many fear that not enough is being made of it. More must be made of it because it is concerned with young people. We must do everything in our power to find them the right jobs at this important stage of their lives.
7.43 p.m.
Dr. Wyndham Davies: We are grateful for the hard work which was done by Lady Albemarle and her Committee, though this does not prevent us from expressing some disappointment about the Report or from pointing to the general lack of bite, as it has been described, particularly by those who are intimately concerned with the service. While we also congratulate the Minister of Labour on his speech today, I detected a certain lack of a sense of urgency in his remarks and hope that he will place more emphasis on some of the points I shall discuss.
I hope that because the Minister of State for Education and Science has been the only representative on the Front Bench opposite for most of the afternoon, he will pass on to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour the views which have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the place of the appointed factory doctor in the Service and the urgent need to write some of these ideas into the structure of the appointed factory doctor service which, we hope, will shortly be forthcoming from the Ministry.
On 5th February last year this subject under discussion today was dealt with in depth by many of my hon. Friends and I and a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite and I do not propose to go over all the arguments I used in a fairly long speech on that occasion. However, certain matters need reiterating and I wish to particularly emphasise the economic value of the Youth Employment Service to the country. For example, the Albemarle Report stated, in paragraph 76:
128
"… anything contributing to the earlier and more successful adjustment of young people to working life should be of value not only to young workers themselves but also to employers and to the community on both economic and social grounds."
This is so important that I took the liberty of asking a senior youth employment officer in my constituency to give me a few examples of how the Service is of help. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) asked what was being done for the mentally handicapped and implied that not enough was being done. I assure her that in those areas where the Service is being run efficiently, such as in Birmingham, much is being done.
One example I was given concerns a severely educationally subnormal girl—so low in her intelligence that the tests gave no reliable indication of her intelligence quotient. However, she was educated at a special residential school, although naturally her family, which is of superior mental ability, was caused considerable problems. By a great deal of effort, the Service found her a simple packing job and today, two years later, she is not only happy in her job but is proud of being able to earn her own keep. This is the type of service which needs to be expanded more widely.
Another example is of a schoolgirl with multiple handicaps, being profoundly deaf, partially sighted, with a defect of the spine and suffering from skin trouble. Academically she was in the bottom 15 per cent. of her class. After four months effort and innumberable telephone calls and visits by the youth employment officer, she was placed with a sympathetic employer and is today happy in her work.
There is then the case where the youth employment officer acts as guide, philosopher and friend. A grammar school boy was sent by the head of his school to see the youth employment officer outside normal routine. The boy was due to begin his second year in the sixth form but was thinking of leaving school. On the advice given to him by the youth employment officer the boy returned to school, took his A-levels and is now training to be a teacher. If it had not been for the high standard of training and understanding of that youth officer that boy might have been lost to the teaching profession.

129
Another example concerns a technical schoolboy who was referred to the youth employment officer by his headmaster but who, although he had four O-levels and was likely to get three more in the November examinations, felt compelled to leave school because of a financial crisis at home. He thought of going to a building site to make some quick money while trying to study for his A-levels. Once again, the youth employment officer was able to interview the lad and see that he got some help so that he could continue with the subjects which he found most interesting, which were biology and chemistry. That boy is now working in the environmental health sphere.
Then we have the problem of the misfit, such as the boy at a non-selective secondary school who wanted to go into painting and decorating but who was then found to have heart trouble. This is an example of where the appointed factory doctor, by attending regular sessions, might assist the youth employment officer. In this case, on medical advice, the boy was found much more suitable work than climbing up high ladders and performing the hard work required of a painter's mate.
I could give many more examples of youngster; who have been unsettled by unsatisfactory school careers and who not only need the welfare activities suggested by some hon. Members but who also need all the depth of skill and training that can be obtained from every possible source.
My right hon. Friend questioned the Minister on certain aspects of Dr. Herford's scheme at Slough. This was a 'most valuable experiment in the cooperation of the Youth Employment Service with the medical service and the educational service, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) has an opportunity later to develop that point. As a doctor, I understand the suggestion is, broadly, that the Youth Employment Service should call young people forward for a medical examination and take the opportunity when they attend of conducting a review of their progress at work. The advantages of such a procedure would be that young people would be under an obligation to attend, and the combination of a general progress review with a medical progress review would lead to an
130
early identification of problems. It is important that a scheme on these lines should not only be running experimentally but should be actively encouraged.
The problem of the status of the Youth Employment Service can be tied up with something that the Minister carefully skipped over—the whole problem of salaries and prospects. Sufficient has not been put into the Report itself on that aspect. The key to quality in any social service is the calibre of its people. This is true of the Youth Employment Service in particular, because this debate has so far shown that hon. Members on both sides would give to the youth employment officer all sorts of jobs requiring a knowledge of human nature, of psychology, of education, of job prospects, and so on.
If we are to get the type of men to fill these posts, we have to pay them properly and see that they have a proper career structure. This statement has been made time and again by employers' organisations and by the Trades Union Congress, and I regret that there is no serious mention of increase of salary and of status in this Report, nor did the Minister touch on the subject at all. I hope that the Government spokesman will later be able to tell us why this problem of pay and prospects has not been considered further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Kilfedder) has referred, as have one or two other hon. Gentlemen, to a possible change in central control—the removal of the Youth Employment Service from the Ministry of Labour to the Ministry of Education. I have met a number of enthusiasts on this subject and find very divided opinion. Some of them are enthusiastic to move the Service to the educational side because they feel that they will then have an opportunity of developing the Service as they would like to see it developed under the care of the educationists. Against that are the much shrewder people who know that between 1910 and 1948 too much time was spent on sterile arguments about the merits and demerits of the different types of control, and about whether control should be exercised by local education authorities or the Ministry of Labour, and so on.
It is important to stop this controversy now; and to accept the fact that many

131
local education authorities are handling this service extremely well in combination with the Ministry of Labour. Let us leave things alone for a while in order to see what a good job the Ministry of Labour can make of this Service now that it has had the stimulus of two days of debate in this House and the hard work of the Albemarle Working Party.
I believe in the value of the Youth Employment Service external to but cooperating closely with the schools. The reasons for this view are touched on in paragraph 22 of the Report, to which I would draw attention. We should also bear in mind paragraph 21, where the rather unfortunate statement is made by, it seems, a schoolmasters' organisation:
"The Careers Master is in fact an amateur on careers but professional on boys, the Y.E.O. vice versa."
That statement seems to indicate that the youth employment officer should be an amateur at looking after boys—and, presumably, girls. This view is quite wrong, and I am sorry that the Albemarle Working Party repeats it, and does not seem to have qualified it at all.
I do not think that the Trades Union Congress has been exactly forthcoming in putting forward brilliant suggestions. We know, as is stated in paragraph 32:
"The T.U.C. has long been concerned about the problems affecting young people in the tranisition from school to working life. … They are compelled to question, however, the Advisory Council's recommendation even in the tentative and carefully qualified form in which it is advanced. … They are opposed in principle to any"—
and I emphasise the word "any"—
"form of employment of children of school age."
One can understand what was in the minds of the members of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, as veteran trade unionists, but if many children are to avoid going into the wrong sort of occupation for their own aptitudes they must have some form of work experience. This will be particularly true when the school-leaving age is raised to 16.
The T.U.C. should be asked to think again, and join with the Ministry of Labour considering whether this work experience can be put on a basis satisfactory to trade unionists in order to remove their fears, because time and
132
again in my experience in industrial medicine I have found a great need for safety training before a youngster enters his factory environment or whatever his work environment is to be.
The Ministry will know that again and again it happens that a youngster arrives to work on his first day and within his first hours of work he has a serious injury—he loses a finger, or he may lose an eye. We know that this occurs. The statistics of these accidents to young people do not yet exist in the Ministry but I believe that figures are now being collected there. It is most important that safety training should be started before the youngster arrives at his job. That can be done only by some method of combining work experience with safety training and, possibly, industrial health training, before the boy goes to his first job.
Time does not permit me to mention the many other points I should like to deal with, so I will only say that the country's manpower needs are very important at the moment, and are likely, for obvious reasons, to be increasingly important in the coming years. We should be asking ourselves today not "Does this country want a career advisory service developed along the lines of the Albermarle Report?", but "Can the country afford to do without a trained, well-staffed, comprehensive Youth Employment Service, by whatever name it is called?". Let us hope for legislation soon in the scheme of priorities of the present Government.
8.1 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: This Report deals with what is perhaps the weakest link in the whole of our social chain. It deals with the provisions made for children as they pass from school into the world of employment outside. If we fail at that point we lay up terrible trouble for ourselves—trouble, at the lowest, economically, because we produce inefficient workpeople but, much more serious, we produce many young people who never settle down satisfactorily into any job, who make their own lives a misery and who seriously damage the whole of our social fabric.
I suggest that we are failing at this point. We are failing not only in the limited field of finding suitable jobs for

133
young people as they leave school, but we are also failing much more gravely in the arrangements which we make for keeping an eye on these young people once they have taken up their first jobs. I am thinking particularly of the young people who come within the purview of the Youth Employment Service, who by and large, as statistics quoted by hon. Members show, are the children with whom the Newsom Report was primarily concerned. We are failing because the Youth Employment Service is not adequate for the job which it has to do. That, of course, is what the present Report is concerned with.
Like practically every hon. Member who has spoken from either side of the House, I, too, am disappointed by this Report, from which many of us expected great things. To be perfectly fair, to some extent the terms of reference given to the Working Party limited it in that it was made impossible for the Working Party to consider the Youth Employment Service in a wider context. This is a point to which I shall return later. Throughout the Report there is lacking the sense of desperate urgency and the need for really radical change which I am convinced is necessary.
A number of hon. Members referred to some of the experiments which have been carried out over the past years in Slough. Slough is pre-eminent in a number of ways in the field of industrial welfare. It has a number of advantages, quite apart from the first-class sausage rolls to be obtained at Slough railway station, which I strongly recommend to any hon. Member who has to change trains there. We have also had, perhaps more by accident than anything else, in the person of Dr. Herford, a man who has held for a long time simultaneously the post of appointed factory doctor and also a post in the school medical service, who conceived his function as the appointed factory doctor to be especially that of keeping an eye on new young entrants into industry. By working very closely with the youth employment officer and by a systematic co-operation with the careers masters in certain schools we had in Slough for a certain period a more or less unified service to youth in this period between the beginning of their last year at school and the first couple of years in their new jobs.
134
The key element in this was the fact that the appointed factory doctor had the statutory obligation to see new young entrants into industry at regular intervals. They were bound to see him. He kept records. These records were available and could be used in assessing whether a young man was in the right job, whether he had the right approach to it, whether there was some physical or mental defect which made it difficult for him to settle down in the job.
This scheme, which could have been used as a pilot scheme for the whole of the country, is in danger of foundering—in fact, it probably has already foundered—through lack of local support, but also due to the fact that, as I understand it, the Ministry intends to change the whole structure of the appointed factory doctor service. If this happens, this particularly useful function will be swept away in the case of Slough.
It is not necessarily the fact that there is such a thing as the appointed factory doctor which enables this kind of experiment to be carried out. To quote from Dr. Herford, the appointed factory doctor is rather like the chub in Isaak Walton's recipe. He produced a splendid recipe on how to make the chub delicious. He said, "In the opinion of many, the dish is improved by the omission of the chub." As Dr. Herford himself said, it is merely because the appointed factory doctor has this statutory right to interview these young people at regular intervals that he can provide the essential link in the chain.
I do not insist that any kind of pilot scheme which there may be for grouping all the various services which are needed for the welfare of young people should necessarily be based on the appointed factory doctor. It could be based in the careers master at a school, or on the school medical service, or what you will. But an essential element in all this is that there should be some kind of duplication, some joint appointment, a joint appointment to the factory service and the school medical service, a joint appointment to the careers master and the youth employment officer, or the probation service can be brought into this arrangement in some way or other. There is great value in baying overlapping, in having people doing two jobs or interchangeable jobs. There is special value in having joint training.

135
Like earlier speakers I am disappointed that in the Report where there is mention of the possibility of joint training at technical colleges and universities, there is no mention of the possibility of joint training of youth employment officers in teacher training colleges. This is surely the key point at which there should be interchangeability if this is in any way obtainable. My personal view—this is going rather beyond the bounds of the Report—is that we ought to be working towards a unified service for young people from their last year at school up to the age of 21 or when they have been two or three years in a job. We shall have to come to this in the end. Whether this is to be under the Ministry of Education or Ministry of Labour I have no decided views. I have listened to the champions of both sides and I have been entirely convinced by both.
Whichever it is to be, there is surely value in running a limited pilot scheme based on a unified approach to see where the main emphasis of the scheme ought to be, whether it should be more on the educational side or on the training and labour sides. I hope that nowhere in the Report is there lurking a demarcation dispute between the Ministry of Labour and the Department of Education and Science. It is very difficult to rid oneself of the feeling that if there were more perfect understanding between these two great Departments of State we would long before now have had a more comprehensive approach to these problems which require tackling on a comprehensive basis. There is only one other point I wish to make. Again, like previous speakers, I have been very disappointed to find the Report shying away from the idea of work experience. The suggestion is made in the Report:
"We are agreed on the value of this where it means that young people are given opportunities within their school or a further education establishment of working under conditions which have been contrived … to correspond as nearly as possible to those of an industrial or commercial undertaking."
This simply is not good enough. What is wanted is to give these young people an opportunity of "putting a toe in the water", of experiencing what conditions are like at work, what the noise is like, perhaps what the language is like.
The headmaster of a school for educationally subnormal children in Slough has
136
begged me to see if we cannot get a change of attitude on this. If subnormal children go straight from school to employment there is a very abrupt change and often it is too much for them. It would be of immense value if they could have half a day a week, or one day a month, actually working in the sort of place in which later they might find employment.
I am more than ever unconvinced by the stale arguments of the trade unions. They seem still hag-ridden by the idea that Lord Shaftesbury is still alive and that they must do all they can to stop boys being sent up smoky chimneys. Teachers genuinely want to give children an opportunity for easing themselves gradually into the very strange and often hostile world into which they will have to go.
I am convinced that in a great many cases in which young new entrants to industry go astray, fail to settle down or change their jobs far too frequently, this has been due to the abruptness which they have gone from the sheltered life of school to the far from sheltered life which awaits them in factory or the office. The Report certainly contains a number of sensible and valuable suggestions, but I hope that when the Minister takes action on it and in due course produces legislation he will not consider himself in any way bound by the rather timid recommendations it offers. The Youth Employment Service needs a bolder, broader and more fundamental approach to the problem than is anywhere apparent in the present Report.
8.14 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Speaking from the Liberal Bench, I associate myself with the remarks made on both sides of the House in welcoming the Report and also in congratulating Lady Albemarle and her colleagues on the work done in producing it. However, I also agree with a great many of the criticisms levelled at the Report for its excessive caution and occasionally almost timidity. A great deal of ground has been already covered in the debate and I do not wish to cover the same ground. I prefer to concentrate on a few specific matters rather than to endeavour to cover the whole field, about which, incidentally, there appears to be a pleasing degree of agreement on both sides of the House which is not often found.

137
I found the contribution by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) of particular interest in the scope it endeavoured to cover. It would appear that the Report seems almost to go out of its way to avoid making any suggestions which would appear to involve amending the 1948 Act. This tendency appears on one or two occasions where the Report shirks actually suggesting that a particular change need necessarily be undertaken at this specific moment. The hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) has drawn attention to this, but I wish to re-emphasise the question and compulsory school reports on those for whom they are still not required by law.
In paragraph 46 the Report admits this, but it goes on to say:
"We considered whether the regulations should now be extended to cover all leaders but we decided that the time for this had not yet come."
The Report proceeds and does not give any reasons why the time has not come, although later it emphasises quite properly that reports of this kind are vital for the youth employment officer to do his job properly. I know that sometimes amendment is a rather clumsy method of tackling this question, but if amendment were occasionally necessary, as in the further case—I repeat what the hon. Member for Stepney said—in respect of the degree of information which employers ought to be obliged, to use the word used by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), to supply about jobs, I believe that this sort of emendation ought to be undertaken with all speed.
I wish to speak primarily about the question of staffing and staff training, on which the Minister laid such emphasis in his speech. The whole question of status was not given a proper degree of attention in the Report. The right hon. Member for Grantham spent some time talking about case-loads for officers. We find that the view of the youth employment officers is that 500 cases per officer is still very high. This was agreed by the hon. Member for Stepney, but not alone for the reasons put by the right hon. Member for Grantham. It is partly because of the turnover which has been mentioned by several hon. Members where a single youth officer has not only to deal with a large number himself, but
138
has also to carry the load of several inexperienced colleagues. Recruitment is clearly of vital importance.
It has been emphasised that there have been no specific proposals in regard to the stabilisation of salaries. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) made a considerable point of this. The comparative position of the local education authority youth officer and the Ministry of Labour youth officer is also a matter which it appears the Report has shirked and has failed to come down on one side or the other. This is particularly surprising when one notices that it quite properly emphasised that the local education authority youth officer ought to have at least a year's training as for example, in Lamorby or Manchester.
Yet almost in the same breath it appears to accept that a Ministry of Labour youth officer requires only a three-month course. This does not appear to be a very proper consideration. To put it rather crudely, the Ministry of Labour youth employment officer is almost a grade or a stage in advancement, whereas for the local education authority youth officer it is a vocation.
The vocationists are almost militated against, because it appears that the Working Party does not think that the same qualifications and standards are necessary for those in the Ministry of Labour and also in the case where 1,279 local education authority youth employment officers are represented by one member on the central inspection committee whereas the 214 Ministry of Labour officers are represented by six members. This seems to show a bias against the local education authority officers which is not desirable or proper.
The Report goes on to talk about the "built-in tension". Paragraph 241 includes these words:
"Indeed the existence of two systems, one closely allied to the field of education and the other more closely connected to the adult world of employment, acts to some extent as a mutual stimulus. In the words of one of those who gave evidence to us 'the built in tension (between the two systems) may be important to preserve'."
If one of two systems which are endeavouring to do the same thing is over-closely allied to education and the other is over-closely allied to the adult world of employment, can either do the

139
job it sets out to do as adequately as the Report suggests? What is meant by the vague expression "built in tension"?
The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport spoke at some length about the problem of the handicapped and the difficulties facing youth employment officers because of the absence, especially in rural areas, of sufficient facilities for training the handicapped. This matter should have been given greater attention.
It was almost bounden upon the Working Party to give some indication of whether it felt that the future of this Service lay? with the Department of Education and Science or with the Ministry of Labour. The Working Party should have expressed some preference. My own preference is for the Department of Education. I do not agree with the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport on this aspect.
I am very much in agreement with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt). When the House of Commons finds it difficult to come to a decision, it is too often in the habit of leaving it to a committee to make the decision for it. However, when the committee does not make a decision the ball is back in our court. Some rather firmer statement is to be expected from the Government spokesman when he winds up.
I support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bromley about the absurd situation in Scotland, where apparently marriage renders the service to be given by a woman officer ineffective, and she must immediately hand in her resignation. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Grantham—
Mr. John Page: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether, when he refers to "the right hon. Member for Grantham", he is referring to the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), or to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), because it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East who led for the Conservatives this afternoon? From the hon. Gentleman's speech I have not gathered who he means by "the right hon. Member for Grantham".
Mr. Johnston: Quite clearly, the hon. Member knows the constituencies of his hon. Friends better than I do. I was referring to the Opposition spokesman, who, I think, was referred to earlier by other hon. Members as "the right hon. Member for Grantham". I may be wrong about that. I apologise to the House. As I was saying, the right hon. Member who led for the Opposition referred to the Report as "a tapestry". This is probably a very apt description, because, although it is full of sane and sensible information and although it pulls together a very great deal of what youth employment officers have been asking for for a long time, it lacks the punch and the bite of a definitely asserted priority scale.
I should like the Government spokesman to answer the following questions. First, what is his attitude to the scale of increased expenditure which will be necessary on this service and at what rate does he expect that it is likely to increase? Secondly, do the Government visualise the Youth Employment Service widening its rôle in the way that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, to give him his correct title, mentioned in the early part of his speech? I agree to a great extent with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the service will inevitably extend its rôle into the adult sphere, but the Report does not deal with this aspect. Are the Government prepared to take any action now to raise the age to 21?
Thirdly, how do the Government see the relationship between the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Labour developing in this sphere? Last, but not least, will the Government state their views on the whole question of status? One of the protagonists of the concept of handing this matter entirely over to the Ministry of Labour once asked me whether it was not a good thing that there was a turnover of youth employment officers; they were not youth employment officers all their lives; they went on upwards into the higher scale and this was a good thing. The people working for local authorities who tended to enter this sort of thing vocationally could not look forward to some sort of advancement and consequently this tended to affect the quality of entrants.

141
This is very important and, again, it is one of the criticisms which one can make of the Albemarle Report that there is insufficient emphasis in it on status.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. William Wilson: I should like to follow up the reference made earlier in the debate to the demarcation made between the Ministry of Labour and the Youth Employment Service. It seems to me that there is confusion in the minds of the general public between the two. The old idea that a labour exchange was a place where a job was found for a man who was out of work has been carried forward into the Youth Employment Service and instead of its being realised by the general public that the service is there to find a position fitted to a child's aptitude it is often looked upon as a service for finding a job for a lad or a girl.
The more employment there is the greater is the need for the Youth Employment Service, and the more important it is that there should be accurate selection and that good advice and help should be given. A lad or a girl who is settled in a job suited to his or her aptitude is a lad or girl who is not likely to be a delinquent or to become a tear-away. Too often those of us who spend time in the courts see lads and girls come before the court who have had a multiplicity of jobs. As a practising lawyer, I seize upon it as a great point when I am able to tell the court that a certain lad or girl has had only one job since he or she left school. It speaks almost as a recommendation for the child.
It is, therefore, important that the Youth Employment Service and the powers and knowledge which it has within it should be made more and more known to the general public. It is obvious that this Service is likely to be needed more and more in future. Perhaps the work of the Service comes most significantly before the general public at careers festivals and occasions of that kind, but it is true that the young folk who attend these careers festivals are often those who are not in most need of help and guidance and it is to those who are likely to drift into blind-alley jobs or to go from job to job that the Service must give attention.
Another point which I should like to make relates to the staffing of areas in
142
the West Midlands, such as my constituency. In Coventry, as in other parts of the West Midlands, there is a continually increasing school population. This means that when we approach the 1970s the need for an expanded Youth Employment Service will be apparent to all, but the time to prepare for that is now. It is no use waiting until the children are leaving school and then seeking to expand the Service in areas like the constituency which I represent. If we do not attend to this now, the case load will grow.
Only yesterday I had referred to me the instance of a youth employment officer, not in my constituency, who mentioned that he had 24 children coming to see him in one day. I could not help but think that his interviews with those children must have been something like the Army eyesight examination when eyes were counted and were not examined and that all that would have been achieved at the end of the day was that the youth employment officer would be a very tired man. We should recognise that in the present phase of the Youth Employment Service it has a tremendous task to perform. It must be apparent to all of us that an expanded Service is absolutely necessary if we are to utilise the abilities and aptitudes of all the children who will need the help of that Service in the next five or 10 years.
8.35 p.m.
Miss J. M. Quennell: At the end of his opening speech, the Minister of Labour invited suggestions for possible future legislation. He will have had quite a few most valuable suggestions out of the debate already, but one heartening factor which has emerged is that possible future legislation will give the House an opportunity to discuss even further the provision of a counselling service, vocational service, guidance service—call it what one likes.
I am not quite sure whether to begin by criticising the Minister for the apparent lack of urgency behind his speech or by criticising the Report for failing to grasp the nettle of the problem. The Minister made the reluctance of his approach to a careers advisory service very clear. I wonder how many of the 1,560 youth employment officers—the right hon. Gentleman announced that, at 31st December last, the number had risen to 1,560—are trained and qualified,

143
whether the proportion of those still in service untrained is roughly the same, and how many have been employed by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education.
The reluctance of the Report to deal with the real problem in the Youth Employment Service was admirably illustrated by the metaphors used by the two Front Bench speakers. The Minister described the Report as giving valuable guide-lines, without saying where they were guiding us to, as being a useful springboard to action, without saying whether the springboard was leading us over the deep end or not, and as a comprehensive survey. Not to be outdone, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) talked about reading its tapestry. If the two Front Bench speakers could get themselves so mixed up metaphorically when speaking about the Report and trying to describe it, poor back benchers could hardly be expected to improve upon their performance.
The Report is, in fact, a statement of the position, a statement of inexorable facts, but it fails to develop the logic of its own findings. I am disappointed that it fails to define the main issues facing the Youth Employment Service in the present educational, social and industrial context, according to its terms of reference. I accept that no country has solved entirely the problem of vocational guidance, but the United Kingdom lags far behind most other nations in the provision of current selling facilities. We have our Youth Employment Service, but its haphazard development and its lack of uniformity, varying not only from place to place but also in the Ministry of Labour's own variety of it, is exposed by the Report.
This development has been caused by the circumstances and course of its growth, constituted as it was in 1948, with some education authorities taking on their responsibilities but usually leaving the awkward parts of the country to the Ministry of Labour—rural East Anglia, parts of the North-East, and parts of the South-West as well, generally the "awkward squad"—and at a time of general scarcity, when suitable, attractive or central premises were hard to come by. It was staffed, as it had to be,
144
from scratch, by men and women who had no previous experience or qualifications and who had no training for the specialised job which had to be encompassed.
It is an enormous tribute to the devotion and effort of those men and women that the Service is as good as it is, but one notes from paragraph 155 of the Report that, 20 years later, untrained staff still continue to be appointed. This seems to me to be quite inexcusable in a sophisticated and affluent society such as ours. Therefore, I give qualified support to recommendation No. 27, and will explain why in a minute.
My reaction to the Report in general is one of modified rapture. Nevertheless, I welcome it. In this country we owe a fantastic debt to the men and women who serve on all sorts of committees and make reports to us, and I am sure that the country is the better for this. I am grateful to them for their competence and the thoroughness with which they have gone into the problems. But the Youth Employment Service as we know it is almost a national paradox. The duality of control has been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Kilfedder) mentioned—I think the Report does not—the part played by the Ministry of Pensions. If one man cannot serve two masters, I fail to see how one service can serve three Ministries. It is odd that the Report does not comment on the psychological undesirability of an officer who is responsible for a young person's first employment also being associated in that young person's mind with his unemployment. This is unfortunate. Again and again, the Report comments on the divisions in the Service, but without drawing conclusions.
Paragraph 241 summarises the dual system of administration and comments that it apparently does not affect the development of the Service. If one accepts the present state of the Service as being ideally designed to meet the national requirements, that is probably correct, but in paragraph 167 the Report reveals the essential dichotomy of the two halves of the Service. Even in that part of the Service coming within the scope of the Ministry of Education the position is very clearly unsatisfactory.
In paragraph 156—it refers to local authorities "testing the market" with

145
varying salary scales—the Committee says that constant movement of officers is not a bad thing, although—this shows the illogicality—throughout the early part of the Report it has illustrated the need for continuity. The youth employment officer has to win the confidence not only of the children but of the parents and has to know the employment prospects of the locality in depth and thoroughly, and all these factors can be secured only by continuity.
Elsewhere the Report loses its logic. In paragraph 188 it recommends that groups of local authorities should supply supernumerary staff. That was welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman, and it is an admirable idea, but four paragraphs before that the Report makes it clear that there are too few recruits coming into the Service to meet the needs at the moment and fill the existing places. Paragraph 155 comments on the number of untrained people being appointed and the undesirability of their appointment. If there are too few recruits coming into the Service, one wonders how local authorities are to find the supernumeraries and what sort of advice will be given to school leavers. I should have thought that the euphemistically called "mobility" within the Service must be undesirable for the sounder reasons given in the earlier parts of the Report. Paragraph 188 shows the unhealthy state of affairs.
It is easy to be critical and destructive, because we have not really considered what the Youth Employment Service ought to be or what we want it to be. Hon. Members have suggested that what is required is uniformity of training, service and control. I offer the House my personal view of what we need for our school leavers if our educational effort and expenditure is to be fully realised and our industrial requirement is to be satisfied and met.
First, what sort of Service ought we to have? I believe that vocational guidance—that is my pet term for it; several others have been used in the debate—should be a slow and gradual process extending over several years. It ought not to be something that happens in the last year. It should be at least two years in duration. It ought to keep pace with the youngsters developing maturity and with that same young person's developing
146
strength and weaknesses, his interests and tastes, because these are important, too. The need is for continuity starting with vocational orientation well before leaving school and available with counselling through the latter years of training in employment. Involved in such provision would be teachers, youth employment officers, social workers and occupational psychologists. It may be argued that such a service already exists. So it does, but in a very rudimentary form and not uniformly available all over the country.
The Report comments that the quality of guidance which a young person receives must depend on the satisfactory relationship between youth employment officer and the members of school staffs concerned with the young person's work. In the past we have not paid sufficient attention to the careers staff of our schools. There is evidence, too, that schools have in the past become absorbed in a rather too academic view of their task. The Times Bulletin for Industry and Technology dealt with the problem of the Youth Employment Service in an article in which the author wrote:
"As a result of it shortcomings, the Youth Employment Service is not taken too seriously in many schools, and it is often regarded with a certain amount of hostility by school leavers. Certainly, with younger school leavers, the Y.E.O.'s activities are limited to a large extent by the requirements of firms in the area. There is ample evidence from both employers and youth employment officers to suggest that a large number of our schools are failing both to guide children towards a range of employment commensurate with their aptitudes and abilities and to prepare them adequately for life beyond school."
It goes on in very much the same vein. The Newsom Report got down to the nub of the matter in Chapter 14, using the phrase that leaving school
"… should be seen and talked about positively as going to work, not negatively as leaving school."
The sad thing is that the Newsom Report was written a year before the article in The Times Bulletin.
All this raises the problem of career staffing in schools, because while school staff cannot take the place of youth employment officers they need special knowledge. They need to know of a child's ability, aptitudes, prospects and weaknesses. They need to know his home background, his psychology, his occupational psychology and his medical history.

147
They ought to make and should be able to have made a special study in certain occupational requirements and demands.
In a small school one member of the staff might compass all these requirements. But in our larger educational units this would be impossible. Therefore, in the large comprehensive schools we shall have to have a counselling staff. Each school will need a school counsellor knowing intimately the child for whom he is responsible and who will have the responsibility of planning and co-ordinating an adaptable educational programme focused on the prospects of the child.
This applies equally to grammar and secondary modern schools, except that in the case of grammar school children the choice of subjects frequently has to be made early since those subjects decisively influence the opportunities open to the children. In the case of comprehensive schools, it is of great importance because the choice of courses is very rich and somewhat bewildering. Hence the importance of a counselling staff.
As the schools develop a greater variety of courses, it becomes increasingly vital to recognise the importance of a careers staff with specialised responsibility within Chapter 14 of Newsom. I think also that a vocational guidance counsellor based outside the schools and serving a group of schools would begin his interviews fortified by consultation with and co-operation from school counselling staff and by the information and assessments made available to him.
The vocational guidance counsellor will in turn from time to time need advice from one more experienced than he. Therefore, I suggest that every local authority should have a vocational guidance adviser to act as a consultant in cases presenting special difficulties—for instance, through physical handicap or psychiatric difficulty. He will be a specialist indeed.
He must have a deep understanding of developmental psychology, with special knowledge of the problems of adolescence and of the evaluation of psychometric assessments. He will need knowledge of economic and social factors affecting young people and will need to understand job analysis and to evaluate psychological and physical requirements
148
of different occupations. He must be up to date on economic and social developments of a changing technology. He must also know the long-term and short-term trends of the labour market and of trade union policies. He will need an understanding of the dynamics of human relationships as they occur in large and small organisations. He will, indeed, be a specialist.
All this leads to the conclusion that a comprehensive guidance and counselling service of this nature would, of course, undoubtedly include consultation prior to entry upon courses of advanced technical and non-academic training or university study. This is accepted and suggested by the Report. But the Report expects existing youth employment officers to accomplish near miracles without drastic reorganisation of the Service. I do not, however, believe that any man would be able to perform all the tasks expected in the first half of the Report without ending up in alabaster in Westminster Abbey.
I do not believe that the Service will be capable of such work on its present structure. It should be redefined. It should be a separate and identifiable profession with its own status and visible ladder of promotion and advance to specialised skills. Unless there is an integrated and comprehensive guidance and counselling service, operating partly within the schools and partly without the schools, on a permanent and recognised basis, we shall not succeed in bridging the canyon which exists between the more sheltered days of school and the rather bewildering and puzzling days of work—a bridging which our young people have a right to expect from this country.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Weatherill: The problem of being called at this late hour in a debate is that all one's points have already been admirably put. At this late stage I want to deal with two matters; first, with the training of youth employment officers. I am bound to say that I found the Working Party's Report on that particular aspect somewhat confusing. In 1951, the Piercy Committee recommended that all youth employment officers should have a period of training

149
not shorter than a full year. The Working Party supports that, and the Minister told us this afternoon that he also supports it. I find it inexplicable that the Minister should feel that three months' training is sufficient for youth employment officers in areas where the Ministry itself runs the Service, and I should like to know why that is so. Perhaps the Minister can tell us in his winding up speech.
The local education authorities cover 85 per cent. of the country at the moment. Are we to assume, therefore, that in the areas covered by the Ministry the Service is to be carried out not by second-class officers but certainly by second-class-trained officers?
We have heard the expression "a fully professional service" mentioned pretty well in every speech today. If the Working Party really looks forward to a fully professional service and wishes to fortify the Piercy recommendation on training, would not the Minister agree that it is much more likely to be achieved if he makes it mandatory on all local education authorities to operate the service?
The second point that I wish to make is on the matter of joint training. I was interested in what the Working Party had to say about training alongside teachers and others. The Newsom Report thought that that should be explored. If we are to have more youth employment officers, we shall obviously need more training places, and some of those will be provided in Kent, in Manchester and in the new centre that the Minister mentioned today. I wonder if we should not also look at joint training not only for youth employment officers but also for careers teachers as well. I should like to see the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Education and the Youth Employment Service Training Board consider the establishment of joint training in colleges of education leading, perhaps, to a bachelor of education degree.
Are there not some new entrants into training colleges at 18 or 19 who would be interested in careers work or perhaps in being youth employment officers later in their careers? If we were to have joint training of that length and content it would equip these young people to cross over later on in their careers, should
150
they so wish. My own local education authority in Croydon submitted such a plan about a year ago. Unhappily, it was not accepted by the Minister of Education, and I would ask now whether it would be possible for the Minister to reconsider that in the light of what has been said today.
Finally, on the question of salaries, the Minister has said that the two priorities are staffing and staff training. But we shall bury our heads in the sand if we feel that they can be divorced from a professional salary scale. Surely it is one of the major problems which face the Youth Employment Service. It is a fact that over half the youth employment officers in the country are receiving a basic salary which is less than that of a qualified and trained teacher. With his responsibilities and with the content of his work, surely the basic-grade youth employment officer should be on a salary scale no less favourable than that of the basic-grade teacher. So, while I welcome what the Minister said about going to the local authorities to discuss staffing, I would ask him at the same time to discuss the question of salaries as well.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I am sure that the whole House feels that we have had an extremely valuable discussion this afternoon and evening, and that this entirely justifies the decision that on our first day back after the Recess we should devote a considerable amount of time to this very important Report.
It must be said frankly by any observer or listener to our discussions that the welcome given by the House to the Report has been decidely muted. As every hon. Member who has spoken has been at pains to make clear, and as I, too, aim to make clear, this reflects not one bit on the distinguished lady who was the chairman of this Working Party, or indeed, on its very hard-working members.
In various ways my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Kilfedder), and Bromley (Mr. Hunt), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who had a number of reservations to express, and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies), and

151
Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) all expressed disappointment at what had emerged from the Report, while my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) described her reaction as modified rapture. I was not entirely clear what state that left her in, but this is something which I shall expect to pursue with her a little further on another appropriate occasion,
The Times Educational Supplement described the Report as "speaking with a weak voice". It may be that the House would not wish to go quite that far, but it is perhaps right, and indeed is, in a way, an expression of the interest which this subject now arouses in so many people, that this decided feeling of anti-climax has been expressed this afternoon.
I am glad that so many of my hon. Friends have been enabled to take part in this debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill), who was kind enough to cut his time so short. Only one of my hon. Friends, who, I hope, remains a friend, has been unable to take part in this debate.
I hope very much that the Minister of State, who is to reply, will be able to remove a feeling which has been expressed that in the Minister's speech there was not quite the sense of urgency in responding to the Report which the House would have welcomed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) put a number of questions to the Government Front Bench. He asked about salaries and status, the division between the Ministries, and so on. He asked specifically for information about the size of the proposed training college, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will deal with these matters in some detail and be specific.
The Minister started—and I should like to make this my starting point—by emphasising the essential partnership in the whole of this matter between education and labour. The Youth Employment Service, in its widest sense—the placing of young people in appropriate careers and jobs—is essentially a partnership between the two, hence the welcome presence of the Minister of State from the
152
Department of Education and Science to wind up the debate.
I say that because, by the very nature of partnerships of this kind, a great deal will depend on the influence brought to bear in the respective Ministeries by the Ministers for the time being. If they constantly emphasise and give a good lead in this respect, I have no doubt that this will percolate down, even though they are the heads of great administrative machines. This was done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), when he was the Minister for this Department.
Speaking to the Institute of Youth Employment Officers on 20th April, 1963—a considerable time ago—he put it in this way:
"The world at work and the world of education are not two spheres revolving in distant orbits from each other. They are closely related areas of activity reacting and making an impact one on the other."
That was true then; it is true today, as the Minister has said—and it must constantly be reiterated.
The youth employment officer, therefore, is not concerned solely with employers or with jobs in his area; he is not concerned solely, and in detail, with the opportunities for employment. He also usually has a knowledge of the courses at technical colleges and colleges of further education. Above all, he has a detailed and intimate knowledge of the schools themselves, for it is on this personal relationship, which is reiterated several times in the Report, that the success or failure of the individual officer will often depend. Where the relationship is good—where there is no local pull, or tension, to use the word in the Report—young people get a coherent view of the important transition from whole-time education to whole-time work.
That brings with it considerable strains within the school, and I want to deal with this question particularly because it concerns the Department of Education and Science. The House is agreed on the value of a planned and coordinated activity by a designated member of the staff, working as a careers master or mistress or sometimes as both. In some cases there will be designated members of staffs.
The planned programmes of factory visits, the careers booklets which are

153
coming out in increasing numbers—and I pay tribute to the way in which they are produced and presented—the planned visits of speakers, and specific work projects involving local industry, can and do play an immensely important part in school life. But these are very much more valuable if they are planned in consultation with youth employment officers and are not exclusively school matters. Here I come again to the all-important personal relationships between the youth employment officer and the school that he is advising.
But, on the school side, all this has to be done by teachers within the existing framework of their schools. I do not know whether the Minister of State agrees with me, but when I visit a school and want to get a first-hand feel of that school, I find that the best thing I can do is to look at the notice board. The notice board is the best quick guide to the activities and life of a school. A dull school—a school with a lack of life in it—will have an almost empty notice board or one consisting largely of formal notices, while one which is throbbing with activity will have so many notices that room can hardly be found for all of them. Many will be references to careers advice, and the rest.
However, for that reason, in a good school, existing members of staff are already burdened with many out of school activities. The keen young man who runs the canoe club, the earnest lady who most valuably organises play reading in French, are responsible for examples of the vast variety of out-of-school activities which represent one of the great glories of our present educational system.
To this, this House is asking that we add a greater professionalism in careers work in schools. I have only to point out, for example, the increasing amount of literature which has to be read if the careers master is to keep up to date with what is available for this to be apparent. This is particularly so if, in response to points made so wisely in this debate, the careers master or mistress has increasingly to take a far more positive rôle. He or she is not just the person to whom the child goes on his own initiative, but the person who must take the initiative to the child.
This happens already in good schools. We are concerned here with those schools
154
in which the standard is not as high and enthusiastic as we should like it to be. If I were choosing such a person, the quality above all others which I would look for is the ability to enjoy the confidence of young people. Young people starting to chart seas unknown to them will be afraid of inadvertently making fools of themselves. Someone who has a sympathetic understanding of young people and who can retain their confidence has probably the quality necessary for such a person.
However, I repeat that this must all be done on top of the existing curriculum and the existing out-of-chool activities which are the particular glory of an active school—which means by far the greater number of our schools. We must avoid the kind of provocative statement about schoolmasters and schoolmistresses which is certainly not made in this House, but which one hears from time to time voiced by the general public—"These people are only nine to four workers with a quarter of the year on holiday." Good teaching is one of the most demanding professions which any man or woman can undertake. It requires constant bringing up to date and revision and those who undertake it give an enormous amount of themselves in the process.
We are asking these men and women who—by definition, if they are chosen right—will tend to be the leaders of their profession to do yet more. I have no doubt that they will, but this House should show that it has an understanding of what we are asking them to do. I was interested in the suggestion made—it would not be fair to ask the Minister of State to comment on it at short notice—in The Times Educational Supplement of 17th December, that careers offices should be established in schools. This point was made during the debate. Obviously, if this were done, it would present difficulties in placing the whole Service under the Ministry of Labour, if we were to follow the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers).
If I have carried the House with me so far, I hope that hon. Members will agree that this will be all the more important if we want to extend the Service in some of the directions outlined in the Report, but the strains will not be only on the schools. For example, there is an examination in

155
the Report of the problem of case loads. This is dealt with in paragraphs 202 to 217.
In paragraph 212 the problem of the case load on the youth employment officer is examined and the conclusion is reached that an increasing proportion of these officers are occupied in helping schools as distinct from individual boys and girls. This conclusion is reached:
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that one of the issues now facing the Service is the need to devise a new approach to the assessment of staffing needs."
That point was developed by my hon. Friends. It goes on:
"A predominantly numerical approach, largely based on 'counting heads', may have served well enough in the past, but it seems to us that a more sophisticated approach would be better suited to the new demands which are likely to be made on the Service in the next few years."
Appreciating what it is that the Report is advising us to do, within those limitations I hope that we shall be able to see some extension of the work in this age group of the youth employment officers.
I support the suggestion, first made by my right hon. Friend and mentioned by a number of hon. Members, that we should apply sampling techniques—using the statistically valid sample to the follow-up procedures—and that we should try to ascertain, with much greater accuracy than anything we possess now, just what is the effect of the Service, where it is making its greatest impact or where its weaknesses lie.
Personally, I would like to feel that the youth employment officers have the opportunity of making an impact on young people at the age of the first educational option. Education today, like so much of our life, is becoming increasingly complicated. One is sometimes appalled at the comparatively young age at which young people, little more than children, will make an educational decision—exercise their educational option—in such a way as to have a lasting effect on their subsequent lives. The choice of second language or the decision whether to follow an arts or science course are merely random examples. While I am sure that conscientious youth employment officers—those who are not overburdened with too heavy a case load—will attempt to make such an impact, this indicates
156
the further spheres which lie ahead of us if the Service is to be really effective.
The Report discusses, in paragraphs 42 to 48, the Service and schools and brings out the argument which rages as to whether youth employment officers should advise only those leaving school to go into jobs or whether they should advise those going on to higher forms of education. One of the most encouraging features of our present education system is the increasing numbers of young people who are taking up opportunities in higher education and the increasing growth of the technical college.
I am sure that this will become even more marked when we get our balance right from the university point of view. I hope that nothing I say will be taken to represent a criticism of the universities or certainly not a criticism of those who go to them. I am bound to say, however, that I sometimes have the feeling that we have got so mesmerised by the word "university" that there are some young men and women at them who would more profitably be engaged on a course at a technical college; but this may be put right as we recover our balance.
If that is so, increasing numbers of young people taking such courses will benefit by the help, advice and guidance of the youth employment officer. He will be able to help such young people to see the choice of course not as something in isolation, but as something that fits into a pattern, and as part of a coherent whole. It must be said that this will place increasing burdens on the Y.E.O., and if the age is raised to 21—as to which, I must confess, it would have been nice to have heard some more definite statement of Government policy —we must face it that this will add to the National Insurance burdens which have been mentioned earlier by my hon. Friends and others—although I quite see that the Report not only recognises that fact but would like to increase the secretarial assistance available to the Y.E.O. in that way.
I have discussed the Service and the youth employment officers and the Service and teachers, and I should now like to discuss the Service and parents. It will be generally agreed that one of the most refreshing changes in education—and it has happened in a comparatively short time, historically—is the complete and

157
revolutionary change in the outlook of so many parents towards education. Parents who, a very few years ago, in large numbers regarded children as an economic potential to be put to productive use at the earliest possible moment are now a minority, and a small minority at that. Increasingly, parents are taking, with their children, the opportunities offered to them with both hands for higher education and for extensive courses in the schools.
I believe that there are two reasons for this charge. The first is the unquestionable improvement in economic conditions over the years—the famous "13 wasted years" have played a very notable part here. The second is younger marriage, for the parent of today tends to be much closer to the educational service of his child because he himself has experienced it very much nearer than his father, and certainly his grandfather, tended to do. There is not, therefore, the same wide gulf.
This is exemplified by the fact that parent-teacher associations, and so on, show how the modern parent tends to be keenly interested in the education of the child. If anyone doubts that, though I do not think that he will, he will recall that one of the reasons for raising the school-leaving age in 1970, which is directly relevant to this Report, is that we are being "embarrassed" by the increasing numbers of young people who are voluntarily staying on at school when the law says that they may leave. As a result, there is an imbalance between different areas which cannot be allowed to continue for longer than is absolutely necessary.
But have parents shown generally the same enthusiasm for careers? I am very well aware that in talking about parents in this sense I am generalising about many tens of hundreds of people and, like all generalities, this generality can be shot down in detail. The reason I ask that question, and why it was clearly asked by the Working Party, is that there is evidence that we have not been able as much as we should like to capture the interest of parents in the Service.
I recently attended a careers exhibition. I only wish to heaven that something like that had been going in my own day, because I well recall my difficulty in
158
trying to make up my mind what to do, was essentially a D-stream boy; the nearest I have ever got to an All Souls' fellowship has been to sit next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East. Frankly, I was only saved by the outbreak—and we all regret it—of the war, which settled the matter for all those of my age at the time.
There we had the potential, the possibility of questioning people in every form of activity of life. But, although the teachers and the children were there, the parents were not. I am very glad, therefore, that the Minister, recognising this fact in opening the debate, said that he would specifically place this matter before his central executive committee for advice. If the Minister of State has any more to tell us about that, I am sure it will be very well received.
I found the Committee's conclusions on this matter, though unexceptionable, very shadowy indeed and unsatisfactory on the whole. I believe that this will have to be done substantially by the schools, and the follow-up is one of the aspects of it which we would like to feel would result from the necessary research.
There were so many interesting and valuable points made in the debate that it clearly has not been possible to give more than a glance at them. I am sure that the whole House listened with the greatest interest to the penetrating speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough. I am sure, too, that hon. Members listened with regret and sadness to his account of the way in which, apparently, Dr. Herford's pilot scheme was foundering. Nevertheless, it has played a most valuable part in that area, as I can testify, and its lessons have been learned much more widely, as everyone will agree. It may possibly be that the lessons which have been learned and the papers that have been written will last longer than anyone would dare hope.
It has been suggested that we might see a basic social service qualification embracing youth work, industrial training and youth employment. A unified careers structure has been suggested. It is to be hoped that these may follow from changes yet to be made, and I am sure that careful note has been made of these suggestions.
I should like to make one small amplification of something which was said by

159
my hon. Friend the Member for Devon-port, who, as the House knows, has made an extensive study of these matters. I understood her to say that employers should be obliged to notify changes of jobs. It was clear to me that my hon. Friend intended that this notification should be made to the Y.E.O. and not, as I think one or two people understood at the time, to other employers. This was perfectly clear to me, and I am sure it is a suggestion which the Minister will want to follow up.
I do not think any hon. Member, whatever his view of this Albemarle Report on the future development of the Youth Employment Service, will say that the subject is not of immense importance. It is important economically and socially. We spend vast sums of money—we do not begrudge it it is in an excellent cause—on our educational system, and, on any sort of basis, we have enormous tasks to perform in connection with that educational service. Therefore, we must ensure that our potential talent is used to the best advantage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West said, a happy and contented person is much more likely, apart altogether from the social issues involved, to be a more productive person. But much more than that is involved. A young person starting work, going into a confusing and difficult world, can suffer great mental hardship and strain if he makes a false start. It has been the object of this Report—muted though the reception of it has been—and certainly of our subsequent discussion to make this introduction as useful and as productive as we can.
9.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. R. E. Prentice): Anyone who has heard all or most of this debate will agree that it has been a very good debate, a very constructive debate in which hon. Members on both sides of this House have clearly given a great deal of thought and study to the subject. It has expressed, almost universally, a sense of urgency and concern about the problems we are discussing today. I say frankly on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself and my colleagues in the Government generally that we share every bit of urgency and
160
concern about this, and it is our policy to bring about an improvement in the Youth Employment Service as quickly as can possibly be done.
There have been a number of references to the Report, perhaps in two senses. There have been a very large number of tributes to the work done by Lady Albemarle and her Committee. I certainly echo those tributes and say that a great deal of work was done by them for which we are profoundly grateful. The Committee consisted of people many of whom are doing valuable work in many other fields. Lady Albemarle is known in connection with the Youth Service and many other public services.
There has also been an expression of disappointment that the Report has not gone far enough. On balance I think that kind of criticism a little unfair. In so far as there is dissatisfaction with the Service, in so far as it is felt that a great deal more needs to be done, that is something to be levelled at Governments past and present and this House as a whole. We should not confuse that with the job which has been done by the Committee. The Committee has provided us with an objective account of the present state of the Service, a description of its problems and a whole range of proposals for the work it has to do. The Committee has done that well and I would not detract from it for a moment. If there is criticism responsibility will rest for the past with hon. Members opposite, in the recent past and in the present and for many years to come, with us. We have to face this and to say how we propose to deal with the problems which are concerning us.
Before I come to the subject matter of the Report I say what one or two hon. Members have said today. If one looks to the recent past, particularly to the years in which the bulge in the school population was leaving school, we are bound to pay a very deep tribute to the work of the Youth Employment Service under difficult conditions during those years. The strength of the Service numerically and in its supporting staff and so on in the years 1960 and 1961 and 1962 was less than it is today and we are all agreed that it needs improvement on the present standards. They were dealing with very much larger numbers of school leavers, with heavy case-loads,

161
most of them working late into the night, particularly at those periods of the year when pressure is greatest. Hundreds of unsung heroes did a very great deal for the younger generation, particularly in difficult employment situations.
Looking to the future, it is essential that the country should commit itself to a growth in the strength of the Service in numerical strength, in training, supporting staff and research effort, for two clear reasons. One reason is that one of our greatest problems economically is shortage of manpower and in that situation we have to devote our means to the upgrading of our labour force. We must recognise that there are too many people throughout the country working below their ceiling. We must recognise that the working population of the future has to be on an average one of two pegs up the scale in terms of skill and responsibility as compared with the present. Only on that basis shall we get the economic growth to carry out all the programmes to which we are committed.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is the human reason for doing this. The fact is that we must take account of the period of adjustment which is necessary for people in their teens. They have a sense of being let down when they get to work, as compared with the expectations they may have had at school. In so many cases boys and girls at school are exhorted to do well and are encouraged in the various virtues which will help them subsequently. When they start work they have a feeling that they are being under-used. They are in a frustrating situation and they do not know how to get out of it. We must have a situation not only of full employment but of a choice of jobs, with adequate guidance and education for all the things we have been talking about.
The House will expect me to speak particularly on the educational aspects of the problem. Before doing so I want to reply to some of the points which have been raised—not to all of them, simply because of lack of time—affecting the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend has said that following this debate he will be doing two things in particular. He will issue very shortly guidance to local authorities about the staffing problems of the Service, including guidance on the expansion of
162
numbers and a great many other things which are dealt with in the Report and which have been referred to today. The letter which my right hon. Friend will be sending out will deal with some of the problems which have been raised concerning numbers, status, salaries and so on. He will be taking into account, as he said he would be, the views expressed in the debate.
Other matters, particularly salary matters and some of the points mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), such as car allowances, will probably not be dealt with in detail in the letter. They are proper matters for the negotiating machinery. They are not the sort of matters on which one could give a clear assurance at the Dispatch Box in a debate such as this. Clearly the negotiators will have in mind the text of the Report and the reception of the Report, both in the House and elsewhere.
Besides the letter of guidance on a whole range of other problems my right hon. Friend has said that he will be consulting local authorities on precisely what action should follow some of the recommendations of the Report and, indeed, some of the things in the Report on which there is not a clear recommendation but where the problem is raised for discussion. This affects particularly those parts of the Report dealing with possible legislation. My right hon. Friend will be discussing with the local authorities the shape that future legislation might take, the extent to which legislative changes are needed, the proper timing of changes, and so on.
This refers particularly to the question whether the range of the service should be extended from the age of 18 to some higher age, whether to 21 or to some other age. In his speech my right hon. Friend was not in any sense being unfriendly to this suggestion. We all want to see vocational guidance extended. My right hon. Friend put it in the context that he wants to see an extension of it in general and not only to that age group. He is already committed to the experiments he referred to in 11 areas to begin this March for the employment exchanges to offer a wider form of vocational guidance. That will be available to the age group we are concerned with and to others.

163
There are two possible ways forward. We must consider the proper relationship of the two. There is the extent to which the age range of the Youth Employment Service should go up and also the extent to which the employment exchanges in general should change their character. We all have in mind the objective of a much higher degree of vocational service for everyone. On the youth employment point, there is this difficulty which the House will want to face.
In so far as the Service as a whole is still under-staffed and under-trained we have to consider the priorities here and consider how quickly we should think in terms of raising the age from 18 to 21 thereby, of course, causing a large amount of extra work for the officers concerned. We have to consider also how that should be related in time to the desire to improve the Service which we are already giving to those who are under 18. My right hon. Friend is discussing with local authorities who are running the Service in most parts of the country the pros and cons of the approach to this question.
The second option—whether local authorities who do not run the Service themselves should have the right to do so —was something which was not recommended by the Albemarle Committee. It suggested that the time was not right for it. Some hon. Members have spoken in favour of this taking place now. My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he has not a closed mind on this question. He will consider the point and the views of local authority associations on it. Meanwhile, whatever shape emerges here, I think that we are all agreed that policy in all these matters, both local and national, obviously concerns both the educational world and the world of the Ministry of Labour and the services connected with it.
I should like to assure the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Sir A. Meyer) that there is no demarcation dispute between our two Departments on this. Members of the Department of Education and Science and of the Scottish Education Department sit on the Central Youth Employment Executive as full members and share in its policy making. This is one example of the system of liaison both locally and nationally.
164
On the question of the notification of job interchanges by those under 18, there is no firm recommendation by the Albemarle Committee. The Committee said that its Working Party was divided on this point. As far as the Minister is concerned, this again is an option which he would like to consider and on which he would like to have the views of the local authorities, but I think that he is disposed to be rather against it at the moment. We would, of course, want to expand the Service and take initiatives but the Youth Employment Service is voluntary and for those who have left school and started work and have changed their jobs while they are still under 18 the Service is still available. We have to consider whether the work involved for employers and others in the compulsory notification of changes of jobs would be productive in the extra use of the Service. This is not clear at present and we feel that the matter needs further discussion. This perhaps is one of the many problems which may need to be considered in due course in relation to research.
The whole range of suggestions made in this debate, and certainly those made earlier by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East point to the fact that we have not had enough research in this field in the past. Therefore the suggestions made by the Albemarle Report and the way in which they have been received by the right hon. Member are valuable for the future. They overlap the need for research in youth employment and in education generally, where so much has been neglected in the past. The Manpower Research Unit of the Ministry of Labour is a new development which is beginning to work in a field where we need much more sophisticated techniques in the future to try to obtain answers to the problems which still baffle us.
The level of educational research in general in the past has been far too low. We have increased the programme recently and the Schools Council is sponsoring a great deal of research. Here again a great deal more needs to be done in the future and both these fields overlap the subject of our debate today.
My right hon. Friend was asked about the new training unit in the C.Y.E.E. I am informed that this will lead to a 60 per

165
cent. increase over existing training facilities within the units which are described in the Report.
As regards socially unsettled young people, my right hon. Friend accepts what the Report says about this aspect of the matter and about the need for youth employment officers to be able to get a second expert opinion in cases of this kind. There is scope already for developing the existing facilities through the industrial rehabilitation units and the school psychology service, both of which are used to some extent, but the Central Executive is now considering what new facilities may be needed in this connection.
There is one paragraph of the Report which has not been mentioned in the debate—at least, it was not mentioned in the part which I heard, and I heard most if it—that is, paragraph 73 with its special reference to the problem of immigrants. I say most emphatically that the Government welcome what was said there by the Council. This is a particular challenge to the Youth Employment Service, and it is an important aspect of the whole matter.
Undoubtedly, there is evidence—I have met it in contacts with the schools and the education service throughout the country—of young immigrants leaving school with qualifications, having had at school a happy experience in an atmosphere with little or no racial prejudice of any kind, and then suddenly being let down in the sense that they are not able to get jobs to which their qualifications entitle them and which indigenous children are able to get with the same or less qualifications. This is something which ought to concern us all. We ought all to use our influence against the kind of prejudice which exists there, and, of course, it is a particular challenge to the Youth Employment Service itself.
There are two main aspects of the problem to which we have to devote our attention in the Department of Education. One is the part to be played by the schools in co-operation with the service. The other is the links with further education and the new developments in industrial training. As regards the schools, our job and the job of the local education authorities is to stimulate good careers guidance, to stimulate the kind of situation which the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) was
166
describing a few minutes ago as the ideal in which he believes. We have to admit that the pattern varies considerably throughout the country. What is being done in the best cases is excellent, but in far too many schools there is poor provision as yet. But there is evidence that good provision is increasing quickly, and increasing despite shortage of staff —a very real problem in the schools in this connection—because what is becoming recognised more and more widely is that good careers guidance is not merely being helpful to boys and girls on their future employment but has very great value in pure education terms.
Over and over again, a dangerous situation can be found in which young people from the age of 13 or so onwards become, quite naturally, more and more concerned with what they are to do when they leave school while, at the same time, what they are doing at school may begin to seem irrelevant to them and they start to lose interest. The provision, therefore, of proper careers guidance is part of the education pattern. This is a theme developed in the Newsom Report, the Brunton Report and by several others since. I remind the House of a Report just produced by the Schools Council, "Raising the School-Leaving Age", which describes the steps which need to be taken to improve the educational content of the last year at school. This develops thinking on the need to make education outward looking in several respects, including, of course, giving intelligent vocational guidance during that period.
As a Department, we can help here, first—this is going on all the time—by the constant advice which is given by Her Majesty's Inspectors in their normal work in the schools. Secondly, it will be done by the production of literature. We have recently produced a booklet, "Careers Guidance in Schools", which contains a good deal of advice on this subject. It considerably overlaps the theme of Chapter 2 of the Albemarle Report. The third thing that we can do, and are doing, is to increase the courses available for careers teachers.
As to the advice given in the booklet and elsewhere, the following are the main points. First of all, we say that there should be within each school at least one teacher concerned with careers

167
guidance. It will often be better, particularly in larger schools, for the work to be done by a team of teachers. On the whole, we do not favour the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) to have a full-time person in a large school doing the job. We are not attempting to dictate in detail how schools should do it, but our general philosophy is that it is better for teachers to be doing this as well as other things, thus avoiding the danger that they become in any way divorced from the general teaching process. They should have time to do the job. They should have available adequate records on which to base their advice. They should as far as possible have the kind of personality to which the hon. Member referred and be able to get on friendly and relaxed terms with pupils and parents.
Secondly, we say that the contacts between the schools, parents and the Youth Employment Service should be close and should begin on the whole earlier than they do now. From the age of 13 children are beginning to be interested in the problem. The process should be introduced into the schools, though not in the sense that pupils are expected to make, or encouraged to make, a firm decision on a career too early. Rather we say that there should be a period of exploring the various possibilities. The phrase "planned procrastination" has been used as describing the right approach on which teachers should discuss the possibilities with their pupils.
We also give advice on the appropriate content of schools libraries in this field —works of reference, standard books, careers literature, even novels relating to careers possibilities—and to other methods of arousing interest—careers displays, careers conventions, the use of visiting speakers and so on. This includes visits to industry. The context in which we would want this to be considered is that the visits to industry should not be in the sense that we are trying to sell a particular job to particular pupils. It is rather that with visits to industry there should be preparation beforehand and follow-up afterwards as part of teaching experience and part of the outward-looking education I have mentioned which may or may not lead to pupils being
168
interested in a career in the place they are visiting.
Mr. John Page: Will the Minister clarify one point? He said that he did not believe in careers masters solely doing the job of careers. Would he not think that in large schools there should be one master or mistress responsible for disseminating ideas about careers to the rest of the staff?
Mr. Prentice: Yes, either one master or mistress or a team of masters or mistresses, depending on the size of the school. The essential thing is that there should be within the staff one or more teachers with the time to do the job and with support from the head teacher and others to do it properly.
We are expanding the training courses which we are providing. We have been running for some time in the Department a course for eight days every summer for careers teachers. This was expanded to two courses last year. The courses have a good reputation, but we are worried that we are not reaching enough people. At the moment 400 or 500 teachers have passed through the courses in recent years, but this is nothing like the requirement nationally. So this coming year we shall run two courses, one being a high level course for 15 teachers who have already attended the first course, plus 15 youth employment officers who will be expected to go back and run their own courses in the localities. We are calling on local authorities to help so that the ideas may be disseminated more widely.
I want to say a few words about the problem as it affects us in relation to further education. I welcome paragraphs 49–58 in the Report about the need for closer links between the Youth Employment Service and the further education world. I think we should all agree that one of the growing duties of a youth employment officer is to disseminate information about further education, which in itself is perhaps the fastest growing part of the education system. This in its original forms and in connection with the new Industrial Training Act gives the youth employment officer one more duty on top of all the others as a channel of information to the young people concerned.

169
The Report refers to the tendency in some areas for new youth employment offices to be located in technical colleges. We welcome this. There have been 17 examples of this in the last five years. The Department, in looking at plans for new technical colleges, will welcome this as a special way of increasing the links between the Youth Employment Service and technical education.
We have been discussing the Youth Employment Service today in a wide context of changes in industry and changes in education. I suggest that, provided the kind of reforms which have commanded general support on both sides of the House are pursued with the necessary vigour and backed up with the necessary resources by government nationally and by government locally, and if they can be tied in with other things happening in education and training, we shall be able to claim that we are moving forward to a new deal for teen-agers and particularly those who tend to leave school at the age of 15 or 16. At the moment, too many are leaving at 15, making a sharp break with education and getting no organised further education and too little guidance in their careers.
If one looks ahead into the 'seventies, we shall have a situation where there will be education for all up to 16 and there will be the growing impact of industrial training. More and more young people are getting organised training at their place of work, and training not only in the conventional craft skills. I have a natural inclination to support the apprentices, but we are concerned here not merely with the traditional apprenticeship categories but with young people entering work of all kinds, girls as well as
170
boys, commerce and agriculture and distribution, as well as industry in the narrower sense.
There will also be a great increase of day release and block release courses as part of the expansion of industrial training. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend recently announced that he will not normally approve schemes put up by industrial training boards unless they include an element of day release or block release.
In this way we shall achieve something that was envisaged in 1944—part-time education for all up to the age of 18. But we shall do it by a different method and not by the day colleges which were envisaged then. We shall achieve for more and more young people more and more facilities and opportunities until eventually it becomes the normal thing to take such further education while the process of earning a living is beginning.
Part of this pattern has to be a strengthened Youth Employment Service, larger in numbers and better trained, housed in better premises and supported by better and larger clerical staff and a bigger research effort. To achieve that will demand a very great deal from the Government, from local authorities, from the schools and from the Youth Employment Service itself, and this debate today, which has been very constructive, has put the matter and its urgency in the right perspective.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of a Working Party of the National Youth Employment Council on the Future Development of the Youth Employment Service.

FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS
9.59 p.m.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the labelling of farm and garden chemicals, and matters related thereto.
My attempts to introduce this Bill under the Ten Minute Rule are now becoming something of a hardy annual and I hope that my persistence in attempting to obtain more informative labelling of pesticides will at least match the persistence of the residues of these chemicals themselves.
We sometimes forget that, in this country, we are not living in a primitive environment beset with insect plagues on every hand. Our circumstances are quite different from those of other countries. We are living in a crowded, mainly urban community in which it is essential to preserve the right balance between humans and animals alike and between food production and public health and to keep a close guard on modern developments in agriculture from the point of view of public health.
The chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides which are the main concern of the Bill have been through an interesting and revealing history. When they were first introduced they were widely welcomed and used enthusiastically and it was only when birds began to die in considerable numbers after eating dressed spring-sown wheat seed that the possible dangers began to be appreciated.
Despite all the research which had been undertaken by the trade before these products were launched on the market, it was a scientific surprise when this organochlorine pesticide hazard was discovered. This experience, I believe, should cause us to be very careful not to assume that substances are safe until they have been the subject of independent research over a very long period and in a variety of circumstances.
Dangers to predator birds from sheep dip, to marine species from contamination in water, and continuing evidence from nature protection organisations of deaths of birds, animals and beneficial insects led the Government to ban the most suspect of these pesticides. But others, like D.D.T. and B.H.C., remain and now
172
concern is growing not only about the effects of these persistent chemicals on wild life—which is comparatively easy to assess—but also on human beings, which is more difficult to evaluate.
Traces of pesticides like B.H.C., D.D.T. and dieldrin have been found in the body fat of people in Wales particularly, and nearly a score of samples of human breast milk from Cardiff, Leicester and London also contain traces of these chemicals.
The National Association of Public Analysts is planning a survey of the amounts of pesticides in all types of food, particularly fresh fruit and vegetables. Up to date, 43 county councils and 117 borough and district councils have agreed to support the scheme. In addition, Government laboratories have, since the beginning of 1962, analysed samples of such foodstuffs as potatoes, carrots, strawberries, corned beef, imported apples, milk, wheat and pheasant, together with both home-produced and imported mutton fat, beef fat and butter.
Between the beginning of 1962 and 15th July last year, over 1,500 samples were analysed and I have no doubt that the number of samples since that date has considerably increased. The picture which this builds up over the years is one of gradual realisation of the hazards and the need for more and more research and safeguards in the use of these products. The long-term effect on health, particularly in combination with all the other chemical products and environmental pollution of modern life, urgently need investigation at Government level, since this public aspect of the use of pesticides is a public health responsibility, and the trade's own researches are inevitably limited by economic considerations.
While a greater awareness of the dangers and action to meet them is developing, the need remains for giving more information on these pesticides to farmers, contractors and gardeners about the chemicals that they contain, and warnings should be included about their possible long-term effects. That information and the education of the user can be given in many ways, but the one place where it is most effective is on the container itself or on the label fixed to it.
That is the sole and limited purpose of the Bill that I am seeking leave to introduce. It is to enable regulations to be

173
made requiring pesticides and some other chemical products used in gardening and agriculture to be labelled if they contain certain substances with the names of the substances and with marks to indicate toxicity, so that users can see at a glance exactly what they are using and take the necessary precautions.
I believe that this is a workmanlike, straightforward and very necessary Bill which is pioneering in a field where potential dangers are very great, and that these elementary safeguards are absolutely vital. It is not only in the countryside where these products may spell danger. Unless they are used with care and discretion, in closely built urban areas their use by millions of gardeners and allotment holders may have untoward effects, particularly as horticultural advisers and writers are such tireless advocates of every form of chemical spray.
I know of at least one prize-winning gardener who applies insect sprays to his carrots for show purposes, but who would never dream of eating them himself; and he preserves unsprayed crops for his family's personal use. But many gardeners lack his experienced judgment and they apply every available spray to their crops and plants.
It is to protect these innocent users as well as those who are careless and forgetful and to protect the environment in which they carry out their activities that the Bill is designed. Its provisions are long overdue, and I hope that the House will give me leave to bring it in.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Joyce Butler, Miss Quennell, Mr. William Yates, Sir G. Nicholson, Mr. Lubbock, Mr. Joan L. Evans, Mr. Hazell, Mr. Malcolm Macmillan, and Mr. Iremonger.

FARM AND GARDEN CHEMICALS BILL
Bill to make provision for the labelling of farm and garden chemicals, and matters related thereto, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 11th March, and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

FARM ACCIDENTS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ifor Davies.]
10.9 p.m.
Mr. Bert Hazell: It is with pleasure that I take this opportunity to bring before the House a matter with which I have been vitally concerned for the whole of my life, namely, that of accidents which occur on farms throughout England and Wales.
Apart from the fact that in the early days, after leaving school, I spent my time on the farms of Norfolk, for practically the whole of the last 30 years I have been a full-time officer of the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and in the course of my day-to-day work I have been intimately brought in contact with very serious and less serious accident cases which have occurred to men and women employed in the agricultural and horticultural industries.
During the past 30 years radical changes have taken place in the methods of production on the farms of this country. Intense mechanisation has replaced the slower and more traditional methods of using horses and horse-drawn implements, and those who moved from operating the slower-moving farm implements to operating mechanised implements had to acquire their experience by trial and error. None of them was given any practical training in the handling of modern equipment, and it was therefore not surprising that, particularly during the transitional period, there was a high accident rate amongst those employed in agriculture.
Even today very little practical training is given to men employed within the industry. It is true that by means of day-release courses a number of the younger personnel on the farms get some limited training, but by and large the vast majority of those employed in the industry have acquired by experience their knowledge of the use of tractors and all the implements that go with modern agriculture.
The record of accidents within the industry is at an appallingly high level. More than 20 years ago I gave evidence before a Departmental Committee and

175
said that some form of Factories Acts legislation should be introduced for the benefit of agriculture. At that time it was argued that it was impossible to provide such legislation because of the complexity of the agricultural industry, but in 1956 there was placed on the Statute Book the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, and those in the industry heartily welcomed this legislalation. During the 10 years since the passing of that Act, Regulations have been made for the guarding of old and new machinery. In fact, some Regulations became operative from 1st January of this year, and workers in the industry have appreciated this development.
Under the Act, safety officers were appointed and attached to the county agricultural executive committees. In the early stages, the number of safety officers was extremely limited, but since then the Ministry has provided a measure of training for other officers employed by the country agricultural executive commines, with the result that today about 390 officers have some knowledge of what to look for when they visit farms to ascertain whether any part of the Regulations has been violated.
Unfortunately, most of these enforcement officers have other duties to perform. They attend to drainage schemes which farmers submit to the county executive. They deal with ploughing grants. They deal with a multiplicity of applications which farmers have to make to the county agricultural authorities, with the result that only a limited amount of their time can be spent on ensuring that the Regulations under the 1956 Act are carried out.
Whenever there is a meeting of organised farm workers in any county in England and Wales, the points is inevitably raised about the insufficiency of farm safety officers. I have heard the view expressed time and again that only a very small minority of the farms in this country have been visited by such officers. When a serious accident occurs it is the job of one of these officers to examine the equipment involved, but farmworkers and their trade union want regular visits by safety inspectors or enforcement officers, to ensure that there is no violation of the Regulations.
176
I know that the report of the Ministry showed that for the year ended September, 1964, about 20,800 visits were paid to farms, but this represents only a small proportion of the total number. I have no doubt that many of those visits occurred in connection with farms which had been visited in previous years. The allegations by the farm workers that very few farms have been visited are so strong that there must be something in them. In addition to the appointment of extra safety officers whose full-time responsibility it would be to visit farms, I would like to see more work undertaken of an educational character. There is no point in investigating the cause of an accident after it has happened, because the injured man derives no benefit from such an inquiry, nor does his widow if he is killed. Much greater emphasis should be placed on preventive work.
Safety inspectors appointed by the Ministry hold village meetings from time to time to explain the import of the various Regulations, and they put on a good performance, for those sufficiently interested, by means of films and slides. But this touches only the fringe of the problem. In some counties voluntary committees have been established to promote educational work and to draw to the notice of those concerned the means of preventing accidents, but these committees are hampered by lack of finance.
It is an amazing thing that such committees rely upon the organisation of raffles and competitions to provide the moneys to enable them to function. A few function extremely well and some of them function very spasmodically, but in some counties no such voluntary committees operate. I understand that the Ministry pays a grant of £1,000 a year to ROSPA to enable it to play its part in providing a caravan to attend local shows and give some assistance to these voluntary committees, but because I am concerned about the need to prevent accidents I would like to see the Ministry setting up committees.
The voluntary committees have done the initial spadework, and something more positive is now required. If such committees were set up by the Ministry they would give a sense of purpose and much more authority to the voluntary committees. I was talking to a member of one of these only last weekend. I

177
asked him how his committee functioned, and he told me that it had held a meeting this month—a week or so ago—and that the previous meeting had been held in February of last year. There had been a lapse of 11 months. When I asked why, he replied, "When I approached the chairman of the committee he informed me that there was nothing to talk about." That is a very poor approach to the fundamental problem of getting across to employer and employee the need to take the utmost care in the handling of mechanised equipment on our farms. I should very much like to see the Ministry laying greater emphasis on prevention of accidents. This could be done if they would take the initiative in forming safety committees throughout the country.
In the Ministry's Report for the period ending September, 1964, I note that 99 fatal accidents occurred on farms, of which 41 were caused by tractors. A large percentage of these fatal accidents were the result of tractors overturning. The use of wheeled tractors on hillsides or on silage clamps creates a great risk. I should like to see Regulations introduced as early as possible for the provision of safety cabs or safety frames on tractors.
I know that the Minister has introduced draft proposals in this respect, but I am not at all happy with them, because I see that it is suggested that, when the proposals ultimately become Regulations, safety cabs or frames will have to be fitted within two years. That seems reasonable enough, but for existing tractors the proposals suggest that safety cabs be fitted within 10 years. This is a long time and I hope that, when Regulations are made, that length of time will be considerably shortened.
I have had a word with the National Union of Agricultural Workers about these draft proposals and I understand that they are looking forward to the opportunity of discussing them with the Ministry at the earliest possible moment. I am sure that the union would place the utmost insistence on this point.
I hope that when these proposals are considered afresh, the time factor is considerably reduced. Not all fatal accidents occur as a result of overturning tractors. I read in the train yesterday in a northern newspaper of a young
178
married man with two children who fell into a grain silo. Before he could be rescued, and in spite of frantic efforts to release the grain, he unfortunately suffocated. We use very complex and complicated equipment on farms today. This is why I stress so urgently the need for further education and for further preventive measures.
Another aspect which concerns me is the law about the age at which children can drive tractors. A boy may at present drive a tractor on a farm at the age of 13. I should like to see this Regulatioa reconsidered, because, with the high speed of modern tractors, I am convinced that a boy, naturally anxious at times to see how fast the tractor can go, runs a grave risk of causing danger not only to himself but to others who might be in the path of the tractor. I know that boys are allowed to handle machines and that they like to get on tractors at every opportunity, but I still maintain that, at 13, a lad has not the physical ability to handle the modern high-powered tractors which are used on many farms today.
The Report also said that 11,866 nonfatal accidents occurred. The Minister may say that this is 900 better than the record high figure of the year before, but I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that this figure represents 1,000 more accidents than occurred in 1961. The record in this matter is, therefore, not good and when one realises that fewer workers are now employed in the industry one realises that the ratio of accidents is higher today than in the past.
I appreciate that not all accidents are entirely due to faulty equipment. Some are due to negligence on the part of workers. For this reason a greater sense of urgency must be shown by those employed in the industry to take advantage of safety techniques. I understand that the Ministry of Labour will soon introduce an industrial training scheme for the agricultural industry. Part of it will, I hope, contain instruction about the handling of equipment, particularly tractors.
Since my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) is anxious to take part in this short debate, I will conclude my remarks by briefly summing up. First, more safety officers should

179
be employed by the Ministry to make routine checks to ensure that farm equipment is properly protected. Secondly, the Ministry should take up the matter of organising committees, thereby giving a greater sense of urgency and responsibility to this matter than is possible under the present voluntary system. Thirdly, I would like to see heavier penalties imposed on those who infringe the law, for at present the penalties are extremely nominal.
Fourthly, we must appreciate the importance of safety frames and cabs on tractors, with the Regulations being brought in at an earlier date than that suggested in the draft proposals. Fifthly, more training should be given to operatives and training should be incorporated in the industrial training regulations which, I understand, will be issued when the Council is ultimately established.
10.28 p.m.
Mr. Derek Page: I wish to begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) for initiating this important debate, particularly since the National Union of Agricultural Workers has for many years been drawing attention to the problems we are discussing. At the same time, however, I must regret the total absence of interest in this subject by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Not one of them is present. On most subjects we find a multiplicity of views being expressed on the benches opposite, but on this one there appear to be none.
This subject is of tremendous importance, particularly the facets of it affecting industrial safety in agriculture, partly because men work under such isolated conditions that on many occasions they are far from help if accidents occur and partly because the responsibility for accidents is so much more difficult to attribute in agriculture compared with many factories because of these isolated conditions.
I appeal to the Minister to keep an eye, as I am sure he does, on new techniques in agriculture, because new machinery and chemicals are being introduced all the time. The accident figures, particularly those involving chemicals, show no distinct fall in the number of
180
farm accidents. I add my voice to the plea of my hon. Friend for the strengthening of the county safety committees. More official backing for these committees is thoroughly justified. Since the prevention of accidents must depend largely on the knowledge of farm workers and on the safety precautions which are taken to prevent accidents with machinery, I urge that the safety training of farm workers should receive the very highest priority.
Since we are pressed for time I will make only one suggestion; that the Minister should consider giving Government subsidies for the safety training of all farmworkers.
10.30 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): This has been a very useful and informative debate, and I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on raising these matters; also my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page), who has given me a few minutes in which to reply. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North cares greatly about this subject, on which he is extremely well informed. This debate also gives me an opportunity to tell the House—at least, those hon. Members sitting on this side—something of what we have been trying to do about safety.
Regulations have already been made to cover the guarding of practically all machines used on farms. The Field Machinery Regulations are not yet fully in force. They already apply to all new machines and three of the five groups of machines in use, including tractors, combines and certain other widely-used harvesting machines. Most of the rest will be covered next January—and all by January, 1968.
Everyone has done his best to ensure compliance with these Regulations—manufacturers, dealers, engineers and, of course, farmers. This has needed a lot of planning and foresight by manufacturers, and a lot of care and trouble by farmers. In spite of many difficulties, compliance with the Regulations has, on the whole, been very satisfactory and encouraging. All concerned deserve to be congratulated.

181
In spite of the general observance of the Regulations, there are still far too many accidents. Things do, however, seem to he improving to some extent, and I am very pleased to say that the accident rate in England and Wales during the 12 months which ended on 30th September last showed a substantial reduction compared with previous years. There were 87 fatal accidents and 10,408 nonfatal accidents; these are the lowest figures for any year since the passing of the 1956 Act.
As to tractor safety cabs, the Annual Report, which my right hon. Friend will present to Parliament shortly, will give full details of the situation up to the end of September, 1965, but perhaps I might mention one point now: 32 of the 87 fatal accidents were due to tractors overturning. To prevent these deaths would be an immense service to the farming community; in fact, nearly all of them could have been prevented by the fitting of suitable safety frames or cabs to the tractors.
This is not just a matter for the Government; it is the responsibility of all those who have anything to do with agriculture to join in preventing these needless deaths. I was glad to see, incidentally, that the question was referred to in a recent edition of "Panorama" on television.
The position of the Government is quite clear. We have recently issued proposals for regulations which would require the fitting of approved safety frames and safety cabs, first, to new tractors and ultimately to all tractors. We now await the comments of interested organisations, but we intend to press on with this matter as fast as we can.
One of the other main classes of fatal accidents is accidents to children. Once again, 16 children under the age of 15 were killed. Eleven of these were toddlers, knocked down by tractors or other machines, killed in falls or drowned in shallow water. There is only one way to stop these tragic deaths, and that is by every adult taking much more care to see that children do not get into dangerous places, and to warn them what the dangers are. Two other children were killed riding on tractors; Regulations already prohibit this.
182
These are deaths that could easily be prevented. To let children subject themselves to this danger is a criminal act in every sense of the word, and it has been necessary to prosecute 42 people for breaches of these particular Regulations in the last year. It is the clear duty of everyone connected with agriculture to do all he can to ensure that these Regulations are complied with.
I know that there has been a suggestion that the county farm safety committees should be fully controlled by the Department, since this would be a way of making them more active and efficient. So far, we have not agreed with this argument and, frankly, I am not even now convinced by it. Our safety officers already do a great deal to advise and assist the committees, but I think we should be careful to do nothing to discourage voluntary work in this field.
The Department can do its part by Regulations and by official advice and encouragement, but there are some things it cannot do. A large part of farm safety can never be imposed; it is a matter of common sense and vigilance. Advice on these matters, and indeed explanation of the need for, and value of, Regulations, comes much better and more effectively from one farmer to another and from one farmworker to another. If some of these committees are not meeting and are not doing the job they were set up to do, it is for the agricultural community as a united body to put new life into them. We will certainly give our support to such efforts.
This brings me to the question of the organisation of safety work within the Department, which is important. We employ 42 full-time safety specialists—the Chief Safety Inspector, his deputies, a regional inspector in Wales and each of the seven English regions, and a field officer (Grade I)—a not unimportant appointment—in each of the 31 divisions.
There are also 421 field officers now qualified in three skills which include safety. These officers spend about one-quarter of their time on farm safety work. These multi-purpose officers are all trained people and have immediate access to a specialist if they need help or guidance. Above all, they are able to concentrate their attention on relatively small districts, which minimises wasteful travelling time and give them a real chance to

183
get to know the farms, farming conditions, problems and local practices of their districts.
Although, as I have said, formal safety visits occupy only about a quarter of the time of these officers, they can and do keep their eyes open for safety problems during their constant visits to farms for other reasons. The number of safety visits in the past year rose to 29,500, an increase of more than 40 per cent. over the previous year. We think that, given the limitations on finance and manpower, we can achieve a better coverage with the present system than could be gained by employing a necessarily much smaller force of full-time specialists.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise again that Regulations and inspections, necessary as they are, can only form the groundwork. No system will ever be foolproof if we can find someone who is too careless to pay attention to what is laid down. Above everything else, what we need is common sense and
184
such constant care that it becomes second nature. In many ways, farms are more dangerous places than factories, and need more alertness and more care. There is often a wide variety of processes, each lasting for a short time but all performed by one individual. Most of the processes are carried out under the exclusive control of the farmer or farm worker himself. They do not, therefore, produce the range of unexpected and diverse hazards which make road accidents such an intractable problem.
Farm accidents can be reduced. They must be reduced. The task needs the unstinting co-operation of all, both in this House and throughout the countryside.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
ZAMBIA
  Economic Assistance
  Economic Assistance
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
PAKISTAN
  Cyclone Damage
  Cyclone Damage
GHANA
  Trade with Rhodesia
  Trade with Rhodesia
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Drilling Rig "Sea Gem" (Loss)
  Drilling Rig "Sea Gem" (Loss)
  Domestic Storage Heaters (Advertising)
  Domestic Storage Heaters (Advertising)
  Pit Closures
  Pit Closures
  National Coal Board Workshops
  National Coal Board Workshops
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Wife's Earned Income Allowance
  Wife's Earned Income Allowance
  Women Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Women Non-Industrial Civil Servants
  Land Commission Bill (Levy)
  Land Commission Bill (Levy)
  Toll Bridges
  Toll Bridges
  Rhodesia (Sanctions)
  Rhodesia (Sanctions)
  Hotel and Catering Industry (Plant and Machinery)
  Hotel and Catering Industry (Plant and Machinery)
  Public Boards (Salaries)
  Public Boards (Salaries)
  Carlisle (Government Capital Schemes)
  Carlisle (Government Capital Schemes)
  Scotland (Investment in Education, Hospitals, Roads and Housing)
  Scotland (Investment in Education, Hospitals, Roads and Housing)
  Income Tax (Gifts to Buyers)
  Income Tax (Gifts to Buyers)
  Dollar Securities
  Dollar Securities
  Inspector of Taxes (Corby)
  Inspector of Taxes (Corby)
  Rhodesia (Exchange Control Measures)
  Rhodesia (Exchange Control Measures)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  North Buckinghamshire (Proposed Site for New Town)
  North Buckinghamshire (Proposed Site for New Town)
  Tadcaster (Floods)
  Tadcaster (Floods)
  Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham
  Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham
  Peacehaven, Telscombe and Saltdean (Fouling of Beaches)
  Peacehaven, Telscombe and Saltdean (Fouling of Beaches)
  Local Water Boards (Meters)
  Local Water Boards (Meters)
  Thames Flood Barrier
  Thames Flood Barrier
  Oxford Colleges (Rating Relief)
  Oxford Colleges (Rating Relief)
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Local Government Commission (South-East Lancashire)
  Local Government Commission (South-East Lancashire)
  Berkshire Downs (Abstraction of Water)
  Berkshire Downs (Abstraction of Water)
  New Towns (Passenger Railway Stations)
  New Towns (Passenger Railway Stations)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Territorial Army Emergency Reserve
  Territorial Army Emergency Reserve
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Far East Air Force (Aircraft)
  Far East Air Force (Aircraft)
  Army Volunteer Reserve
  Army Volunteer Reserve
  Officers (Training)
  Officers (Training)
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
TRANSPORT
  Carriage of Parcels
  Carriage of Parcels
RAILWAYS
  Eridge-Hailsham Line
  Eridge-Hailsham Line
  Land (Development)
  Land (Development)
  Railway Superannuitants
  Railway Superannuitants
  Oldham-Rochdale Line
  Oldham-Rochdale Line
ROADS
  Halesowen By-Pass (Accidents)
  Halesowen By-Pass (Accidents)
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Road Junction, Langley (Roundabout)
  Road Junction, Langley (Roundabout)
  Faringdon Relief Road
  Faringdon Relief Road
  Mereworth (Accidents)
  Mereworth (Accidents)
  CHILD POVERTY ACTION GROUP (MEMORANDUM)
  CHILD POVERTY ACTION GROUP (MEMORANDUM)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  INDIA AND PAKISTAN (DISPUTE)
  INDIA AND PAKISTAN (DISPUTE)
  INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
  INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
  GAS SUPPLIES (BIRMINGHAM)
  GAS SUPPLIES (BIRMINGHAM)
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE (REFERENCES)
  SELECT COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE (REFERENCES)
  SECURITY COMMISSION (REPORT)
  SECURITY COMMISSION (REPORT)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fertilisers (Trace Elements)
  Fertilisers (Trace Elements)
  Land Drainage Rating
  Land Drainage Rating
  Conway Valley (Floods)
  Conway Valley (Floods)
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (Grading)
  Fresh Fruit and Vegetables (Grading)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aerospace Industry (Production Orders)
  Aerospace Industry (Production Orders)
ANTIGUA
  Primary Education
  Primary Education
  Airlines (Annual Output)
  Airlines (Annual Output)
ANGUILLA
  Primary Education
  Primary Education
NEVIS
  Primary Education
  Primary Education
VIRGIN ISLANDS
  Primary Education
  Primary Education
MONTSERRAT
  Primary Education
  Primary Education
BAHAMAS
  Currency
  Currency
ST. KITTS
  Primary Education
  Primary Education
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Computers
  Computers
  Space Developments (Expenditure)
  Space Developments (Expenditure)
  E.S.R.O. and European Space Technology Committee
  E.S.R.O. and European Space Technology Committee
  Satellites
  Satellites
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (WORKING PARTY RECOMMENDATIONS)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (WORKING PARTY RECOMMENDATIONS)
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  EUROPEAN CONVENTION
  EUROPEAN CODE OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND PROTOCOL
  EUROPEAN CODE OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND PROTOCOL
  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (LANDING STRIP)
  SOUTH-WEST AFRICA (LANDING STRIP)
  UNITED NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTIONS)
  UNITED NATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTIONS)
HOSPITALS
  Copthorne Hospital (Cervical Cytology)
  Copthorne Hospital (Cervical Cytology)
HEALTH
  Imported Drink Coolers
  Imported Drink Coolers
  Invalid Tricycles (Issue)
  Invalid Tricycles (Issue)
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Food Hygiene Council (Report)
  Food Hygiene Council (Report)
  Accidents to Children
  Accidents to Children
  Immigration Officers (Interpreters)
  Immigration Officers (Interpreters)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Children (Indictable and Non-Indictable Offences)
  Children (Indictable and Non-Indictable Offences)
  Greater London Council and London Borough Elections
  Greater London Council and London Borough Elections
  Murder
  Murder
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Wage Increases
  Wage Increases
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  North Road Railway Workshops, Darlington
  North Road Railway Workshops, Darlington
  Aerospace Industries
  Aerospace Industries
  Epileptics, Swindon Area
  Epileptics, Swindon Area
  Industrial Relations and Modern Industrial Practice
  Industrial Relations and Modern Industrial Practice
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye
  Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye
  Pit Closures (Redundancies)
  Pit Closures (Redundancies)
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Forestry Workers (Earnings)
  Forestry Workers (Earnings)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Rhodesia (Development Projects)
  Rhodesia (Development Projects)
POST OFFICE
  Carlisle (Postponed Scheme)
  Carlisle (Postponed Scheme)
  Sub-Post Office, Kendall Crescent, Oxford
  Sub-Post Office, Kendall Crescent, Oxford
  Space Developments (Expenditure)
  Space Developments (Expenditure)
  Surface Mail, Australia
  Surface Mail, Australia
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Television Reception (Llanrwst Area)
  Television Reception (Llanrwst Area)
  Reception, Mid-Wales
  Reception, Mid-Wales
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Kiosks, Blackbird Leys Estate, Oxford
  Kiosks, Blackbird Leys Estate, Oxford
  Kiosks (Vandalism)
  Kiosks (Vandalism)
SCOTLAND
  Hospitals, Fife (Casualties)
  Hospitals, Fife (Casualties)
MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY
  Inventions and Development Projects
  Inventions and Development Projects
  National Research Development Corporation
  National Research Development Corporation
  Industrial Valves
  Industrial Valves
  North Road Workshops, Darlington
  North Road Workshops, Darlington
  Space Developments
  Space Developments
  E.S.R.O. Satellite Project
  E.S.R.O. Satellite Project
  Fast Breeder Reactor Station (Site)
  Fast Breeder Reactor Station (Site)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Exports)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Exports)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
  Carlisle (Government Schemes)
BOARD OF TRADE
  New Industry, Darlington
  New Industry, Darlington
  Local Employment Acts (Grants, Scotland)
  Local Employment Acts (Grants, Scotland)
  Government Grants and Loans
  Government Grants and Loans
  Scotland and Northern Europe
  Scotland and Northern Europe
WALES
  Rural Bus Services
  Rural Bus Services

Preamble
Reassembling after the Christmas Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester

CAMPAIGN AGAINST CIGARETTE SMOKING
2.36 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, since the Commissioners of H.M. Customs and Excise report their inability to detect the expected significant fall in cigarette smoking during 1964–65, they remain satisfied with their poster campaign aimed at discouraging this practice.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, it was never expected that a campaign to educate the public about the dangers of smoking could bring quick results. We have evidence from our social surveys of increasing understanding by the public of these dangers, and there has been a small drop since 1961 in the proportion of the adult population who are cigarette smokers.
The campaign does not consist only of displaying posters. For example, there are
2
talks in schools, the showing of films, and advertisements in young people's magazines; and these are important features. The campaign is conducted locally by local health and education authorities, helped and encouraged by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness for her Answer, particularly as I understand that this is the first occasion on which a noble Baroness has answered a Question from the Government Dispatch Box. Having said that, may I ask the noble Lady this question? Would she be happy to address any public gathering and say, "Hands up all those who have yet to see one of the Government's anti-cigarette posters."?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I would merely say to the noble Lord, as I am sure he realises, that the campaign has been directed at the young people. Were the gathering that he envisages a gathering of school children or young people, I should think that a substantial number of hands would be raised.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness if she knows whether the local education authorities are fully co-operating with the local health authorities in agreeing to the posters' being put up in the schools?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I do not have figures on this point, but I will certainly get them for him. So far as I know from my own local connections, the co-operation is good.

GUARANTEES AND THE LAW COMMISSION
2.38 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a statement concerning the reference of the matter of guarantees to the Departmental Committee set up by the Law Commission.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I assume that my noble friend has in mind the inquiry recommended by the Law Commission into the desirability of prohibiting or restricting clauses in contracts which limit or exclude liability for negligence. The Government are examining the scope of this problem, which affects a number of Departments. In relation to consumer sales, the Molony Committee has already recommended that it should not be possible to contract out of most of the conditions and warranties implied by the Sale of Goods Act. The Government will give detailed consideration to this recommendation when work on the new Merchandise Marks legislation is completed, in accordance with the order of priority recommended by the Molony Committee.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, in thanking my noble and learned friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that I drew great courage from the actual words he used in Hansard of December 9 in column 473–4, to which my attention was directed? Is he further aware that I do not have equal confidence in what the Molony Report said about guarantees, and could he assure the House that it will be his attitude towards guarantees that will be the crux of this matter and not that of the Molony Committee?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should hesitate to give any such guarantee. My noble friend will bear in mind, I am sure, that the sphere in which the Law Commission is interested —that of the exclusion of clauses exempting from liability for negligence
4
—is a good deal wider than the field of consumer protection in the sale of goods, because these clauses are also to be found, for example, in contracts for warehousing and contracts for the carriage of goods. So far as the Molony Committee's Report is concerned, my noble friend will also bear in mind that they themselves set down an order of priority, taking, first, trade descriptions, and only secondly amendments of the Sale of Goods Act. There may be news for the noble Lady later this afternoon about trade descriptions. So far as the Sale of Goods Act is concerned, I am not yet able to say when my right honorable friend the President of the Board of Trade will be ready with legislation in that field.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I lastly just ask my noble and learned friend whether he personally will keep his eye on this question of guarantees, because it is a matter of considerable concern to all consumers?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, I will; and indeed I am very interested in it myself.

LOSSES FROM CRIME
2.41 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimated cost per annum of losses due to crime in the United Kingdom.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I regret that no such estimate is available. The Criminal Statistics for England and Wales give the number of thefts known to the police in certain categories according to value of the property stolen, although the total amount cannot be calculated from these figures.
The Annual Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis provides estimates of the value of property stolen in cases of theft and fraud, with the exception of certain aggravated larcenies: the total for 1964 was estimated

5
To be £14,433,655, of which £1,858,899 was recovered. There are no figures for losses caused by malicious damage or arson.
The losses resulting from offences against the person could not be estimated without very extensive research. The ex gratia payments made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board during 1965 amounted to £295,967, but this should not, of course, be taken as an estimate of the total loss caused by offences of violence against the person.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that detailed reply, though, of course, through no fault of his own, it is somewhat inadequate. I should like to ask him at least two supplementary questions. First of all, would he agree that if we were to multiply the £14 million which he gave as the figure for the metropolitan area, and which applies to only a limited number of cases, by 10 or 15, it would give us a not unreasonable figure for the total loss due to crime for the whole country? That is the first question I should like him to answer.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is a question which, as the noble Lord is aware, cannot possibly be answered with any accuracy. But if we remember that the rate of crime committed in the metropolitan area is greater than in the country as a whole, I should have thought that possibly a factor of 3 or 3½ times would bring us much nearer the truth.
LORD DERWENT: But the figures the noble Lord gave me were for the loss from crime of only a limited type. Might I ask him this question? Will the Government consider whether it might not show a considerable economy if they were to be generous both over police pay, thereby getting more recruits, and also over police equipment? Because I really cannot accept that the total loss due to crime is only three or four times the £14 million.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the figures to which I referred, and which are, of course, given in the Criminal Statistics, cover crimes of sacrilege, burglary, housebreaking, shopbreaking and larceny and analyze the value of property involved in three-quarters of a million crimes. In the majority of them
6
the property lost was of under £10 in value. So this does not encourage any doubts about the figures I have already quoted.
With regard to the question of pay, I would remind the noble Lord that the annual cost of the police services in England and Wales is in the region of £180 million. The cost of the police services in the Metropolitan Police area alone exceeds £50 million annually, which is more than four times the estimated value of property stolen and not recovered. Questions of pay will be considered through the appropriate negotiating machinery. Meanwhile, I would point out that since the beginning of 1960 the pay of police constables has increased, according to the date of entry and age, by between 37 per cent. and 59 per cent. in the provinces, and between 47 per cent. and 70 per cent. in London. To-day, a 22-year-old constable in the Metropolitan Force may receive, including rent and other allowances, a total of £28 a week for a 48-hour week, and an experienced constable £34 a week. These rates compare not unfavorably with other occupations.

HOLIDAYS ABROAD
2.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that he is very much against taking holidays abroad because they cost too much foreign exchange represents official Government policy; and, if so, whether they will influence the state-owned aircraft corporations to stop their advertising campaign urging people in this country to go abroad.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is the Government's aim to correct the deficit on the country's balance of payments as soon as possible. Therefore, any voluntary action by residents of this country to limit expenditure of foreign exchange on travel helps to this end. But so far as people wish to travel, the Government would wish the British air

7
corporations to have a proper share of that traffic.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him this question: would he, in the light of the Chancellor's statement, tell us, "Yes" or "No", whether it is against the national interest to take holidays abroad this year; and will Her Majesty's Government realize that upon the answer depends the summer plans of the many patriotic persons who, if asked to stay at home, will do so, as happened in 1931 when Britain went off the gold standard? Can we have these doubts resolved?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl has asked me to answer "Yes" or "No", but the noble Earl must know that the question that he has put cannot be answered in quite such clear terms.
LORD CARRINGTON: Why not?
LORD SHEPHERD: As I said in my original Answer, we wish to deal with the balance of payments, and any saving on overseas travel will help to that end; but it is recognized that holidays are a two-way traffic, in the sense that we receive very many welcome visitors here, and it would be quite contrary to a number of exchange control Acts for us to take any administrative action in this case. But, as was made quite clear in the Chancellor's statement at the Boat Show, there are a number of opportunities that many of us have not yet explored which we should enjoy if we did stay at home—and the noble Earl would find that particularly so if he were to go to the Norfolk Broads.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder if I might ask the noble Lord whether he considers that when the Home Secretary opened the new headquarters of a travel agency specializing in overseas travel he was voluntarily acting to restrict travel overseas?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I should need notice of that question.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord could answer this one, which is simpler. For which of these contradictory policies is the First Secretary responsible?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as one who earns his living in the tourist industry, may I ask the noble Lord this question: if he wishes to drive me into the bankruptcy court, why do the Government so repeatedly tell me how important I am to the national economy?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would be the last to drive the noble Lord into the bankruptcy court, and I am quite sure it will not be the case.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, is it not the case that more foreign currency comes into this country by overseas visitors than goes from this country by British nationals going abroad?
LORD SHEPHERD: That is quite right.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to implement in a personal way the suggestion he has made to others—that is to say, by acquiring a motor cruiser with a view to sailing round the coast of this country? Secondly, may I ask him whether the Government have taken any action to encourage the people of this country to spend their holidays in certain countries within the sterling area?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not aware yet of where my right honorable friend will be spending his holidays; but I believe in the past it has always been at home. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that before the right honorable gentleman made this statement, I myself had made plans to have a boat on the Norfolk Broads. From past experience I can say it is first-class and something that I would recommend to all Members of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how much the State-owned aircraft corporations are spending on an advertising campaign to induce people to disregard the advice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no details before me of the expenditure of the British air companies on travel advertisements; but the noble Viscount will recognize that, if this travel is taking place, there is an advantage to our balance of payments if British passengers

9
fly in British aircraft and not in those of overseas air companies.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are about 50 million people in this country who have no desire whatsoever for Government guidance on this or any other subject?
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me whether the Isle of Man is counted as "abroad"?
LORD SHEPHERD: Perhaps the noble Lord can give us his advice on another occasion.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, would it be out of order to suggest that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have more leisure for his holidays this summer than he had last?
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I ask this question seriously? Can it ever be right for a Government, any Government, to speak with two voices, one directly contradicting the other?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not see any contradiction in this at all. My right honorable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking at the Boat Show. He no doubt took into account the great attractions of a boating holiday and the consequent saving on foreign exchange. I can see no contradiction in this at all.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as the noble Lord's right honorable friend was at the Boat Show, was he feeling a bit rocky at the time?

GAS SUPPLIES IN THE WEST MIDLANDS
2.53 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the gas supply position in the West Midlands.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindgren will be answering this Question at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. There will also
10
be three Statements. The first will be made by my noble friend the Leader of the House, on Rhodesia. The second will be made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, on the Industrial Reorganization Corporation. The third will be made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, on the Stokes Report on arms sales abroad.

PROTECTION OF CONSUMERS (TRADE DESCRIPTIONS) BILL [H.L.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to replace the Merchandise Marks Acts 1887 to 1953 by fresh provisions prohibiting misdescriptions of goods, services, accommodation and facilities provided in the course of trade; to prohibit false or misleading indications as to the price of goods; to confer power to require information or instructions relating to goods to be marked on or to accompany the goods or to be included in advertisements; to prohibit the unauthorised use of devices or emblems signifying royal awards; to enable the Parliament of Northern Ireland to make laws relating to merchandise marks; and for purposes connected with these matters. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1.—(Lord Rhodes.)
On Question, Bill read 1, and to be printed.

COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to give the Commonwealth Secretariat the capacity of a corporate body and to confer upon it, and on its staff, the privileges and immunities necessary to enable them effectively to carry out the tasks appointed to them by the Commonwealth Heads of Government, at

11
their meeting in June, 1965, and described in the White Paper presented to Parliament in July, 1965 (Cmnd. 2713).
The House will appreciate how agreeable it is for me, at this point of time especially, to direct the attention of noble Lords to something which is positive, constructive and hopeful in Commonwealth affairs. The idea of a permanent organization to serve the Commonwealth as a whole is not new. Some noble Lords (I see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others, here) may well think back to the schemes and dreams put forward years before the modern Commonwealth evolved. These ideas, when floated, have usually foundered on hard suspicions that such a permanent central body would diminish or encroach upon the sovereignty already enjoyed or still to be achieved by individual member nations.
Proposals for a central Commonwealth Secretariat were made on several occasions in the 1940s. The possibility of developing Commonwealth consultation was discussed at the Prime Ministers' Meeting in 1946. The statement issued after that meeting said, and I quote:
" While all are willing to consider and adopt practical proposals for developing the existing system, it is agreed that the methods now practiced are preferable to any rigid centralized machinery. In their view such centralized machinery would not facilitate, and might even hamper, the combination of autonomy and unity which is characteristic of the British Commonwealth and which is one of our great achievements."
In 1946 there were six member countries of the Commonwealth. It was then possible to exchange information and ideas and to keep in touch informally, and, indeed, on an ad hoc basis. During the 1950s, the picture changed and at an increasing speed. By 1960, there were 11 Commonwealth countries; and five years later that number had exactly doubled. It was in this House on July 6, 1960, that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has always been so keenly and constructively interested in Commonwealth affairs, raised this question of the necessity for developing some machinery in the context of this widening Commonwealth body. The noble Lord said in that debate that machinery would have to be created for the collection and supply of information, and in the course of the debate other noble Lords went on to discuss procedures devised to assist with the
12
financial, educational and technical development of new member countries.
As I have already suggested this conception had never previously found favor among all the Commonwealth Governments. I suppose it was inevitable that when the Mother Country, as we were sometimes called, took the initiative with any proposal for new machinery, the younger members of the family would ponder as to whether this was not a matter of seeking to establish new forms of authority in place of the old. There was usually a feeling felt at different times, more strongly in one part of the Commonwealth than another, that such a body, or such a central organization, would somehow be used as an instrument of British control over the policies of other Commonwealth Governments. It is good to think that those days of suspicion have largely gone. Certainly, no one to-day would question the concept that each and every member country—the United Kingdom no less and no more than the others—is in free and sovereign control of its own policies, and no part of the machinery of co-operation should, or indeed could, get in the way of that concept.
This evolution of ideas and change of attitudes within the Commonwealth was reflected in the final communiqué issued by the Heads of Government after the 1964 meeting. That communiqué stated:
" Finally, they were anxious that some permanent expression should be given to the desire which had been evident through their deliberations for closer and more informed understanding between their Governments on the many issues which engaged their attention and for some continuing machinery for this purpose. They therefore instructed officials to consider the best basis for establishing a Commonwealth Secretariat which would be available inter alia to disseminate factual information to all member countries on matters of common concern; to assist existing agencies both official and unofficial in the promotion of Commonwealth links in all fields and to help co-ordinate, in co-operation with the host country, the preparation of future meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government and. where appropriate, the meetings of other Commonwealth Ministers."
The communiqué went on:
"This Secretariat, being recruited from member countries and financed by their contributions, would be at the service of all Commonwealth Governments and would be a visible symbol of the spirit of co-operation which animates the Commonwealth."

13
The meeting of officials envisaged in 1964 was held in January, 1965, and the plan for a Secretariat was produced. This was subsequently considered by Commonwealth Governments and all confirmed their agreement in principle. Officials met again in June to identify matters requiring specific decisions by Heads of Government, and at their meeting later in the same month reports of officials were considered and approved by the Heads of Government and unanimously agreed in the Memorandum on the Commonwealth Secretariat attached to their final communiqué. It was this agreed Memorandum, the White Paper, to which I referred earlier.
Commonwealth Heads of Government also agreed unanimously that the great honor of playing host to the Secretariat should fall upon Britain. The British Government responded by offering to house the Secretariat in Marlborough House which, in 1959, Her Majesty the Queen had graciously put at the disposal of her Government in Britain as a Commonwealth Centre. The use to which Marlborough House is put, in whole or in part, is, in the terms of the Queen's Entrustment, a matter for decision by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It has come to be accepted that its main use should be as a centre for Commonwealth meetings in London, particularly meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. My right honorable friend felt that not only would it be within the terms and the spirit of the Queen's Entrustment, but it was particularly appropriate that the body which is in future to service meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government should be established in part of this beautiful and historic building in the centre of London. The other member countries of the Commonwealth gratefully accepted our offer, and the Secretariat, now in Marlborough House, is for all practical purposes a guest of Britain.
During their deliberations on the establishment of the Secretariat the Commonwealth Heads of Government laid great emphasis on the need to attract to the service of the Secretariat the highest possible quality of Commonwealth servant. The Commonwealth now has at its service the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat, Mr. Arnold Smith, one of the most senior
14
and experienced members of the Canadian Diplomatic Service. His appointment was unanimously approved by the Heads of Government
in July. Mr. Smith has been joined by two distinguished deputies, Mr. A. L. Adu, from Ghana, and Mr. T. E. Gooneratne, from Ceylon. Mr. Smith has appointed other staff from other member countries and it is expected that within the next few months the initial establishment will be completed. It was not long before Mr. Smith had energetically embarked on the tasks laid down in the Agreed Memorandum, but it could scarely have been expected that within the first few months of its existence, before all the office accommodation and staff recruitment arrangements had been completed and with no collective experience behind it, the Secretariat would have achieved so much.
The Secretary-General attended the Commonwealth Finance Meeting in Jamaica in September, 1965, and the Commonwealth Medical Conference in Edinburgh in October. His activities have included consultation with Commonwealth Governments and their representatives on a wide range of subjects, including helping with the processing of Singapore's application for membership of the Commonwealth which was sponsored by the Prime Minister of Malaysia. There have been many meetings between Mr. Smith and Ministers, and officials of Commonwealth Governments and representatives of Commonwealth organizations. Mr. Smith has already visited Commonwealth countries in East and Central Africa to meet with Heads of Government, Ministers and officials. The Secretariat serviced the meeting in London of Commonwealth trade officials last November. Naturally, when requested, the help of experienced officials in our own Commonwealth Relations Office, the host country, has been willingly extended and made available.
As we all know, last month, at very short notice, the Secretariat undertook one of its most important functions, the immense task of servicing the meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government. The unique character of that Conference in Lagos has been much commented on. It was the first to be held outside the United Kingdom; the first concerned with a single and special subject; the

15
first at which the chair was not taken by the Head of Government of the United Kingdom, and also, of course, the first which the Commonwealth Secretariat had the responsibility of servicing. Mr. Arnold Smith and his colleagues have acknowledged the assistance given by officials in the host country and, again, by the experienced civil servants from this country. But all those who have any knowledge of that quite historic Lagos Conference would wish to pay tribute to the successful way in which the new Commonwealth Secretariat discharged its responsibilities.
This afternoon at Marlborough House there is to be a meeting, arranged by the Secretary-General, at which Commonwealth representatives will be setting up the two Commonwealth Committees concerned with Rhodesian affairs, in accordance with the recommendations of the Heads of Governments at Lagos. Incidentally, also for discussion later this week is the setting up of a Committee to review intra-Commonwealth organizations, such as the Commonwealth Economic Committee and the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee, and to consider the future relationship of these organizations with the Secretariat. Noble Lords will see that the position of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat and members of his staff is one of great trust and responsibility. They will have in their care much confidential information about Commonwealth affairs. They must clearly be in a position properly to perform the duties allotted to them. This Bill sets out to facilitate the discharge of those duties.
Clause 1(1) of the Bill gives the Secretariat the legal capacity of a body corporate. The Secretariat has to be given this capacity so that it may undertake legal obligations and enter into agreements, and, should this ever unfortunately prove necessary, to sue and to be sued in its corporate name. Subsection (2) of the clause, read with the Schedule, confers on the Secretariat and its members and staff similar immunities and privileges—with two exceptions to which I shall refer later—to those accorded to Commonwealth High Commissioners in London and in other Commonwealth capitals, and to members of their staffs. These privileges and immunities are
16
those agreed by Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting June, 1965, and specified in Annex A of the Agreed Memorandum.
During the several discussions on the establishment of the Secretariat lengthy consideration was given to the question of whether, in respect of immunities and privileges, the Secretariat and its staff should be given comparable treatment to that accorded to a Commonwealth High Commission and its staff. It is appreciated that such treatment could not be as of right, as the Secretariat is not the representative of any sovereign independent State. But our Commonwealth as a whole is a unique organization, and the Commonwealth leaders saw the Secretariat as a unique body within that organization. It is a servant and is answerable directly not to one Commonwealth Government, but to 22 sovereign independent States. It was therefore considered to be of the greatest importance that this body should be treated in a special way.
I have already mentioned the great stress that was laid upon the need to attract to the service the very best grade of Commonwealth civil servant. The Agreed Memorandum lays it down that, whilst efficiency must be the first consideration, the staff of the Secretariat should be recruited as widely as possible throughout the geographical area of the Commonwealth. It was realized that in most cases individuals of the required calibre and experience would come from the diplomatic services of the Commonwealth, or would certainly be qualified—
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I be allowed to put a question to the noble Lord? Can he tell us whether the Service has been thrown widely open to women and, if so, have any come forward, and have any been appointed?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, no women were appointed among the senior officers, but certainly there was no bar upon the appointment of any female officer. I should think it is hardly likely that the appointments were thrown open in terms.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to look into this point? If no

17
women have been appointed, I hope that they will be encouraged to come forward. After all, the Commonwealth is half composed of women.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, not only is it half composed of women, but within the Commonwealth we also have had two women Prime Ministers, a remarkable fact which is a source of considerable satisfaction. Certainly, I will give consideration to the point made by the noble Baroness.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he said just now that "he thought it hardly likely" that recruitment had been thrown open to women?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that my noble friend misunderstood what I said. I think that what I actually said would appeal to my noble friend. I said that it was not thrown open "in terms". I always understood that my noble friend wanted women to be treated equally with men, and it would not be in accordance with her views to say specifically that there was no bar to the appointment of women. But certainly no bar has been placed on their being considered equally with any male candidates.
THE EARL. OF SWINTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, would he deal with two matters? One is: how is the cost of the Secretariat borne? The other is: by whom are made these appointments of officers to the Secretariat under the Secretary-General—by the Governments of the countries concerned or by the Secretary-General?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl will excuse me, because I had not finished my speech, but I can deal with the points which he made. The cost is expected to be of the order of £175,000 and the contribution of Her Majesty's Government will be about 30 per cent. of that figure. The senior staff—the Secretary-General and two Deputies—are within the appointment of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. The other staff will be within the appointment of the Secretary-General himself, within the terms laid down by the Heads of Government.
In the hope that my noble friend has acquitted me of any prejudice against women, perhaps I may go on with what
18
I was saying. I was emphasizing the need to get for the Secretariat officers of the highest calibre, and that in the main they would tend to come from the diplomatic services of the Commonwealth. Therefore, it was felt right that the status of the senior officers of the Secretariat should be equated with that of the diplomatic staff of the Commonwealth High Commission. The other Commonwealth Governments say that they would be prepared to accord to the senior officers of the Secretariat treatment comparable with that accorded to the diplomatic staff of the High Commission, and the British Government, too, felt that this was right.
The senior officers of the Secretariat must also be permitted to carry out the duties expected of them by Commonwealth Governments without fear or favor, let or hindrance. They will, as I have indicated, be entrusted with an increasing quantity of confidential information. To maintain the trust and responsibility imposed upon it and to perform the confidential duties entrusted to it, the Secretariat must clearly be free from all other compulsion. To this end, the senior officers have been accorded immunity from suit and legal process and other officers have been accorded immunity in respect of their official acts. The Secretary-General has power to waive this immunity.
There are, however, to be two exceptions to this provision for immunity. I he first is income tax liability. The staff of the Commonwealth High Commission in London who are nationals of the sending countries are exempt from United Kingdom income tax, but of course they are taxed by their own countries. The same effect on senior officers of the Secretariat who are not United Kingdom citizens could be obtained by not levying tax at all and paying them net tax-free salaries appropriate for their ranks and duties. But this would create a class of income tax-free people, which Her Majesty's Government as well as most other Governments are anxious to avoid. It is proposed. There fore, that the Secretariat staff should be paid gross salaries according to their ranks and duties and that they should be liable to British income tax on those salaries in the normal way. But so that these extra amounts payable by the Secretariat in paying salaries gross instead of net would not come back to

19
the British Government as a tax, the British Government will refund the tax collected on the salaries to the budget of the Secretariat. I emphasize that the repayment will be to the budget and not to the officers of the Secretariat. This refund will be made in addition to the British agreed contribution to the expenses of the Secretariat.
This procedure may seem elaborate, but it is undesirable that a new tax-free class of persons should be created, and the alternative of an internal tax levied by the Secretariat itself would, it is thought, be an unnecessary burden on the admistrative power of this small organization. The procedure also has the merit of applying one consistent tax system to all the staff of the Secretariat, including United Kingdom citizens recruited for junior posts.
The second respect in which the Secretariat, as distinct from the senior officers, will differ from a High Commission is that it will not have immunity from suit and legal process in respect of civil action for damages alleged to have been caused by a motor vehicle belonging to or operated on behalf of the Secretariat, or of a motor traffic offence involving such a vehicle, and in respect of arbitration proceedings relating to any written contract entered into by or on behalf of the Secretariat. I do not think that I need explain to the House the thought behind these limitations on immunities and privileges and I am glad to say that they are acceptable to all other Commonwealth Governments.
Clause 2(2) brings the Act into effect from July 1, 1965, the date from which it was agreed at the June meeting the Secretariat would formally come into being. The purpose of giving the Act retrospective effect is to give legal validity to anything already done in the name of the Secretariat, and to give legal cover to exemption from such matters as Customs duties already granted to it, and to its officers. However, your Lordships will see that it is not intended that retrospection shall prevent the enforcement of any liability that has been incurred by the Secretariat or its staff for the period between the establishment of the Secretariat and the enacting of this Bill.
20
My Lords, I have put before the House the main features of the Bill which is desired by other Commonwealth Governments. It is a short Bill, but I am sure that we all trust that it will have a long and developing contribution to make towards the strengthening of our Commonwealth association. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2. —(Lord Beswick.)
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we should all wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us a little of the historical background to this organization, and we on this side of the House are happy to welcome the Bill. Sometimes, perhaps, your Lordships are a little reluctant to extend diplomatic immunity to new international organizations, but in this case I am sure it is the wish of the whole House that certain privileges and immunities should be granted ungrudgingly to members of the Commonwealth Secretariat. I shall say a further word about this at the end of my remarks. Meanwhile, I feel that this is perhaps not an occasion on which we can very well discuss in detail the functions of the Secretariat, as drawn up in the Agreed Memorandum which the noble Lord mentioned, and which was published after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference in 1965.
The proposals regarding the establishment of such a Secretariat go back, as we know, some twenty years. The noble Lord has already mentioned the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, as having taken a great interest in this subject. I do not think that any of those who have in the past had reservations about the establishment of a Commonwealth Secretariat would now want to do anything other than wish the organization God-speed. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Carrington, who made some pertinent remarks in our debate on the Commonwealth last May, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Casey, would agree about this. I know that the Secretary-General of the Secretariat is in full accord with my noble friend, that it would be unfortunate if the Commonwealth became over-organized, perhaps on the lines of an international body like the United Nations. As my noble friend suggested in May, this might well be a sentence of

21
death on a society of nations such as the Commonwealth, which is loosely knit and has quite different objects from those of other international bodies. I know from my own conversations with the Secretary-General that he is fully conscious of the desirability of retaining a certain informality in the meetings. Indeed, I am sure that he will not want to formalize too much.
There is no doubt that the Commonwealth is most fortunate in the choice of its first Secretary-General, Mr. Arnold Smith, and again in his Deputy Secretaries-General, Mr. Adu, from Ghana, whom the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and I got to know quite well as the first African District Commissioner from Ghana, and as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, Mr. Gooneratne, from Ceylon. I know, from having met them at Marlborough House—that magnificent House—how effectively the work of the Secretariat has begun. I know that Mr. Smith, who is an old Canadian friend. is one of the first to recognize that the Secretariat should not turn itself into a kind of European Economic Commission with executive powers. But Mr. Smith does believe—and I think your Lordships will agree with him—that the Secretariat has an important role to play as a go-between, and in order to assist in organizing meetings and generally helping in the dissemination of information, as well as smoothing out some perhaps unnecessary difficulties, avoiding misunderstandings, and perhaps even foreseeing some problems before they arise.
Like my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir, who was hoping to be here this afternoon, I have, subject to the reservations made by my noble friend Lord Carrington, for some time been in favor of the establishment of such a Secretariat, which would be available to arrange Commonwealth meetings, not only in London but also elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Indeed, I remember thinking already in the early thirties (this is going back a bit), when my father was Governor General of Canada, that the creation of such an organization would ultimately be desirable. At the age of eighteen I was already involved in the first Commonwealth Conference, of which I was on the fringe—namely the Imperial Economic Conference of 1931: indeed, it was after that Conference that these first
22
wicked thoughts entered my head about the possibilities of such a Secretariat. In this sense, I would say that my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir and I were quite as advanced in our thinking as those who first made such a proposal officially in 1946.
Then, in the years before the war, as a League of Nations official, I always thought it curious that, whereas the League had a neutral Secretariat at Geneva, with, of course, different functions, the Commonwealth never benefited from the existence of a neutral body available to service their meetings. Moreover, it is clear—and this is important—that the Secretary-General can be somebody to whom heads of Government can talk. I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would probably agree with me on this, although he did not actually say so; that the Secretary-General can be somebody to whom Heads of Government can talk without committing themselves in any way.
From my own reports of the Lagos Conference, from some who were present, I should judge that, because of its neutral status, the Secretariat played a very useful part indeed. If meetings are proposed and organized by the Secretary-General, there can be no ground for suspicion by any member country that Britain is trying to enforce her own policies on the rest of the Commonwealth by being responsible, as she has been in the past, for organizing such meetings. I have no doubt that my friend Mr. Arnold Smith will have an important part to play in helping to solve many difficult Commonwealth problems. It was interesting to learn to-day about the setting up of the two Rhodesian Committees. I believe, also, that Mr. Smith's recent African tour was a most useful one.
Therefore, within the limits laid down in the Agreed Memorandum, I am sure that the Secretariat will become an essential organ of the Commonwealth as to its functions and any possible extension of them in the future. As I have said, this would hardly seem to be the time to debate them, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and I may have some suggestions to make when we come to discuss overseas technical and scientific aid in our debate on Thursday. As is stated in the Agreed Memorandum, already in 1964 the Commonwealth Prime Ministers made certain proposals for the

23
Initiation of joint Commonwealth development projects. I will not go into them to-day, but there is no doubt that several noble Lords may have something to say on that aspect of technical and scientific aid within the Commonwealth when we come to the debate on Thursday. At the same time, I know that all concerned are agreed that nothing should be done which might disturb the existing channels of such aid to member countries or to duplicate the present bilateral and multilateral links. We shall await with great interest the comprehensive review of existing Commonwealth organizations concerned with economic and related affairs which is to be undertaken by the Small Committee which is mentioned in the White Paper and which is to have an independent chairman. It is probably right that the Secretary-General should not himself be a member of the Committee but that he should have the right to he present, or to be represented, at the discussions.
Finally, this Bill should, in my view, receive a smooth and rapid passage. I think your Lordships will be glad to know that, as the noble Lord said, according to the Schedule the privileges do not include immunity in respect of damage alleged to have been caused by motor vehicles belonging to or driven on behalf of the Secretariat, or in respect of motor traffic offences involving such vehicles. That seems to me to be eminently sensible. Whether we shall all feel as happy in regard to exemption from income tax, which includes surtax and capital gains tax, I do not know. No doubt this point will be discussed in Committee. I think that at least one noble Lord is rather concerned about it. But I am certain that otherwise your Lordships would wish members of the Secretariat to enjoy all the immunities and privileges normally granted to bona fide diplomats, whether from the Commonwealth or elsewhere in this country. I personally believe that the Commonwealth, with Her Majesty the Queen at its head, can still exert considerable influence for good in the world, that the Secretariat will help it to do so and, at the same time, act as an additional unifying force.
3.32 p.m.
LORD OGMOREMy Lords, my noble friends and I are grateful to the noble
24
Lord, Lord Beswick, for his careful exposition of this Bill. I am glad that he went in some detail, not so much into the terms of the Bill but into the conditions of the Secretariat, because this is a very important step in Commonwealth development which in my view is long overdue. But still, these things cannot be rushed. The Commonwealth acts by consensus, and until everybody is agreed one cannot make any move at all. But I do not think that any noble Lord who has studied this position carefully can have failed to realize what a revolution this is. It has a much longer history than any noble Lord has mentioned to-day.
The first time a subject of this kind was discussed was in the 1902 meeting of Colonial Prime Ministers, as they were then, when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain put up his tripartite scheme, first of all, for a Federation of the Empire, as it was then; secondly, for a military defense organization; and, thirdly, for a reciprocal tariff. The first two suggestions of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain were not accepted by the other members of the Empire. In fact, they were turned down flat, so Mr. Chamberlain was thrust back on to the tariff reciprocal arrangements. If they did not agree to this, at least they did not turn it down, and as a result of that he then forced it on the Conservative Party, splitting it in two for the time being, and undoubtedly to some extent laying the foundation for the tremendous Liberal gain in the 1906 General Election and the return of those eminent Liberal administrations, headed first by Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman and then by Mr. Asquith. Then in 1907, at the first of the Imperial Conferences, Australia made this same proposition of a permanent Secretariat. This was turned down mainly on the resistance of Canada. In fact, the Prime Minister of Australia went even further. He suggested that in future all the Prime Ministers' Conferences should be held in public. That has not been agreed to even yet, and I think it is very unlikely that it will be. We have come at any rate as far as Australia was prepared to go in 1907, so that is something. And no doubt in time we may even go a little further.
Your Lordships will see that we are discussing a great revolution in Commonwealth affairs. It has taken very many

25
Year's to come about, and I think we ought to signify in no uncertain way to-day that this is a revolution. I think it is a very important step, because the Commonwealth cannot be only an idea; it must have some flesh and blood about it. It is no use letting it float in the air, as it were. To the ordinary man in the street, something which seems to have no sort of organization at all is a little too artificial to he grasped. Therefore, I was very pleased indeed that Mr. Arnold Smith was appointed; and his staff were afterwards engaged, either by the Heads of Government or by Mr. Arnold Smith himself.
They meet, as has been stated, in Marlborough House. I attended two Conferences there in an official capacity. I have only one suggestion to make—I do not think it is a criticism—for Marlborough House. It is a very handsome edifice, which, as your Lordships know, was originally built for or by the great Duke of Marlborough, and the latest Royal personage to live there was Queen Mary. It was all very well in the Duke of Marlborough's day, but it seems to me rather curious that the centre of a great Commonwealth should have on the walls enormous paintings—the most gory paintings you can imagine—of early 18th century wars in which Britons and Germans are killing large numbers of Frenchmen. Whether this is Mr. Harold Wilson's comment on the Common Market or not, I do not know; but it does not seem to me particularly applicable to a modern Commonwealth. I should have thought that, having regard to the very large number of fine artists we have in the Commonwealth, it would be much more appropriate if Mr. Arnold Smith looked to the Commonwealth Institute—as a Governor, I can offer him the services of the Institute—to give him the names of first-class Commonwealth artists who could provide far more suitable pictures for Marlborough House.
I also agree that the Lagos meeting was a very difficult one for this new Secretariat to manage, and that they did extraordinarily well. The only question I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is with regard to the White Paper (Cmnd. 2713), where it says that the staff will be appointed for not more than five and not less than three years. Does the Secretariat propose to have a
26
Secondment of people from the various Commonwealth countries? This, of course, would be valuable, because it would permit officials from the Commonwealth to have an opportunity of experience at the centre of the Commonwealth, as it were. Or does it propose to appoint people who will take up the work as a career? I should like to know that. I can see that there would be advantages either way, but it would be interesting to know whether it proposes to do one or the other, or perhaps a little of both.
Finally, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his reference to me. I am only sorry it has not always been the view of his colleagues, but still I have great respect for the noble Lord, and I appreciate very much what he has said about me to-day. I and my friends on these Benches wish the Secretariat every possible success in the future, and I should like to say here and now (though this is not the place to do so) that we have every confidence in the Commonwealth; that, in our opinion, any difficulties it may be going through are teething pains; and that the Commonwealth is going to play a great part in the future, and an even greater part than the Empire played in the past.
3.39 p.m.
EARL ATTLEE: My Lords, I should like to say a word of welcome to this Bill. I can recollect discussions on this topic almost forty years ago. I remember that during the time I was Prime Minister we discussed this question. At that time, the general idea was that it was wise to keep all Commonwealth matters as informal as possible, to avoid complicating the machinery. I think we were right. But I also think that now is the right time for the Secretariat, now that we have overcome suspicions in some quarters. It is a great move forward and I wish it every possible success. I believe in keeping the Commonwealth together as a means of ensuring peace in the world, and I am happy the Government are bringing this Bill forward.
3.41 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for intervening in the debate, but it occurred to me that it would be a pity if a Bill of this kind were before your Lordships' House this afternoon and no expression of welcome were

27
to come from the Back-Benches on the Government side. The fact that I follow my noble friend Lord Attlee reminds me that I once asked him a supplementary question in another place relevant to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, this afternoon, about the meetings of the Prime Ministers' Conferences. I did not go so far as the suggestion that they should be held in public, but I remember asking my noble friend when he was Prime Minister whether it would not be possible for Members of Parliament to be observers for short times during the sittings of those conferences. Obviously I did not get a very encouraging reply to my supplementary question, but the fact remains that it has been felt in many quarters that Parliamentarians as a whole have never been as closely associated with those conferences as they might be.
I know that the Bill before us this afternoon in the main deals with diplomatic immunities, and the Special Orders Committee in your Lordships' House has had recent opportunities of discussing these matters. Therefore I am not going to deal with them at all. What I want to do in the form of welcome is to make some suggestions with regard to the relationship between Members of Parliament and the new organization which is now being set up. I wonder whether, in the light of a new Commonwealth Secretariat, it is not possible that there should be a closer liaison between the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and this Secretariat. In my twenty years' experience it has always seemed to me that Members of Parliament of both Houses have suffered from a sense of frustration because we were not as near to the heart of things as we might have been. Prime Ministers' Conferences ended with, if I may say so, platitudinous communiqués. There was a hush-hush atmosphere about it all and the things that did leak out never seemed to be in accord with the final communiqué. It occurs to me that we might now have an opportunity in this way of bringing Parliamentarians, rather than representatives of Governments, closer into the thoughts and negotiations of this organization.
We have some kind of precedent. I think back to the Council of Europe, and the Committee of Ministers was always closely related to the General
28
Assembly so that the Parliamentarian, as distinct from the Government representative, always seemed to have a voice. Now we could carry this much farther, into a relationship between the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the United Nations Organization. But we are discussing the Commonwealth this afternoon and the position is that there is a complete change in the Commonwealth to-day. Every individual part of the Commonwealth has a greater sovereignty than it had a few years ago. Therefore it must follow that there is a looser relationship than there was in the days when it consisted of half a dozen countries. This sovereignty creates a looseness and we shall never have that close affinity that we had in the past. Therefore I feel it necessary that there should be something to take its place, in which Members of the House of Commons and Back-Bench Members of your Lordships' House could be brought much closer to these things and if a request were made to Mr. Arnold Smith that he should, from time to time, liaise with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association I feel a great deal of good could be done and the Commonwealth would benefit considerably. These are just the words I wanted to utter without delaying the progress of the Bill in the slightest degree, and to express, as a humble Back-Bench Member of your Lordships' House, a very keen sense of welcome for the Bill.

RHODESIA: THE GOVERNMENT'S TERMS
3.46 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, may I be allowed, with the consent of the House, to make a Statement about Rhodesia? I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honorable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place. These are the words of the Prime Minister, which I quote:
"The first aim of the British Government is to bring the Rhodesian rebellion to an end as quickly as possible, without lasting damage to the country. To this end, they will maintain and, if necessary, intensify economic measures with a view to a

29
Speedy settlement. But it is equally the purpose of the British Government to help the people of Rhodesia, without rancour or recrimination, in making a fresh start towards establishing (in the words of the Lagos communiqué)
' a just society based on equality of opportunity to which all sections of the community could contribute their full potential and from which all could enjoy the benefits due to them without discrimination or unjust impediment '.
"This fresh start must begin with an unqualified return to constitutional rule. It must also engage from the outset the capacities of all Rhodesians of good will in the work of overcoming the fears and antagonisms of the past and of setting Rhodesia on the road to independence in a spirit of inter-racial trust and collaboration.
"The illegal declaration of independence and the subsequent actions of the rebel regime have created a new situation. Rhodesia's future course cannot be negotiated with the régime which illegally claims to govern the country. There is no confidence inside or outside Rhodesia that they could be relied on to lead the country forward to independence in which racial harmony would be ensured. The Governor is authorized to receive from the regime any proposals about the means by which the rebellion is to be brought to an end. But discussion of Rhodesia's constitutional future must be with responsible persons representing all the people.
"Rhodesia obviously cannot proceed at one step from rebellion to independence. For all the reasons given by Her Majesty's Government repeatedly, inside and outside Rhodesia, and as I said at the United Nations on December 16, 1965,
'a return to constitutional rule would not and could not mean an immediate advance to majority rule '.
That process must be renewed without delay or impediment: but it can come only with time—and time measured by African advancement and achievement.
"Once there has been a return to the rule of law and the Constitution, the British Government will immediately act to reverse the economic measures taken during the rebellion, in order to
30
permit the resumption of Rhodesia's external trade, the reopening of markets for her exports, the inward flow of essential supplies such as oil and petrol, and the renewal of investment and the planned development of the country. The necessary statutory instruments are ready and could be made effective immediately.
"This will be the first step in a period of economic and political rehabilitation during which passions may cool, the economic and social strength of the country may be restored, and the energies of all Rhodesians may be enlisted in the tasks of reconstruction.
"Assuming that there is a speedy and peaceful return to constitutional rule, the best provision for the first stage after this return would appear to be for the Governor to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible to him, comprising the widest possible spectrum of public opinion of all races in the country and constituting a representative Government for reconstruction. During this period, the police and military forces will come under the direct responsibility of the Governor.
"The first responsibility of this interim Government, as of any Government, will be the maintenance of law and order. This will require not only the normal precautions against domestic disturbance and illegality but also, in the special circumstances of Rhodesia, guarantees to prevent a repetition of the rebellion and to protect human rights. The British Parliament will need to be assured about the adequacy and effectiveness of these guarantees.
"Urgent action will be needed to restore the Rhodesian economy. The British Government will be ready to contribute to the economic needs of the country and in particular to assist, in co-operation with other Commonwealth Governments, with schemes for the advancement, education and training of Africans so that they may as soon as possible play their full part in the development of the country's economic and political institutions.
"Problems of political rehabilitation will also have to be tackled. Persons restricted or detained for

31
Purely political reasons will have to be released provided that they give guarantees that their political activities will be conducted constitutionally. The aim is to create conditions in which, while law and order is maintained, political activities may be conducted in security and freedom from intimidation from any quarter.
"How long this period of interim government may last cannot immediately be foreseen; neither can the date at which Parliamentary institutions can be restored. Clearly the period of interim government will last until conditions can be stabilized and the social and political wounds inflicted on the country can be healed. The views of the people of Rhodesia will have to be sought on the amendments and changes necessary in the 1961 Constitution to secure a resumption of full constitutional government on the basis of the five principles which have been proclaimed by successive British Governments. To these must now be added a sixth principle, namely, the need to ensure that, regardless of race, there is no oppression of majority by minority or of minority by majority.
" The course of constitutional development in Rhodesia after this towards independence must be based on the implementation of these principles and it will be necessary in due course to consider the means of ensuring this, for example by a Royal Commission in preparation for a Constitutional Conference, which will in any case need to be held before independence can be achieved.
"The British Government have maintained throughout that, while Rhodesia is a matter of world concern, it remains a British responsibility and they continue to accept their full responsibility. They intend to discharge their task in the interests of all the people of Rhodesia. The British Government are convinced that there cannot be lasting peace, freedom or prosperity in Rhodesia until constitutional rule is resumed and the country is fairly set on paths leading to a just and democratic society in which full equality of opportunity is assured, racial discrimination is removed and
32
the rights of Europeans and Africans alike are safeguarded.
"Every week that passes while the rebellion continues increases the economic and political strains within Rhodesia and makes the eventual task of reconstruction more difficult. It now rests with all responsible Rhodesians who have the true welfare of their country at heart to bring the rebellion to an end before it is too late and to support the representative of The Queen in upholding constitutional law in Rhodesia."
That concludes the Statement being made by the Prime Minister.
Following are the five principles which were expounded by the Prime Minister in another place on November 1, 1965:

1. The principle and intention of unimpeded progress to majority rule, already enshrined in the 1961 Constitution, would have to be maintained and guaranteed.

2. There would also have to be guarantees against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.

3. There would have to be immediate improvement in the political status of the African population.

4. There would have to be progress towards ending racial discrimination.

5. The British Government would need to be satisfied that any basis proposed for independence was acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

3.55 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, for having repeated the Prime Minister's Statement. It is a very long and detailed one and all your Lordships will, I know, want to study it with great care. But I must say there does not seem at first blush to be anything very new in it; it seem to me in some respects not at all clear, and I should like, if I may, to ask the noble Earl one or two questions. First of all, when the Statement says in paragraph 2 that a
" fresh start must begin with an unqualified return to constitutional rule ",
what exactly does that mean? To what Constitution does that refer, if it refers to a Constitution at all, or does it perhaps mean merely a retraction of the unilateral declaration of independence? This is very important and I think we should know exactly what that phrase means.

33
Secondly, does the statement that
"Rhodesia's future course cannot be negotiated with the régime which illegally claims to govern the country "
mean that the Government will, or will not in any circumstances, negotiate with Mr. Smith or any of his Ministers? Here, again, I think we must have a categorical answer from the noble Earl the Leader of the House. Thirdly, in paragraph 7 of the Statement we are told:
" Assuming that there is a speedy and peaceful return to constitutional rule, the best provision for the first stage after this return would appear to be for the Governor to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible to him ".
What exactly does this mean? Does it mean direct rule under the Governor? If so, it may well be regarded as an instrument of the British Government. Or does it not mean direct rule? This is very important, as any suggestion of direct rule would, I should have thought, be totally unacceptable to all shades of Rhodesian opinion.
Lastly, I imagine that the Statement is meant to be helpful and restrained and encouraging to moderate opinion in Rhodesia, but I must say that I think some of the language used is not exactly likely to achieve that end, nor, indeed, is what seems to be a demand for unconditional surrender either sensible or very wise.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am, I confess, a little disappointed that the noble Lord, who has shown so much statesmanship in these very difficult matters, should have taken a rather pessimistic view of this Statement. I hope that when he has more time to consider it he may come to revise that opinion. However, my task is to try to answer his questions. The House will realize by now that I cannot add to the Statement, but the House is entitled to ask me to clarify anything which is not sufficiently clear already. When the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asks about the meaning of "constitutional rule", subject to the views of the Lord Chancellor I would say that what is meant is an end of illegality. We are all agreed—I know the noble Lord and the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and I think the House as a whole, are agreed—that the régime are behaving in a totally illegal way. They have put
34
themselves for the time being out of court in the legal sense, and what one is asking for there, insisting on, is a return to legal paths. One is not there referring to the precise Constitution or any particular adaptation of the 1961 Constitution, which is referred to later on.
Then the noble Lord asked me what is admittedly a very delicate question, the question of whether any negotiations are conceivable with Mr. Smith and his colleagues. There I must repeat the actual language used in the Statement, which has obviously been drafted with extreme care. For the benefit of Members of the House, most of whom have not seen this Statement—the noble Lord has seen it only for a few moments—may I repeat what is actually said on the point?
"The Governor is authorized to receive from the régime any proposals about the means by which the rebellion is to be brought to an end."
So some discussions are clearly envisaged as possible between the Governor and Mr. Smith and his colleagues as to how this rebellion is to come to an end. The Statement goes on to say:
"The discussion of Rhodesia's constitutional future must be with responsible persons representing all the people."
Perhaps I may go a little further and repeat what conies in paragraph 7, because I think this bears on the problem. It is suggested that the best provision for the first stage after the return to constitutional law, or legal methods, would appear to be for the Governor—here I am quoting—
" to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible to him, comprising the widest possible spectrum of public opinion of all races in the country and constituting a representative Government for reconstruction."
So when the noble Lord asks me whether one could negotiate with the régime, the answer is No, in the sense that he has in mind, but, equally, no one is excluded from the plan suggested in paragraph 7. In paragraph 7 it is suggested that the Governor will form a council of representatives of all sections of opinion, and no one would be excluded, although anyone who was included in the Governor's Council would clearly have to accept constitutional methods and, incidentally, accept the five, or as they are now, six propositions.
The noble Lord asks me, in regard to the same paragraph, whether this is direct

35
rule. The phrase "direct rule", I am told again, subject to the Lord Chancellor's opinion, has not any clear legal meaning, and it seems to have given rise to a certain amount of misunderstanding. There has been an implication in some minds that a number of people would come out from England and rule the country. It is clear here that the Governor would form an interim Government of Rhodesians.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, under the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or the Commonwealth Relations Office, or under the Governor without any direction from here?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the Governor of course is a servant of Her Majesty's Government in these matters; but at any rate it would be a Government of Rhodesians. It may well be that the phrase "direct rule", which may have been employed on some earlier occasion, is not the most happy one to describe what is intended and is set out clearly here.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for that long and interesting Statement? I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and say that I am indeed pessimistic and disappointed. It has been a month since we have discussed this matter, and what the noble Earl has told us to-day I am sure has our full agreement and our support, but it seems to me that we have not got a single step further forward. One of the last speeches made when we last met was by myself when I said, "What are we doing to get across to the ordinary, normal, loyal Rhodesian what he can do to help to put things as they should be?" We know there are millions of them. I do not mean only the blacks. There are a great many whites, not millions, but a tremendous majority, who are not satisfied in regard to this extremely uncomfortable and cruel position. No indication whatever has been given by Her Majesty's Government in the whole of this month of what any single man is to do. If any of your Lordships were a private citizen in Rhodesia, what action could you take?
The noble Lord tells us that the Governor is authorized to receive proposals. If that is news, it means that a
36
month ago he was not authorized to receive proposals. Is there really any advance? I am sure he was authorized even in December. Nothing really has been done—not enough to let the people of Rhodesia know what they can do. We are quite sure that Sir Humphrey knows what he can do. He is doing his best. But what
about the ordinary people? Has there been no bridgehead made, either from a Government Department or through some other Commonwealth country, or, if necessary, through foreign countries, to let good people in Rhodesia know that we admire them, we like them and we sympathize with them, and we want to see their house in order as much as they do?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I can only say that I am just as disappointed at the observations of the noble Lord as I was at those of the Leader of the official Opposition. I realize that the noble Lord has not had long to study this Statement, which is a long one, but I think it would be a mistake to say that there is nothing new in this. I must not keep reading through the same paragraphs, but in paragraph 7 we have this plan for the Governor to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible, and
" comprising the widest possible spectrum of public opinion of all races in the country and constituting a representative Government for reconstruction ".
If there is nothing else new, that idea is set out a great deal more clearly than it was set out on a previous occasion.
LORD REA: How is he to do it?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should have thought it was quite obvious how he would do it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Earl in his first answer to my noble friend, made mention of my name on the question of the return to constitutional rule. I am not at all clear, from what the noble Earl has said, what this Statement means, and I daresay that those who are intended to understand it will be in much the same difficulty. The noble Earl said that he would endeavour to clarify it. As I understand it, the first step to be taken, before any progress can be made, under this Statement, is that
" A fresh start must begin with an unqualified return to constitutional rule."

37
I would ask the noble Earl to say what that means. Does it mean, as I think, on the language, it must do, a retraction of U.D.I.—namely, unconditional surrender? If it does not mean that, it is most important, I should have thought, that that should be made clear to the people of Rhodesia.
I listened to the noble Earl's answer to the second question put by my noble friend, and. I would put this question to him—because I assume that this Statement is meant to lead to a possible solution of this problem and it is vital to know whether or not the Government are prepared to talk with Mr. Smith. Let there be no misunderstanding about that. The answer which the noble Earl gave on that point does not add any clarity to the Statement. I should like to put one further question to the noble Earl, which again I regard as most important. Is this statement of Government policy one which has the support of the Governor of Rhodesia and the Chief Justice?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not think it would be natural or normal to answer the last question. I do not think that would be at all in accordance with practice, and I cannot say anything about the Governor. As noble Lords well know, Sir Hugh Beadle has been in this country and has made valuable suggestions. I think it would be wrong to commit him to these proposals in any way, but I should be much surprised if he was highly critical of them. But I think it would be quite wrong to tie up or associate any great public servant like Sir Hugh Beadle or the Governor with the proposals of Her Majesty's Government.
It seemed to me that the noble and learned Viscount was not showing himself to be quite so acute as usual. Surely it was fairly obvious what was meant by "return to constitutional rule". He asked whether it would mean a calling off of U.D.I. That at least, certainly. I am sure that is what the noble Viscount would wish, because he has been as firm as any of us in regard to bringing about that result. If he wants to call that unconditional surrender I cannot stop him. But it seems to me that, in this situation, if you are trying to persuade someone to undo the very foolish thing he has done, to call it unconditional surrender is
38
not a service. I do not myself think that it is the best way to persuade Mr. Smith to see the error of his ways. I personally should be anxious to avoid what is only a phrase, and I think a dangerous one. The noble Viscount is keeping up a rumbling commentary—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If the noble Earl is going to make that comment, I would point (I meant to draw attention to it) to the frequent use in this Statement of the word "rebellion", and the use, more than once, of the words "rebel régime". I should not have thought that that was helpful to a solution.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I thought that the noble Viscount had already made his full contribution on this subject. I have been proved wrong. I should like to try to answer the points he was making. I would not think it useful to drag in here the reference to "unconditional surrender". I cannot stop him from using those words, but a return to constitutional rule must mean the complete cancellation of U.D.I. It also follows that we cannot talk to Mr. Smith, except about ending the rebellion, in any negotiating sense while he purports to be the Prime Minister. He is setting himself up as the Prime Minister of a régime without any legal authority at all, and it would be impossible to negotiate with him, or with the régime, in that situation. I hope that I have answered the noble Viscount's points. If I have failed to deal with any of them, I am open to answer a further one.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that this is very important in relation to Mr. Smith. I am sure that the noble Earl the Leader of the House would agree that if one is trying to make somebody undo something that was unwise, one must make clear to him one's point of view as to what one is prepared to accept. I think that the Statement does not make clear what is the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Smith. Is it—and I put this to see whether I have correctly understood what the noble Earl is saying that the Government will not be prepared to negotiate with Smith until such time as he has retracted the U.D.I., but that, after U.D.I. has been retracted, there is nothing to stop Mr. Smith from taking part in the government of the country, under the Governor or anyone else?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the last statement as to the Government's position would, I think, be correct, with this qualification. As I explained, it is the intention that the Governor should call together representative Rhodesians, and no individual, whether Mr. Smith or anybody else, would be excluded automatically. So that in that sense the noble Lord has formulated correctly what is in the Government's mind. But, as I said in reply to one of his earlier questions, it must be assumed that anybody who is asked to share in the Governor's Council at that point is himself prepared to accept constitutional rule and the five principles. Therefore, it would not be right to say, in an unqualified sense, that Mr. Smith could serve; but with that qualification he would not be ruled out.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Earl the Leader of the House appreciates the difficulty of some of us in understanding exactly what is proposed. The questions put by my noble Leader cover very well what I am eager to find out. May I give this example of the difficulty? The noble Earl talked about the Governor collecting what the noble Earl the Leader of the House called a responsible Government. What we are anxious to know is: responsible to whom? If they are a responsible Government, what can they do? Are they responsible for government but not under any Constitution, or are they under the control of Parliament here? What is meant by saying that the Governor would consider them responsible citizens? Does the noble Earl appreciate that the difficulty we feel is that, whatever else one thinks about Mr. Smith, he is an elected person—somebody in Rhodesia has elected him. But this proposed responsible Government of Rhodesians will have been elected by nobody at all, but will merely be chosen by the Governor. Can the noble Earl indicate what he means by responsible Government? To whom are they responsible, and what can they do?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the trouble about these Statements is that I have a copy which I have studied for some time, as have one or two others, but most noble Lords, such as the noble Lord who has just spoken,
40
have to try to take it in as it comes. The noble Lord's question is based on faulty articulation, or on his mishearing, or on the conditions under which we work. But here is an important point in the Statement:
"…the best provision for the first stage after this return would appear to be for the Governor to form an interim Government of Rhodesians, responsible to him…".
I did not say "a responsible Government". "A responsible Government" suggests a Government responsible to the Parliament of a country: in the interim period this is precisely the opposite. I am glad the noble Lord has asked the question again, because I was anxious to read out yet again, and more articulately, what I had said before.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, as I understand it, the interim Government which is envisaged by Her Majesty's Government here would be responsible only to the Governor, but would this Government which was responsible to the Governor have also to repudiate the U.D.I. before they could be negotiated with? I do not believe that the Governor will find anybody who will satisfy that condition.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The answer would be, yes. It is for the Governor to choose these individuals and I am assuming that he would not choose anybody to serve on his Council who had not repudiated U.D.I. It would be inconceivable that he could choose somebody who still stood up for U.D.I.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question which may have arisen from my having misheard him? The question is: to whom is the Governor responsible? My hearing of the noble Earl's answer was that he would be responsible to Her Majesty's Government. Is that right?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I shall ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to answer that from a purely constitutional point of view; but in one sense, in practice, he is.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that is right under the Constitution of 1961, as Parliament has altered it.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I understood the Leader of the House to say

41
that the views of the people of Rhodesia will have to be sought on the amendments and changes necessary in the 1961 Constitution to secure a resumption of full constitutional Government. I think it is not unfair to say that there are those in Rhodesia, and certainly many Africans in Rhodesia, who do not regard the Parliament elected under the present franchise as sufficiently representative of the views of all the people in Rhodesia. It would be helpful to know how the views of the Rhodesian people as a whole will be ascertained in order to find out what amendments should be made to, and what changes are necessary in, the 1961 Constitution.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that is a most relevant question. It is not one I should imagine anybody would try to answer in a black and white fashion to-day. I hope that the noble Lord and other noble Lords will contribute ideas as we proceed. This is not something which is going to happen immediately.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, as I understood him—and it is important that we should get this right—the Lord Chancellor said that the Governor of Rhodesia is responsible to Her Majesty's Government here under the 1961 Constitution. I would ask the Lord Chancellor this. Is it not clearly laid down in the 1961 Constitution that any theoretical right of interference or direction, which there was in theory when my noble friend and I in turn were responsible but which was never exercised by the 1961 Constitution, was deliberately abandoned by law under the Constitution for all time? In place of that, with the assent of all the Africans who took part in the negotiations 'in London, there was substituted for that theoretical right an absolute provision that the Government here could not interfere. There was set up, in place of any such right, that the Secretary of State might have a constitutional council, and if the Government of Rhodesia did not accept any proposal there was a right of appeal to the Privy Council. Therefore, if we go back to the 1961 Constitution, which is the sensible thing to do, there would be no power under that Constitution for the Government here to give the Governor of Rhodesia any instructions at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with great respect to him, the
42
noble Earl is entirely wrong. We—that is to say, the Crown—never gave up our right in law to alter the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia. But we did consider ourselves bound by a convention, that so long as they acted constitutionally we would not, in fact, interfere with their powers under the 1961 Constitution as it was then. Of course, Parliament since then, and after the illegal action which the regime took, has in fact made certain alterations in the 1961 Constitution and has suspended other parts of that Constitution; and the legal Constitution of Rhodesia to-day is the 1961 Constitution as altered or suspended recently by Parliament.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask one important question which I think is relevant? It is about the conversations with Sir Hugh Beadle, and it is this. Are we to have a White Paper giving what was said on both sides? I ask this question. because it seems to me that it is very difficult for us to come to sensible conclusions unless we know what Sir Hugh Beadle—who, presumably, speaks also for the Governor—really said during his visit to London. Sometimes I have a feeling that we are told just what the Government think it is good for us to know. We were told all about the telephone conversation with Mr. Smith, because the Government thought it good for us to know that. We are not being told anything about these conversations, and I should like to ask the Leader of the House to give consideration, or to ask his colleagues to give consideration. to whether Parliament does not have a right to know what were the views expressed by Sir Hugh Beadle.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, any request for the consideration of an idea coming from the noble Marquess in this House, most of all, would always be given very careful attention, and I will of course convey what he said to the Prime Minister and my colleagues. But I should be surprised if with all his experience, the noble Marques would seriously argue that, when a great public servant like Sir Hugh Beadle comes and talks in confidence to the Government, he would expect to see the conversations published. In this case, I gather, Sir Hugh Beadle also talked in equal confidence to leaders of the Opposition, so this is not a question of only the

43
Government knowing the ideas of Sir Hugh Beadle.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we are, of course, in danger of getting into a debate on this subject. The noble Earl has been very patient and courteous in answering questions, but may I ask him one more question to clear up a doubt in my mind? It is on this interim Government of which we have been talking, and the question of direct rule. Would Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom be able to give directions to those responsible Rhodesian citizens through the Governor of Rhodesia?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, on any constitutional point I would naturally turn to the Lord Chancellor. When we talk of giving directions, I take it, subject to the views of the Lord Chancellor, that the Governor would be subject to our instructions, but these others would, of course, be free to join or leave his Government as required. They would not be under Government orders as citizens.

GAS SUPPLIES IN THE WEST MIDLANDS
4.24 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POWER (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, may I now answer a Private Notice Question which has been put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood? Because of a series of breakdowns at the West Midlands Gas Board's plants at Tipton and Coleshill, the Board was forced to impose severe restrictions on the use of gas by industry on Thursday, January 20. Practically the whole of industry in the area, except where supplies were needed to avoid damage to plant, was without gas until Monday, January 24, when supplies were restored to some 270 firms in the Birmingham and Stoke areas including the Potteries.
These difficulties have been due to technical failures and not to miscalculation of demand. The Board had planned to provide sufficient capacity to meet a daily peak demand this winter of 490 million cubic feet, well above the demand actually experienced. However, last Thursday, January 20, both streams at the
44
Coleshill plant were out of commission because of the failure of boiler feed pumps, causing a loss of 50 million cubic feet of gas a day. One stream was brought back into operation the following day but the other had suffered damage during the emergency shut-down. The first stream at Tipton was already under repair and on January 21 the second stream developed boiler trouble and had to be shut down. The Board was thus deprived of a large proportion of the gas which feeds the Board's high-pressure grid.
With one stream at Coleshill working and the fall in demand due to the recent warmer weather a partial resumption of supplies became possible yesterday. But supplies of high-pressure gas into the grid are still inadequate and resumption in those areas relying exclusively on the grid, in particular the motor car centre of Coventry and Longbridge, is still not possible. The Board's and the contractors' engineers are working round the clock to repair the damaged plants. It is too early yet to say precisely when supplies can be fully restored, but it is hoped that this may be possible in the next few days.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for this statement. It certainly is very depressing that so often when the climate in this country behaves in its perfectly normal manner—that is, it is very cold here in December and January—we are continually faced with cuts, breakdowns and so on, of industries which on the whole should by now, one feels, be able to meet the ordinary rigors of our climate. It is not nearly so cold this year as it was in 1962–63, for instance.
I note that in the reply that the Minister has given to me he talks of technical failures and not of miscalculation. This is not what I read in a speech made by the Prime Minister at the weekend, when he said that there was grave miscalculation of the demands by industry in regard to gas; and, I believe, in regard to electricity, too. So I am glad to know that miscalculation is really not the reason for what has happened. Nevertheless, I feel depressed that we should again have a serious breakdown for technical reasons.
I listened, as I have no doubt many people have done, to the broadcast on

45
this subject. What is happening is terribly serious, and I hope that every possible assistance will be given to the contractors to get things going again. I say that, because it is a disaster when one thinks of the great motor car industry being unable to work and unable to meet its obligations, when it is essential—as I am sure the Government would agree—to our export trade.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, but it is a fact, of course, when there is severe Weather combined with mechanical failure, that there is real trouble. Had there been a mechanical failure during a time when the highest pressure was not required, then of course, although depleted in its capacity, the plant may have been able to meet the demand, as it is able to do to a degree at the present time. After all, until January 24 no demands could be met, except the domestic demand. Now, of course, because of the warmer weather and the slightly increased supply, we have been able to meet some of the other demands. It is the combination of severe weather and, of course, the failures at the worst time they could possibly have happened, that has brought about the present position.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does my noble friend not consider, in the light of events, that it is now necessary that we should have a national gas grid right throughout the country, so that gas can be supplied from one area where there is a surplus to another, to help in cases like this?
LORD LINDGREN: Yes, my Lords; and of course the Act that was passed by your Lordships in special circumstances in July last does, for the first time, give the Gas Council the opportunity to create a grid. Also—which is of equal importance—there is the opportunity to have underground storage of gas which can be drawn on in the case of failures of plant.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the Minister agree that his statement that this has nothing to do with miscalculation is a complete repudiation of what was said by the Prime Minister in a public speech blaming the previous Administration? I have another question to put, but I should like that one answered first.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, so far as I am concerned, it is getting the plant repaired and people back to work that matters, rather than making political points.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD LINDGREN: If noble Lords opposite had had to work at the bench and had lost their wages when they were out of work, they might feel as I should —glad to get back to work and so be able to pay the rent and buy the bread and butter. But, after all, the Prime Minister was only replying to other politicians who had been accusing this Government of not providing adequate plant in fifteen months, although it is known that an electricity works takes five years to build and a gas plant from two to two and a half years.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does the noble Lord realize that I admire him very much for his attempts to defend the Prime Minister? But the question is whether it is now quite clearly stated on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that there was no error of calculation, and no shortage at all due to any miscalculation or inaction on the part of the previous Administration. Can the noble Lord make that absolutely clear?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I would agree. I would ask your Lordships to be a little patient so far as I am concerned. I thought I knew something about transport, whereas I have been in my present job only seven days, and therefore my knowledge of it is strictly limited. In so far as the question is concerned, undoubtedly there was an insufficient margin of reserve, but there was sufficient capacity within the 490 million cubic feet to meet the expected demand. But, in fact, first the new plant at Tipton failed to come into supply when it was expected to; and secondly the existing plant at Coleshill, which is a new plant, went out of production because of a failure of plant.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what action, if any, the Winter Emergency Committee has taken since its appointment in relation to gas? Secondly, while I appreciate the noble Lord's concern—and it is our concern, too—that these motor factories

47
should be back at work as soon as possible, can he give any indication of how long he thinks it will take before they get a flow of gas? I do not think he said anything about that in his statement. He may not be able to give any very positive estimate, but it would be useful to know how long he think this shortage is likely to continue. There are two questions there, I am afraid; hut I hope that, despite his having been in that office for only seven days, he will be able to say whether or not the Winter Emergency Committee has accomplished anything in relation to gas.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Viscount is an ex-Cabinet Minister. I have never been a Member of the Cabinet, but I have always understood that it was not for Ministers to divulge what has happened either in the Cabinet or in Cabinet committees. All I can tell the noble Viscount, so far as the Winter Emergency Committee is concerned, is that to my own knowledge it has been meeting at least once a week, and involving, first, the Ministry of Transport and now, so far as I am concerned, the Ministry of Power.
So far as the resumption of supplies is concerned, the difficulty is this. We have hopes, and though one would not like to make statements in the House which are really for the Board to make, in conjunction with the industries concerned, I can tell the noble Viscount that the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry are in consultation with the West Midlands Gas Board to-day in regard to the resumption of supplies of gas, and about priorities, if they are necessary. Although it is strictly for the Board to say, it is our hope that, after consultation with them, there will be a resumption of supplies by Thursday.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that in fact the plant ought to have been ordered far earlier, because it had only a very short period in which to overcome its teething troubles before the winter was on us?
LORD LINDGRENYes, my Lords; and I thank the noble Viscount for that interjection. But, equally, there have been certain delays in the delivery of certain plant.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, are the Government proposing to have a look at the liability of Gas Boards for damages for breach of contract? Of course, one of the things which compel ordinary people to keep their contracts is the thought that if they break them they will be responsible for the losses of the other people with whom they are in contract. But if, in the case of a Gas Board whose gas supply breaks down, the only result is that the Board does not get paid for, the gas it has not supplied, and nothing more, that is not a very strong force compelling the Board to keep up its supplies; to industry.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, those are legal questions. But, if they are involved, some people who have had a motor car which has not been up to standard when delivered might even have a claim against the motor-car industry.

THE INDUSTRIAL REORGANISATION CORPORATION
4.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there are two further Statements to be made and the Bill to be concluded, so perhaps the House may think it right that we should move on to the Statement that has just been made by my right honor. able friend the First Secretary of State on the Industrial Reorganization Corporation. My Lords, these are his words:
"Last week the Government announced a new system of incentives to stimulate investment in the sectors of industry and parts of the country where it is most needed. To complement these measures, we propose to set up an Industrial Reorganization Corporation to help British industry to adapt its structure and organization so that it can meet international competition more effectively.
" The structure of many industries has undergone substantial changes in recent years. But in some sectors British industry still cannot match the scale of operations of highly integrated groups abroad. The Corporation's task will be to search for opportunities to promote rationalization schemes which can yield substantial benefits to the national economy, especially in

49
Terms of increased exports and more rapid technological advance.
"The Corporation will work in close co-operation with industry and existing financial institutions and will make full use of the facilities offered by the market. It will not act as a general holding company, but it will be able to provide finance from its own resources to promote sound rationalization schemes —by making loans or taking an equity interest in new groupings. It will also be able to provide capital for new projects or expansions of special importance to the national economy.
" The Government propose that the Corporation should be given the right in the first instance to draw as needed up to £150 million from the Exchequer.
"These proposals are set out in a White Paper"
—which is now available in the Printed Paper Office—
" and the necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.
" I am pleased to inform the House that Sir Frank Kearton has accepted the Government's invitation to become Chairman of the Corporation."
LORD DR UMALBYN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the Statement that he has just made, and while, naturally, very much in favor of encouraging British industry
" to adapt its structure and organization so that it can meet international competition more effectively "
—to quote the words the noble Lord has just used—I am sure that he will not expect us to pronounce on the particular methods that the Government have chosen to pursue this objective, without our looking very carefully at the White Paper and the arguments in it to justify those methods and at the circumstances and ways in which the services of the Corporation are expected to be used.
May I just ask the noble Lord whether I am right in supposing that the legislation which he envisages will be in the form of a separate Bill, and will not be included in the same Bill as the provisions for investment incentives in the new Development Areas? If that is so, will the necessary provisions providing for these investment grants be included in the Bill? If it is not so, can he tell us
50
whether the exact status which the Corporation is to have is set out in the White Paper?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I understand it, there will be two separate Bills, one dealing with the investment incentives and one with the creation of this new organization. The White Paper makes the case broadly for the proposals that the Government have in mind. It does not go into the special structure of the Corporation; that will naturally arise in the Bill. But if there is any matter in which I can help the noble Lord, I am willing to talk to him.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as the Monopolies and Mergers Bill would appear to act as something of a stumbling block to the new Corporation, would Her Majesty's Government provide for the repeal of that Bill?
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly not, my Lords. The object of the Monopolies Commission, as the noble Lord knows, is to stimulate competition. In the case of this Corporation, the noble Lord, with his connections in industry, must be aware that there are many companies and organisations which, if brought together although not coming within the Monopoly Commission criteria, would be more efficient. Improved design and other techniques would make them more useful within the home industry and particularly so in dealing with exports and overseas competition.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I mention one other point on which I think industry will want particularly to be satisfied? The Statement just made said that the Corporation will work in close co-operation with industry and existing financial institutions. I am sure that industry will want to be assured in advance that the Corporation will act only after prior consultation with industry and the financial institutions referred to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord will see, when he reads the White Paper, that the Government have in mind that the Corporation will be seeking rationalization. If it is essential for Government money to be invested through the Corporation in that rationalization, then the money will be available. But if private investment, particularly that of the City of London and

51
the banks, is willing and able to enter into the rationalization, perhaps to the full extent, the Government would welcome it. We will certainly be seeking the utmost co-operation, as we have throughout, from various sections of industry, with the Government participating.

SALE OF DEFNCE EQUIPMENT ABROAD
4.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene to repeat yet another Statement, one that is being made by my right honorable friend the Secretary of State for Defense in another place, on our policy and organization for selling defense equipment abroad. The Statement is as follows:
" In July this year, my right honorable friend the Minister of Aviation and I invited Sir Donald Stokes, the Managing Director and Deputy Chairman of Leyland-Triumph, to look into our policy and organization for selling defense equipment abroad, and to suggest in what ways they could be improved. Increased sales of British equipment will help significantly to reduce the burden of our military commitments by enabling us to win hack some of the foreign currency which we have to spend on keeping our forces overseas and equipping them for their tasks. While the Government attach the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable commercial market.
" Sir Donald has now let us have his recommendations, and I think the House would like to know what the Government have decided already about the more important points in his proposals.
" First, we agree with Sir Donald on the importance of having a closely-knit organization within the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Aviation to handle arms sales and to help
52
British firms to secure overseas defense orders, under the centralized control of a Head of Defense Sales. He will be a man of high calibre with direct access to Ministers and a suitable supporting staff both at home and overseas. He will be responsible jointly to my right honorable friend and myself for all the arms sales work in our Departments.
" At the same time we are taking steps to ensure that when our own equipment requirements are formulated, the present and future requirements of the overseas market are taken fully into account.
" In setting up the arms sales organization we will have regard to the recommendations of the Plowden Report and of the Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee dealing with electrical and electronic equipment in the Services, to the extent that they cover the field of export sales. The more detailed proposals made by Sir Donald as to how the organization might operate most efficiently are still under examination.
" I should like on behalf of the Government to thank Sir Donald Stokes for undertaking this important task."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement and to echo the tribute in it which has been paid to the energy and public spiritedness shown by Sir Donald Stokes in this matter. I would also agree on the importance of fostering the export of defence equipment, not least if the noble Lord and his colleagues continue to order a wide range of defense equipment off the foreign peg. Could I ask the noble Lord three questions? First, is it proposed to publish Sir Donald Stokes's Report? Secondly, is it proposed that the new Head of Defense Sales should be recruited from within, or outside, the ranks of the Civil Service? Thirdly, what about Ministerial responsibility? I think the Statement said that the Head of Defense Sales would be responsible to the Secretary of State for Defense and to the Minister of Aviation. But will any particular Minister—for example, one of the Ministers of Defence—be directly responsible, under the Secretary

53
of State or the Minister of Aviation as the case may be, in this matter?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in answer to the first question, I may say that it is not the intention to publish the Report. I wish it were possible to do so, for it is a very good Report; but there are a number of confidential observations in it. Secondly, it is likely that the Head of Defence Sales—and this was part of Sir Donald's particular recommendations—will be drawn from industry. Thirdly, the noble Lord asked whether there will be a Minister particularly concerned to whom the Head of Defence Sales especially will have access. This is the intention; and it is likely to be, apart from the Secretary of State and the Minister of Aviation, that Minister who holds responsibility across the board in this field and who happens, my Lords, to be myself.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, my noble friends and I on these Benches do not join in congratulating the Government on this Statement. We feel it is a very dangerous Statement, and the proposals made in it are, in our opinion, not such that a British Government should make. I am surprised that we have not heard from the Church on this matter.
We note that the Statement says that this arrangement is to enable these gentlemen to look into our policy—that is, British Government policy—and organization for selling defence equipment abroad, and to suggest ways in which they can he improved. The Statement goes on to say:
" While the Government attach the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that this country does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable commercial market."
In our view these two aims cannot work in harness. They are not compatible. The Government must decide whether or not to be genuine in their support of disarmament. They have appointed a Minister of Disarmament—an appointment which we, on these Benches, welcomed. We do not think that this "super-salesmanship of death" can properly be joined with the appointment of a Minister of Disarmament.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord had the Statement when he said "these gentlemen" are to look into it. Is he referring to Sir Donald Stokes's specific purpose?—which was to inquire whether any improvement in co-ordination was necessary. The noble Lord used the expression, "these gentlemen". I was not sure whether he was referring to the new organization. I personally attach the highest importance to our—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I clear up the point? I meant the Minister of Aviation and the Secretary of State for Defence and Sir Donald Stokes. I meant all three who are all concerned in this project.
LORD SHACKLETON: It might be helpful if the noble Lord would read the advance copy more closely before giving a false impression. Even now he has not interpreted it correctly.
I assure your Lordships that there is no conflict with the fundamental aim of Her Majesty's Government, which is in fact to strive by every possible means to achieve disarmament. That is not incompatible with this. Unless those noble Lords on the Liberal Benches do not wish us to sell abroad any defence equipment at all, and wish to retire to a purely autarchical relationship in which we neither buy nor sell defence equipment, it is clearly necessary, and it seems to me only common sense, especially within an alliance in which interdependence is of the highest importance —and I stress that this is not intended to lead to great competition; we still look towards interdependence—that if you have equipment to sell you should sell it. I really do not understand what the noble Lord wishes, because it seems to me that here is a market in which we can sell some of our goods abroad, and we propose that this organization should be answerable to Government policy. There can be no question of this organization's going ahead, under this Government any more than any other Government, and getting into the arms business where, for national or international reasons, it is undesirable to sell arms.

COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT BILL [H.L.]
4.52 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and other noble Lords who spoke, for what they have said and the welcome which they gave to the Commonwealth Secretariat Bill. I am sure that the encouragement which they expressed and the interest they have shown will be appreciated very keenly by those upon whom executive responsibility for the Secretariat will now fall. I noted that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, proposes to raise the matter concerning income tax on the Committee stage, and I shall look forward to seeing whether his point is directed towards restricting or enlarging the immunity to which I referred.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I did not say that I was definitely going to raise the matter myself. I certainly thought that it would be raised by other noble Lords.
LORD BESWICK: We shall have to wait then until we see exactly what is said on the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about the position of the staff and whether they were to be seconded, or whether it would be possible for members of the staff to look forward to a position in the Secretariat as a life career. As I understand it, there will be a combination of both seconded personnel and those who will be able to make the Secretariat a career. In the first instance, at any rate, the Secretary-General and his two Deputies are seconded. They are appointed collectively by the Commonwealth Heads of Government and, not unnaturally, they were appointed from one or other of the diplomatic services of the Governments concerned.
The question was raised, and I endeavored to give some satisfactory answer, as to why there are no female members on the staff. In fact, so far as the senior staff are concerned, they
56
are appointed by the Secretary-General from names submitted to him by the different Commonwealth Governments, and I assume that it is possible that no woman has been on the list submitted for the senior positions which have been filled so far. I know, however, that there are some women members, in the middle grades, and it seems to me that it would be entirely appropriate if in this Commonwealth of ours, in which, as I mentioned earlier, there have been two women Prime Ministers, there were women members of the staff. I am sure that mention of this earlier in the debate will be noted by those who have responsibility in the field of appointments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also asked about the suitability of the paintings on the walls at Marlborough House. I have no doubt, again, that what he said will be read with interest; but I have reason to believe that higher on the list of priorities of the Secretary-General will be the need, not for new paintings on the walls, but for the possibility of putting in some windows in the annex in which some of his staff will have to work. It is now the case—no doubt there were historic reasons for this—that in the particular annex which will be used there are no windows opening out on to what is one of the most beautiful pieces of countryside in London and, in my view, in the world. I suppose at one time servants were quartered there and were not permitted to look out on the lawns where the ladies and gentlemen might stroll. When times are better, and the Minister of Works has more funds at his disposal, I hope that it will be possible, before we get round to changing the pictures, to put in some windows instead of the blank walls which are now there.
My Lords, I think that I have replied to the various questions which were raised. I simply say again that I am sure that the members of the Secretariat will appreciate the encouragement which has been given to them and the confidence which has been displayed in the future of this organization.
On Question, Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.56 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
LORD INGLEWOOD LORD INGLEWOOD moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 2 of Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939
" . At the end of section 2(1) of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939 there shall be inserted the following proviso:
Provided that in an application where neither of the parties has his usual residence in Scotland or has previously been domiciled in Scotland and where it appears to the Sheriff that the aforesaid application to contract a marriage in Scotland is based primarily on the desire to circumvent the marriage laws of the country of one or other of the parties so applying, the Sheriff may decline to grant a license for such marriage."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of this Bill I moved an Amendment which was meant to put a check on unwise runaway marriages by couples who, too often, are very young and include a large number of Germans, Dutch and others, as well as English, and who misuse certain provisions in the Scottish marriage law, and use Scotland, as it were, as a "flag of convenience". I explained at some length the change in the law as it affects people other than Scotsmen, and I shall not take up time to-day repeating myself. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, agreed with my motives saying that they would commend themselves to all. He explained how my Amendment presented difficulties, and at the conclusion of the discussion, I asked leave to withdraw it.
During the debate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, further said that the Government were willing and anxious that the problem should be considered by the authorities concerned and that Her Majesty's Government would do what they could to expedite such considerations. I hope that the noble Lord will not say that I am over-soon in raising this question again, and that it is early to ask for a progress report. I know that it is not many weeks since the Committee stage and that Christmas has intervened, as well as additional Scottish holidays. None the less, there have been a number of working days, and in effect this is the
58
last chance we have, because discussion on this point is out of order in another place. We cannot follow the convention of raising a question in one House and receiving the Government's considered views at a later stage in another.
So, my Lords, I have virtually no alternative except to raise this point again to-day. I am greatly encouraged to do this by the notice taken of this point by the Press, both national and local. In particular, your Lordships will be interested by the strength of the leading article in the Dumfries and Galloway Standard, which, after our last debate, referred to what goes on in a number of Scottish villages as "making a mockery of marriage" and added,
"Let no one be fooled by the veneer of romance."
So it is not just the English who are directing attention at this time to this point.
The Amendment I have put down today seems to me to meet all the objections raised against the proposal which I asked your Lordships to consider at the last occasion. It might well be, in the end, the best way to approach a solution to this difficulty. So I am offering it to your Lordships, not just as an excuse for giving the Minister an opportunity of telling us more about how his mind and the mind of the Government are working, and about what progress he has been able to make in the last few weeks, but also on the strength of its own merits. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Inglewood.)
5.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I would not for one moment quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in returning to the attack on this problem to-day. At the last stage of the Bill I undertook to look further into this question, and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I acquaint your Lordships with some of the difficulties we encountered when we gave further consideration to the noble Lord's previous proposal to extend (I am not referring to any particular number of days) the residential qualifications.

59
The first of these was the necessity to get the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to bring the Church's rules into line with this new law—because without that we should not just have brushed the problem under the carpet; we should have shoved it on to the Church's carpet instead. Secondly, all persons coming from outside Scotland would have been affected, and not merely those persons intending marriage who are under age and come from countries where parental consent was required. Thirdly, a party in England with a parent, of whatever nationality, residing in Scotland would still be able, under the terms of Section 1 of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1956, to proceed by publication of notice without coming to Scotland at all except for the ceremony.
Fourthly, there are special procedures for the preliminaries to a marriage between a British subject resident in Scotland and a British subject resident in any Dominion or other country of the British Commonwealth to which the Marriage of British Subjects (Facilities) Acts, 1915 and 1916, have been applied by Order in Council. In such cases a document showing that the preliminaries in the countries concerned have been observed is acceptable in Scotland. Fifthly, under the Naval Marriages Act 1908, where one of the parties is an officer, seaman or marine on the books of one of Her Majesty's ships at sea the proclamation of banns or publication of notice of marriage may be made on board the ship. Therefore the suggestion for an increase in the residential period would not in all cases have had the effect desired. I have deliberately confined myself to the words suggested by the civil servants, which do not by any means overstate the position.
May I now come to the noble Lord's second attempt? At first glance, it looked as if this might be a better runner than the first one, but in fact, on examination, it is much less so. I will take Gretna as an example, because I think that Gretna was very much in the mind of the noble Lord when he spoke of these runaway marriages. And, for the sake of making it clear that we are all talking about the same thing, I would define a runaway marriage, as I think would the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, as a
60
marriage where one or both of the parties is under the age of 21 and comes from a country where parental consent is necessary before the marriage can take place. In 1962 (and I have chosen this year not from any evil motive, but because it is the most recent year for which complete statistics are available), there were 500 marriages performed at Gretna, and of that number some 400 would probably come into the category of runaway marriages. But, in order to get the problem in perspective, I would point out that, of the total of 40,000 marriages which took place in Scotland, including the 400 runaway marriages at Gretna, the total number of runaway marriages was only 600. This is an infinitesimal part of the total number of marriages performed. I wish to clear up any misconception that Scotland is running a profitable marriage racket. We are not. The number of runaway marriages is a small part of the total. It is only in regard to the figures of marriages at Gretna, where some 400 out of 500 come into the runaway category, that this category becomes significant.
To what extent would the proposed new clause reduce this figure? Of the 500 marriages at Gretna, only 13 followed the issue of a sheriff's license; and of that 13 only 8 were part of the 400 runaway marriages. So that we arrive at the remarkable result that the noble Lord's proposed new clause would have stopped only eight of the 400 runaway marriages which took place at Gretna. So, as a means of dealing with the problem, it would really be useless. It would not serve the purpose for which the noble Lord hoped in bringing it forward. I know full well that the noble Lord had no opportunity of finding out how many runaway marriages took place following the issue of a sheriff's licence. I presume that he expected it to be a much higher proportion. I must confess that if the noble Lord had asked me at the last stage how many marriages took place under a sheriff's licence, I should probably have been as widely out in my guess as the noble Lord might have been. But the result is that the noble Lord's proposal is no help in diminishing the number of these marriages.
Even if there had been a higher proportion of marriages following the issue of a sheriff's license, I should still not

61
have been able to accept the noble Lord's proposal because of the difficulties inherent in the proposal itself. The proposed Amendment would exclude cases where either of the parties has previously been domiciled in Scotland. Where the country of origin was Scotland, this would present no difficulty, but where a patty claimed that he had acquired Scottish domicile by choice, the sheriff's task would have been made more difficult, as he would be largely dependent on the statements made by the parties themselves.
Then I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that the clause says where it appears to the sheriff that an
" application to contract a marriage in Scotland is based primarily on the desire to circumvent the marriage laws of the country of one or other of the parties so applying…"
It would be difficult for the sheriff to determine whether an application was based primarily on the desire to circumvent the marriage laws of the country of one or other of the parties. This would presuppose that the sheriff had full knowledge of the marriage laws of all countries. This is a pretty compliment to Scottish sheriffs, but I do not know one of them who would dare make the claim on his own behalf that he had an extensive knowledge of the marriage laws of other countries, Therefore, if we were to adopt the clause we should be placing the sheriffs in a completely impossible position. It might have been worth taking the risk if the numbers affected by the clause had been large, and it perhaps would rest on the ingenuity of the sheriffs to extract themselves from these difficulties. But when it is going to have an effect only on 8 out of 400, then. I must say that in my view we should not be improving the position by accepting the proposed new clause.
I would also remind your Lordships that the Scottish Law Commission is now in existence. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate are at present discussing with the Scottish Law Commission the form that a review of the marriage law could most usefully take. I think that the steps which have already been taken by the Scottish Law Commission, in its short existence, are the best guarantee that the Commissioners will look fully, and I hope speedily, at this particular problem.
62
However, there is yet another aspect to be borne in mind. After all, this problem arises not from the operation of a law which the Scots have found perfectly satisfactory, but from the operation of laws which certainly the English, the Germans, the Dutch and the Belgians have found unsatisfactory. I would remind your Lordships that, while there is no immediate proposal to alter the law in England so as to alter the age under which parental consent is required, nevertheless, the Lord Chancellor has appointed a Committee, at present sitting under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Latey, to consider whether any changes are desirable in the law of England relating to contracts made by persons under 21, and in the law relating to marriage by such persons.
I would suggest to your Lordships that one of three things might come from that Committee. They might suggest that the law should remain exactly as it is, in which case the problem vis-à-vis the runaway marriages of the English will remain as it is. They might suggest that the need for parental consent should be abolished, in which case those who would otherwise come to Scotland could have the marriage performed South of the Border. Or they might suggest that the age at which consent is necessary should be reduced below the age of 21. But if any such change is suggested, that will undoubtedly have the effect of bringing the law of England nearer to the present law of Scotland.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is there not a fourth alternative: that they might suggest that marriages contracted under 21 without consent outside England should be voidable, as I believe they are in certain other countries?
LORD HUGHES: Yes; I think that is a fourth alternative. But if we were to rely on the extent to which voidable marriages in other countries are rendered void, it would be rather a broken reed, because I understand that in a recent year only two such actions to render a marriage void in Germany, where such a course is possible, have occurred. One can think of a number of reasons why parents, after the marriage has taken place, might be reluctant to embark on such a course.
At all events, the position is that there is some consideration going on at the

63
Present time of the English position, and the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate have had, and are having, discussions to consider a review of the Scottish marriage law. I have no doubt whatever that when that review takes place—and I personally hope that it will be soon—the aspect of runaway marriages will be one of the matters to which the Commission will direct its attention. In that, I hope, not unhelpful, although not, so far as the Amendment is concerned, welcome attitude, I trust that the noble Lord will agree not to press this Amendment, and that the House will agree with me.
5.16 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here when we had the debate before Christmas on the Committee stage, because I wanted to support my noble friend Lord Inglewood in his views. I have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said, and I am glad to hear that these matters are under consideration, both in England and in Scotland: that the Commission in Scotland is reviewing marriage laws in regard to runaway marriages, and that this problem is also being considered in England. I do not take quite such a complacent view as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He feels that 400 runaway marriages represents a small number. I think it is a large number. I think the noble Lord said 500, of which 400 were runaway marriages.
LORD HUGHES: If the noble Baroness will permit me, I said that for the whole of Scotland 600 runaway marriages, out of a total of 40,000 marriages, was a very small proportion. I agreed that 400 at Gretna out of 500 was a large proportion.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I was thinking in terms of runaway marriages at Gretna, which, as we know, make the headlines in the newspapers, and which we all dislike. I think that 400 is a lot and it is too many. I do not think we should take a complacent view about that, and say merely that, because there were 40,000 marriages in the Kirk, in the register office or in any other reputable manner, that puts the balance on the right side. Of course
64
it puts the balance on the right side; nevertheless, I still think that 400 runaway marriages at Gretna Green is far too many. I believe that it makes a good case for taking stronger line on this matter, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when he is discussing this matter with the Law Commission, as no doubt he will do, will feel that this is something which should not happen. In the year 1966 it just is not "on" that these things should happen, and that there should be this foolish loophole (if one can have a foolish loophole) concerning marriage ceremonies which is provided in Gretna.
It may be that the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Inglewood has put down does not achieve what he wants, and that what the noble Lord said about the sheriff, and about the small number of marriages in which the sheriff is concerned, puts this out of court. This is a substantial point which I do not dispute. But I feel that the noble Lord should take into account that a great many people in Scotland—I am not by any means the only one—think that this old-fashioned and somewhat "phoney" way of getting married at Gretna should be ended. I hope that he will urge on the Law Commission to take some fairly stringent action as soon as possible, because I think the present situation is altogether unsuitable for our country.
5.20 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must correct a statement which the noble Baroness has made. There is nothing "phoney" about the ceremonies which take place at Gretna; it is exactly the same type of marriage ceremony as is performed by a registrar anywhere else in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, unfortunately many people go up to Scotland thinking that they can be married instantly; they think there is instant marriage in Scotland. There is not; they have to wait the fifteen days. The noble Lord's objections were to the difficulties which this caused. In many cases people come up quite unprepared for the wait, which in fact proves to be 22 days when all is taken into account. But I am quite sure I should be rescuing the noble Baroness from some local difficulty if she had to go back and suggest that some sort of illegal marriage was taking place in Gretna.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, if I have used the wrong word, I withdraw it. I am glad to be corrected by the noble Lord.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, had in mind, was that 400 is an awful lot of marriages in one small place—400 out of 500 being runaway marriages. That is something which I, as an ex-Member for Dumfries-shire, have reason to know a great deal about. Ii is something which is very much deplored, and which one would willingly do something about. But it is, as the noble Lord has just said, something which is essentially based upon a false belief, and it is difficult to alter the law of Scotland because of a false belief elsewhere. I hope it may be possible to do something to deal with this problem, but I think it is unreasonable to ask that the law of Scotland should be altered in a way which would be detrimental to the Scots, in order to deal with what is essentially an extremely small problem.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Inglewood for having tried, in his Amendment to-day, to avoid doing any harm to the Scots. I am conscious that that was the purpose of his Amendment. I am sorry that he has not been able to achieve his purpose, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said that this is a problem which is being examined both in Scotland and in England, and I hope your Lordships will leave the matter there.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, this; discussion has gone much as I thought it would, because even if my words had, surprisingly, satisfied the noble Lord's advisers as being something which could be accepted as part of a Statute, he would have had to argue against them on this occasion because the inclusion of them in the Statute would have opened this Bill to all sorts of comments in another place, which clearly the Government would not wish. None the less, with the noble Baroness, I think the noble Lord was a little too smug. This problem is not one which can really be assessed solely by numbers; it is a much bigger problem than a few hundreds. Furthermore, it is something which brings discredit—I will not say on Scotland, but on Britain, and that is something about which we are all concerned.
66
I am glad the noble Lord has appreciated that my amateur drafting (which I admit I thought was rather ingenious, and I accept the compliment) made it abundantly clear that this was in no way an Englishman trying to alter Scots law so far as it affected Scotsmen. In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I am again left with no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But I assure him that I will find other ways to ask for progress reports from time to time; and unless the progress he is able to report is satisfactory, not just to me but to a great many people who are interested—and I commend to him a double-page article in a recent edition of the Sunday Mirror, which talked of the base side of this business as "the love trade"; he seemed to think there was little commercial in it—I will not be satisfied, because there is something here which is a big problem. It is something which we ought not to leave just where the noble Lord suggests we should. We do not want to press him, but we do not want to abandon it altogether. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, it is over thirty years since I sat on a Committee on this subject. We made little progress at that time because at that moment one of the members of the Committee brought her son along to the Smithy; he was duly married and given a beautiful marriage certificate drawn up by the blacksmith. I hope that, during the next year or two, we may set this matter right. It is a disgraceful racket on the part of certain individuals, and a very profitable racket.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8:
Variation and recall by the sheriff of certain orders made by the Court of Session in respect of maintenance, custody, etc., and amendment of s. 2 of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1938
8.—
(2) Where any person who has been a party to a consistorial action has a right to make application for the variation or recall of any order made in that action to which the provisions of this section apply, he may make an application in that behalf to the sheriff, and, subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, the sheriff shall have the like powers in relation to the application as the Court of Session.
The application shall forthwith be intimated by the sheriff clerk to the Principal Clerk of Session, who shall transmit the process in the said action to the sheriff clerk.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "who has been a party to a consistorial action". The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 together; they accomplish one purpose. Clause 8, as presently drafted, places what the Government regard as an undesired and unintended limitation on the operation of the clause. The clause is drafted with particular reference to the case where there are really only two parties, the husband and wife, or former husband and wife. There can, however, be cases where a third party might have an interest in the order, for example where the custody of a child has been entrusted to a relative other than one of the spouses, and it seems clear that the provisions for sheriff court procedure should apply to such parties in the same way as to spouses.
The Amendments, therefore, have the effect of allowing an application to the sheriff court by any person who has a right to apply for variation or recall of the particular order. Similarly, any such person would be entitled to secure, if he or she so desired, that an application to the sheriff court was remitted to the Court of Session. I am quite certain that when the House agreed to the clause as it stands, it did so in the expectation that all parties to an action would be treated similarly, and this series of Amendments is necessary to bring the clause fully into line with what was originally intended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 6, leave out from ("person") to ("has") in line 7.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I think everyone will agree that this Bill is in a very much better state than when it arrived in this House and was presented by my noble friend Lord Hughes. As a result of the discussion on Second Reading, the Government proposed several Amendments to Clause 8 which were accepted by this House at Committee stage, and they now come forward with further Amendments to this clause. I
68
Think that these Amendments, both those put forward to-day and those put forward on Committee stage, prevent the anomalies which were suggested on Second Reading. I think this has shown that even the simplest law reform is not quite so simple as it might appear, having regard to the Amendments which have had to be made. I think it shows, too, the necessity of preparing the ground for law reform by consultations with the interested parties. At the Second Reading, I indicated to your Lordships that no proper consultations had taken place with the interested parties, and it is only as a result of these representations that the clause has been so far improved. Having said that, I must express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Hughes for accepting the suggestions which have been made in this House, and which have also been made since the Bill was here on Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the first "that"and insert:
"a consistorial".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. In doing so, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, for what he has said, although I cannot go all the way with him when he said that there was no consultation. It may be that there was not sufficient consultation with certain of the parties, but certainly a fair degree of consultation took place. What I am prepared to admit quite frankly is that the Government have accepted a number of suggestions for the improvement of this clause. That, my Lords, is as it ought to be, because this is a Bill to reform the law; and if it is drawn to the attention of any Government that reform can be better accomplished in a different way, then obviously Her Majesty's Government would not be accomplishing their objective if they intended instead merely to adhere to their own first ideas on the matter. What we now have is the result of a great deal of additional consultation in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, have played a very large part; and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I am grateful to them for the help they

69
have given in improving Clause 8. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("that") and insert ("a consistorial").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.31 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the second paragraph. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would ask that I may speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 together. These Amendments follow a discussion between the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Advocate about the provision which it is necessary to make to secure that the sheriff court shall have available the Court of Session record of the case. The clause as it stands provides simply for the sheriff clerk to intimate the application to the Principal Clerk of Session, who shall then transmit the process to the sheriff clerk. The first of the Amendments, No. 4, deletes this provision, and Amendment No. 6 substitutes a new subsection dealing with the matter more comprehensively.
The effect is to specify the transmission of the process to and from the sheriff court as among the matters on which the Court of Session may regulate its procedure and that of the sheriff court under the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933. This would enable the Court of Session to make by Act of Sederunt such detailed provision on this matter as they think expedient. Also, it is made clear that the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937, which provides for the transmission of court records to and from the Keeper of the Records of Scotland, does not preclude transmission of records to the sheriff court under the clause. Finally, it is provided that, for the purpose of the Act of 1937 and of this Act, the record of an application under the clause shall be deemed to be a record of the Court of Session. This is to ensure that after an application under this clause has been made, it shall be dealt with in the same way as the associated Court of Session record—for example, in the event of a further application for variation being made. The general effect of the Amendments is thus to eliminate any doubt which the present wording might leave about the competence of transmission
70
of the records, and to provide explicitly for regulation of the machinery of transmission by the Court of Session itself.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 13 to 15.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD GUEST: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the question of transmission. As I understand it, the Bill provides for the transmission of the process from the Court of Session to the sheriff court. What would be the position supposing that the two parties had agreed that the process should be transmitted to the sheriff court and then, under a change of circumstances, one of the parties wished to go back to the Court of Session to have the matter considered and was not content that the sheriff who had previously dealt with the matter should, in the new circumstances, deal with it? Is my noble friend satisfied that this clause would enable the process in the sheriff court then to be retransmitted to the Court of Session in order that the judge who previously dealt with the consistorial matter could take it up again? It seems to me a possibility that this might not be covered, but I should like to be assured that it is, otherwise it would not be possible for the party interested in raising this question to bring it before the Court of Session.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, would speak sufficiently long for the answer to reach me, and perhaps he will give me a few seconds so that I may read the advice that I now have. It is not very helpful. In the first instance, it is difficult to read and if I am reading it correctly I am asked to say that I hope it would be covered by Act of Sederunt, but I should like to examine it.
Speaking seriously, my Lords, I think the answer is that the procedure which the Court would lay down would be satisfactory. As the making of the rules is in the hands of the Court of Session itself, one would expect that they would be sufficiently far-seeing to make their rules cover all the circumstances which might arise; and if they have possibly overlooked that aspect, the very fact that the noble and learned Lord has got it

71
Written into the debate here will make it certain that they will not overlook it in future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("the other party") and insert ("any other party to the action"). —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) Notwithstanding anything in Part I of the Public Records (Scotland) Act 1937 (Transmission of court records to and from the Keeper of the Records of Scotland etc.), the powers of the Court of Session, conferred by sections 16 and 34 respectively of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933 to regulate its own procedure and that of the sheriff court, shall include power to provide for the transmission to and from the sheriff court of any process in the action to which an application under this section relates; and for the purposes of the said Act of 1937 and of this section any record of such an application shall be deemed to be a record of the Court of Session.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 28, leave out ("and") and at end insert ("' party' means any person having a right to make application for the variation or recall of the order in question, and").— (Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (PROHIBITED EXPORTS AND IMPORTS) ORDER 1966
Order made under Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 by Her Majesty in Council.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) under Standing Order No. 62 on Thursday last for Affirmative Resolution; and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

  RHODESIA: THE KARIBA DAM AND THE WORLD BANK
  RHODESIA: THE KARIBA DAM AND THE WORLD BANK