Sitting of 27 January 1966

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

    Immigrants (Dependants)
    Mr. Thorneycroftasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will require all resident and arriving immigrants to register the names of those dependants whom they wish to come here.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): No Sir. Apart from other considerations I have no power to do this. But, as mentioned in paragraph 19 of the recent White Paper on Immigration from the Commonwealth, an entry certificate is not normally issued unless the head of the household has furnished particulars of his dependants in time to enable the information he has given to be confirmed.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his high office, and, so far as it is appropriate for a Member of the Opposition, wish him well? Does he recognise that there is considerable anxiety in the country, not simply about the numbers who are coming in but about the possibilities of evasion? If he is relying on paragraph 19, could he give some indication as to how far it is being used, since if the numbers registering are very small, it becomes almost irrelevant to the problem?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations, and glad to note that my move does not mean that I am independent of criticism from him. On the specific point raised, the numbers registering using forms are so far relatively limited, but the scheme has only been in operation
    370
    for a short time and I am satisfied that the procedures he suggests would be impracticable.

    Television Film ("The War Game")
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he made to Lord Norman-brook about showing the film "The War Game" on television.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer which my predecessor gave on 2nd December to a Question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker).
    Mr. Zilliacus: Was it known at the time that Answer was given that on or about 24th September last senior Home Office officials discussed this film with Lord Normanbrook? To remove any suspicion that their advice influenced the B.B.C. in deciding not to show this film even to the general public, let alone on television, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government have no objection whatever to this film being shown?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, this is entirely a matter for the B.B.C. An officer of the Home Office, together with officials from other Departments, saw the film. He expressed no view as to whether it should be shown, and Ministers expressed no view to the B.B.C. The B.B.C. took the decision, as it was right for it to do, entirely on its own authority.

    Shop Hours (Consumer Council Representations)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he has sent to the Consumer Council in response to the Council's representations that restrictions on shop opening hours during week days are no longer justified.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): No final reply has yet been sent. The views of the Council will be considered with those of other bodies being consulted about proposed changes in the law on retail trading hours.
    Mr. Jenkin: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his reply, which is

    371
    encouraging so far as it goes, does he recognise that the representations which have been made by the Consumer Council follow the opinions of a large number of people who are looking for a much greater relaxation of shopping hours than was outlined in the Government's announcement last year?
    Mr. Thomas: There are conflicting views on this question and all the views will be considered.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Would the Home Secretary at least realise that the libertarian approach to home affairs might start with a little greater freedom for the shoppers?
    Mr. Thomas: All of us in the Home Office want the right approach to this question, and I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is proper to take all arguments into consideration.

    Committal Proceedings (Reports)
    Sir J. Hobsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now implement the intention which he announced on 21st January, 1965, to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Tucker and Byrne Committees on restricting the reporting of committal proceedings; and when such legislation will be introduced.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I cannot at present say when it will be possible to introduce legislation to give effect to these Reports.
    Sir J. Hobson: While noting that neither the Home Secretary nor his predecessor have been able to implement the promise given by his predecessor last February, may I suggest to the Home Secretary that the really urgent question is how we can save the time of the police and public in attending committal proceedings? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether a committal could not take place upon proofs of evidence instead of by the present elaborate procedure? Will he undertake to study the suggestions of some of my hon. Friends which are to be published?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes. I am extremely anxious to make progress in this matter. It should be borne in mind that the Tucker Report was published as long ago as eight years.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Would my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that, with the more extensive reporting of the prosecution case, particularly the more lurid type of case, it is becoming more and more unfair towards the accused person and it is also becoming much more difficult to empanel a jury which does not come to court with preconceived ideas as to the guilt of the person concerned?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am fully aware of this problem, and this is why my predecessor spoke as he did in January last year. I hope that we can deal with this matter in some way or other shortly.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that about four four years ago the Home Office gave an undertaking to look into the whole question of committal proceedings which, if solved, would mean that the Tucker Report fell by the board?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I do. This would require widespread consultations, but if one could deal with this question in a still broader way there would be attractions to it.

    Babies and Elderly People (Inflammable Clothing)
    Mr. Rhodesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proposals he has for an extension to the ban on the sale of inflammable baby-clothing; and whether he will make a statement;
    (2) what proposals he has for dealing with the problem of the sale of inflammable nightwear to the elderly.
    Mr. George Thomas: The possibility of extending the scope of the existing regulations, dealing with children's nightdresses, to other children's garments, to nightwear for the elderly and to material sold in the piece is being considered by the Working Party on Flammable Clothing. My right hon. Friend expects to receive the Working Party's first report shortly.
    Mr. Rhodes: Is my hon. Friend aware that every year over 100 elderly people die from this cause? Would he, therefore, act quickly on the Working Party's report when he receives it? Will he bear in mind that, in spite of an excellent continuous daily campaign on this subject in, for example, the Newcastle Evening

    373
    Chronicle people still take risks in their homes, and there have been several deaths from this cause in recent weeks?
    Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the tragic figures of elderly people who die through this cause. Of course, the utmost urgency will be given to the report when it is received.

    Prison Officers, Blundeston Prison (Applications for Transfer)
    Mr. Priorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have applied for transfer from Blundeston Prison since it has been opened.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Fourteen officers, including one principal officer, have applied for a transfer since Blundeston Prison opened in May, 1963.
    Mr. Prior: Is this above or below the average in view of the fact that there has been some dissatisfaction with the conditions at the prison since it was opened?
    Mr. Jenkins: It does not strikingly diverge from the average.

    Prison Officers (Inconvenience Allowance)
    Mr. Priorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons where prison officers are paid an inconvenience allowance.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: As there are approximately 40 prison service establishments at which an inconvenience of locality allowance is paid, I will, with permission, circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Prior: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider adding Blundeston Prison to the list in view of the very special circumstances of a lot of the prison officers there? Although it is not very far from Lowestoft, it is an isolated area and this was one of the causes of dissatisfaction with the conditions.
    Mr. Jenkins: It is, I think, four miles from the centre of Lowestoft. A special bus service was put on some time ago, but was not very fully used. I have not a closed mind on this matter, but at present I do not think that it fulfils the criteria
    374
    in deciding what establishments should be put on the list.
    Following is the list:
    Prison service establishments at which an inconvenience of locality allowance is paid:

    Aldington.

    Grendon.

    Ashwell.

    Guys Marsh.

    Askham Grange.

    Hatfield.

    Bela River.

    Hewell Grange.

    Birmingham (Brockhill).

    Hill Hall.

    Hollesley Bay.

    Blantyre House.

    Huntercombe.

    Camp Hill.

    Leyhill.

    Campfield House.

    Lowdham Grange.

    Dartmoor.

    Moor Court.

    Drake Hall.

    Morton Hall.

    Eastchurch.

    New Hall.

    East Sutton Park.

    North Sea Camp.

    Erlestoke House.

    Parkhurst.

    Everthorpe.

    Pollington.

    Exeter (Haldon Camp).

    Prescoed.

    Send.

    Foston Hall.

    Spring Hill.

    Gaynes Hall.

    Sudbury.

    In addition the allowance is payable to the staff resident at the farms attached to Birmingham and Shrewsbury prisons; and to those members of the staffs of Appleton Thorn and Hindley who are resident in quarters at High Legh.

    Commonwealth Immigrants Act
    Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the fresh instructions issued this year to immigration officers regarding the operation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The House was kept fully informed of the changes made last year in the 1962 instructions to immigration officers. I will lay before Parliament as soon as possible a revised version of the instructions.

    Police (Motor Cycle Traffic Patrol)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen are engaged on motor cycle traffic patrol duty in England and Wales.
    Mr. George Thomas: No central record is kept of the number of police officers engaged on motor cycle traffic patrol, but the information available to my right hon. Friend indicates that there are about 1,100 officers assigned to full-time duty of this kind.
    Mr. Shepherd: Does not the hon. Gentleman regard this as totally unsatisfactory? Should not he study the French arrangements for efficient motor cycle traffic patrols, give them an élite status and use them as part of the aid to nationalise the police force?
    Mr. Thomas: I will not deal with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question with which I am not at all out of sympathy. The police forces of the country are studying all the time what happens in other countries. There are about 4,400 motor cycles used in the police service, and the figures which I gave are not a complete indication of the amount of time spent by patrols on road duties.

    Vivisection (Littlewood Committee's Report)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will implement the recommendations of the Littlewood Committee Report in regard to the advisory committee and the increase in the number of inspectors; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. George Thomas: My right hon. Friend is still awaiting the views of some of the bodies being consulted about the constitution of the proposed advisory committee. The question of strengthening the Inspectorate is linked with suggested changes in conditions of appointment and service, and these matters are being considered.
    Mrs. Butler: While appreciating that this is a complex question, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend realises that the reinforcement of the Inspectorate and the reconstitution of the Advisory Committee—these two points alone—were regarded as prerequisites of any other changes in the system of control? It is now nine months since the report was made. Could my hon. Friend give any indication as to when action will be taken?
    Mr. Thomas: Eleven out of the 40 bodies asked for their views have not yet forwarded their comments. The B.M.A. and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are among those whose opinions we are awaiting. As soon as they are received we shall deal with the matter with expedition.

    Remand Home For Girls (London)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision is being made for a remand home in the London area for girls who at present have to be remanded to Holloway Prison.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Alice Bacon): The intention has been to rebuild Holloway as a remand centre when the women prisoners are accommodated elsewhere. My right hon. Friend is giving urgent consideration to the possibility of an earlier solution of this difficult problem.
    Mr. Lipton: In the meantime, is it not quite scandalous that young girls on minor charges for which they are eventually bound over should be sent to Holloway for two or three weeks, sometimes more, where they are not segregated but mix with some of the worst women in England?
    Miss Bacon: I think that my hon. Friend is a little confused between remand homes and remand centres. There is ample accommodation in remand homes in London for girls under the age of 17. Only when a magistrate signs an unruly certificate saying that a girl under 17 should not go to a remand home must she go to a remand centre. I would remind my hon. Friend that the question of remand centres was not in the immediate programme which we inherited, but four have been opened for women in other parts of the country in the last 18 months.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the right hon. Lady say how many prisoners Holloway Prison can hold and how many are there at present?
    Miss Bacon: I have not the exact figures at the moment, but the numbers at Holloway have gone down considerably in the last few years. I think that a few years ago there were under 600 there. At the moment—I am speaking from memory—I think that there are approximately 250.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that a large part of this evil could be removed or largely mitigated if she would persuade

    377
    the Lord Chancellor to encourage magistrates not to send young people on remand in custody in trivial cases? Is she aware that there is a great deal of public feeling about a number of magistrates who have been in the habit of doing this?
    Miss Bacon: I note what my hon. Friend says and have a good deal of sympathy with it. I will certainly bring this matter to the attention of the Lord Chancellor.

    Prison Officers (Murders)
    Sir Richard Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the last occasion before capital punishment was abolished when a prison officer was murdered while attempting to prevent an escape.
    Miss Bacon: In 1920, at Rochester borstal, an officer was killed by an escaping inmate though not as a result of trying to prevent the escape. The inmate, a youth of 18, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death but the sentence was respited.
    Sir Richard Glyn: Would the right hon. Lady agree that it is over half a century since a prison officer was killed in attempting to prevent an escape? Will she say what steps her right hon. Friend is taking to make sure that such tragedies do not become more common and whether the Department is satisfied that the present position is a sufficient deterrent to prevent desperate prisoners or their accomplices from taking life to effect an escape?
    Miss Bacon: This matter is receiving the urgent attention of my right hon. Friend. This was a very tragic incident which we all deeply regret, and I sincerely hope that it will not occur for another half century.

    Burglaries
    Mr. Awdryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of cases of burglary known to the police in England for the year ended 1st July, 1964, and the number of those cases in which criminal proceedings were initiated.
    Miss Bacon: The number of offences of burglary known to the police in England during the period 1st July, 1963, to 30th June, 1964, was 6,847. The num-
    378
    ber of persons proceeded against for burglary during this period was 1,703. Information as to the number of offences covered by these proceedings is not available.
    Mr. Awdry: Does the Minister agree that one of the main reasons for this great increase in crime is that so many criminals, as is clear from her Answer, are never caught? Has she any plans to deal with the situation?
    Miss Bacon: We have at the moment a crime prevention campaign and we are urgently trying to get more police so that we can detect as many criminals as possible. My right hon. Friend is giving his most urgent attention to this difficult problem.
    Sir B. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if householders would only help the police by protecting their possessions in the manner that the police advise, much of the crime that takes place would be avoided? Will my right hon. Friend make as public as possible what those precautions are and should be?
    Miss Bacon: That is precisely what we are doing with the crime prevention campaign which is now in operation.

    Housebreaking and Burglary (Metropolitan Police District)
    Mr. Awdryasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of housebreaking and burglary were reported to the police in the London Metropolitan area during the three months ended 1st December, 1965.
    Miss Bacon: The numbers of offences of housebreaking and burglary which became known to the police in the Metropolitan Police District during the period 1st September to 30th November, 1965, were 5,437 and 289, respectively.
    Mr. Awdry: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that this reveals a very grave state of affairs? Does she not think that perhaps a slightly more generous attitude towards police pay might help?
    Miss Bacon: That is entirely another question, which is being dealt with in another context.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the right hon. Lady say in how many of these cases

    379
    violence was used by the criminal who was making the entry?
    Miss Bacon: Not without notice.

    Rural District and Parish Council Elections
    Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him for amending legislation to allow for postal and proxy voting in rural district and parish council elections; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. George Thomas: The Rural District Councils Association has informed my right hon. Friend that it favours the extension of postal and proxy voting to rural district council elections. The National Association of Parish Councils earlier indicated that it favoured proxy voting at parish council elections. The matter will be considered when an opportunity for amending legislation occurs.
    Mr. Lewis: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to speed this up so that the rural district and parish councils are brought into line with the other authorities?
    Mr. Thomas: It is intended, after the current review of Parliamentary election law, to conduct a review of local election law.

    River Thames (Driftwood)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the large amount of driftwood in the tidal waters of the River Thames, which is a danger to the users of the river and which is unsightly; and if he will introduce legislation to empower the Metropolitan Police to enforce the penalties for putting or throwing waste timber or other rubbish into the tidal reaches of the River Thames.
    Mr. George Thomas: I am informed by the Commissioner that the Metropolitan Police already co-operate fully with the Port of London Authority in the enforcement of the relevant legislation. The present restriction to the Port of London Authority of the right to institute certain prosecutions in no way hampers the enforcement of this legislation.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that in a display of driftwood at Putney last autumn, the largest and most dangerous piece of driftwood was stamped "Port of London Authority"? Does he not, therefore, consider that the co-operation between the Metropolitan Police and the Port of London Authority should, perhaps, take a different character?
    Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend ought to be a special constable. The Port of London Authority is the prosecuting authority and the police could only report an offender to the Port of London Authority.

    Cmnd. 2742 (The Child, The Family and The Young Offender)
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper on The Child, The Family and The Young Offender, Command Paper No. 2742.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is still Her Majesty's Government's intention to implement the proposals contained in the White Paper on The Child, The Family and The Young Offender, Command Paper No. 2742, in view of the widespread criticism of those proposals.
    Mr. Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department from what bodies representations have been received by the Home Office on the Government White Paper, The Child, The Family and The Young Offender, Command Paper No. 2742; and what action he is proposing to take in the light of these representations.
    Miss Bacon: The proposals in the White Paper were published for the purposes of discussion before legislation. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the bodies which have submitted comments. These show widespread support for the underlying principles contained in the White Paper, but include criticism of some of the details for giving them effect. In deciding the legislation which we intend to introduce we shall give due weight to the views that have been expressed.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: While thanking the right hon. Lady for that extraordinary reply, may I ask whether she will not endeavour to increase the deservedly high reputation of her right hon. Friend by persuading him to withdraw this muddled and inadequate White Paper, for which he is in no way responsible and which has been so devastatingly criticised by probation officers and magistrates throughout the country?
    Miss Bacon: I think that the whole House will realise that those who disagree with anything are usually much more vocal than those who agree. Disagreement seems to be better news than agreement. I should, however, like to tell the House that among the bodies which give general support to the White Paper, with some reservations about the details, are the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils Association, the Association of Children's Officers, the Association of Child Care Officers and the Police Federation of England and Wales.
    Mr. Carlisle: Would not the Minister of State nevertheless agree that this White Paper has few friends and a great many enemies? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] In particular, would she agree that the most invidious proposal of all is that to entitle family councils, sitting in private, to send children away to possibly long-term detention by agreement with their parents? Will the right hon. Lady agree to abandon this thoroughly ill-considered proposal?
    Miss Bacon: I reiterate that it is not true to say that there has been widespread opposition. During the last few months I have spent a considerable amount of time receiving deputations from those who wished to see me about this matter and the impression that the hon. Member has given is quite wrong. Indeed, the proposal concerning family councils does not include sending children away without recourse to a family court where that is so desired.
    Mr. Goodhart: Will the Minister of State remember that probation officers, many magistrates and many of the children's officers have condemned this Report most substantially? Does the right hon. Lady's reply mean that we will not have legislation this Session?
    Miss Bacon: I am well aware that some probation officers and magistrates have criticised the Report. It is quite contrary to my knowledge to say that children's officers have criticised it. The Association of Children's Officers is very enthusiastic about the Report. It is the intention of the Government to legislate when time can be found available.
    Mr. Freeson: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to be deterred by the rather blinkered questions which we have been getting from certain hon. Members opposite? Will she recognise or remind the House that the publication of the White Paper has stimulated some really good fresh thinking at local authority level concerning future development of family welfare services?
    Miss Bacon: Yes. I should like to thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. That is true, quite unlike the recent publication from the Conservative Party which dismissed the whole of juvenile delinquency in 700 words.
    Following is the list:

    Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales.

    Association of Child Care Officers.

    Association of Children's Officers.

    Association of Education Committees.

    Association of Municipal Corporations.

    Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees for England and Wales.

    Conference of Principal Probation Officers.

    County Councils Association.

    Family Welfare Association.

    Federation of Committees for the Moral Welfare of Children.

    Federation of Soroptimist Clubs of Great Britain and Ireland.

    Inner London Education Authority.

    Institute of Journalists.

    Justices' Clerks' Society.

    Magistrates' Association.

    National Association of Head Teachers.

    National Association of Probation Officers.

    National Council of Voluntary Child Care Organisations.

    National Council of Women of Great Britain.

    National Marriage Guidance Council.

    National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

    Police Federation.

    Residential Child Care Association.

    Royal Medico-Psychological Association.

    Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations.

    Standing Conference of Organisations of Social Workers.

    Welsh Joint Education Committee.

    (This list excludes local branches of organisations, individual local authorities and local benches of magistrates.)

    Parliament Square (Traffic Lights)
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Commissioner of Police to withdraw his men on point duty at the Bridge Street-Parliament Street corner during sittings of the House, so that traffic signals can be restored for the convenience of hon. Members.
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the continuing shortage of police, he will now continue the use at all times of the traffic lights in Parliament Square, for the greater convenience of the travelling public.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am ready to be guided by the wishes of the House. Should there be a general desire that the traffic lights should operate while the House is sitting, I shall be glad to reconsider the present arrangements in consultation with the Commissioner.
    Mr. Hynd: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that while we appreciate the desire of the Commissioner of Police to carry out the terms of the Sessional Order, the point-duty men cannot be expected to recognise Members of Parliament and that during the Recesses it is very often quicker to cross the street when the traffic lights are in operation?
    Mr. Jenkins: I will bear the point in mind. It is certainly the view of the police that traffic approaching Parliament Square can be dealt with more effectively when the lights are in operation than when they are not. It is also the case that were the lights to operate while the House was sitting there would be a not inconsiderable saving of manpower. As I said in my original Answer, however, I am in the hands of the House in this matter.

    Drug Addiction (Control)
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to control the spread of drug addiction, particularly among young people.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The recommendations of the Interdepartmental Committee on Drug Addiction were published on
    384
    25th November. They have been urgently considered in consultation with the General Medical Council and the medical profession, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health expects to be in a position to make a statement next week.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that adequate measures are being taken to prevent the increasing incidence of theft of drugs of addiction and of these drugs subsequently being distributed in coffee bars and other places where young people congregate?
    Mr. Jenkins: That is certainly an aspect of the matter which is a Home Office and not a Ministry of Health responsibility, and it is one to which we are paying great regard.

    Prison Officer (Murder at Portland Borstal)
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a prison officer, Mr. Lambert, serving at the Portland Borstal was killed on 24th November; what additional precautions he will take to ensure the safety of prison officers; and if he will make a statement.
    Miss Bacon: I cannot at present add to the Answer which I gave on 16th December to Questions about this tragic incident.
    Mr. King: In view of the fact that borstal officers, who are sometimes isolated, are being assaulted at the rate of something like one per week, may I ask, first, what proposals the right hon. Lady has to remedy staff shortage and, secondly, whether the Prison Officers' Association, following the abolition of the death penalty but preceding this incident, did not make representations to secure better financial treatment for the widows of those who suffer in this way? May I ask the right hon. Lady to consider this matter urgently and whether, in any award which she may make, she will backdate it to cover the case of my constituent?
    Miss Bacon: I could not, without notice, answer the point in the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. As he knows, however, a person has been charged with murder. We shall study very carefully the evidence

    385
    that comes out and see what can be done to prevent any such occurrence in the future. We always want more prison officers, although I would say that at present we accept only about one in twelve of those who apply, because we want to retain the high standards that we have in the prison service.
    Mr. Dance: Would the right hon. Lady agree in principle that if a prison or police officer is murdered in the execution of his duty, his widow should receive a pension equivalent to the amount of pension which she would receive had he retired at the normal pensionable age? Secondly, does not she agree also that if a man is seriously injured in the execution of his duty as a police or prison officer, he should have his salary made up to the amount of salary which he would have received had he remained as a police or prison officer, having through his injuries to go into a job which commanded lower pay?
    Miss Bacon: The hon. Member should put down a Question concerning the future. Mrs. Lambert would receive a lump sum payment of £813 and a weekly sum of £13 8s. for the first 13 weeks of her widowhood and £11 16s. a week thereafter, plus family allowances. If the hon. Member would like to put down a Question about the future, I will certainly answer it.
    Mr. Dance: I refer the right hon. Lady to my Question No. 43.

    Mr. Gerald Donnelly (Arrest)
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a local inquiry into the actions of the police at Reading in detaining in a cell for 22 hours Mr. Gerald Donnelly, pursuant to a speeding offence.
    Mr. George Thomas: No, Sir. The Reading police, as they were under a duty to do, arrested Mr. Donnelly in pursuance of a warrant issued by the Sheriff in Glasgow and detained him until he could be handed over to an escort from Glasgow. The circumstances in which the warrant was issued were explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in reply to a Question by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) on 2nd December.
    Mr. Tuck: Is my hon. Friend aware that when this man, who had pleaded guilty to a driving offence, was ninemonths later, without receiving a summons, asked to go to the police station, he went at once, was unceremoniously thrown into a cell, was not allowed to shave, had to sleep in ordinary clothes and was kept there for 22 hours? If this is the administration of justice in our civilised free country, does not my hon. Friend think that it is about time something was done about it, and what does he intend to do?
    Mr. Thomas: The Reading police were executing a warrant. I understand that under Scottish law there is no provision for bail for the person concerned. The English procedure under which a warrant is endorsed—that bail should be allowed for the appearance of the accused in court—is unknown in Scotland. The Reading police had simply to carry out the terms of the warrant.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Without going into the details of this case, is not the question of these warrants something which the Home Secretary should look into as in all parts of the House there is increasing concern about what is happening in these cases?
    Mr. Thomas: I think the right hon. Gentleman may be assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is looking at this question. An Answer was given on 22nd December and concern expressed by the right hon. Gentleman is shared by a great many of us that this incident should have occurred.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Sharplesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement on the reorganisation of Civil Defence.
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Government began its review of Civil Defence; with which representative bodies and on what dates there have been consultations; whether a working party has been set up and what organisations are represented on it; why there have been no discussions with the Council on Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations; what is the reason

    387
    for the delay in announcing the result of the review; and when, and in what form, a full statement of the Government's intentions will be made.
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with local authorities and the Association of Civil Defence Officers concerning the future of civil defence in this country.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I hope to make a full statement in the very near future.
    Mr. Sharples: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over six months ago his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence gave an undertaking that a statement would be made to the House in the near future? While we appreciate that the Home Secretary has not had very long to consider this matter, will he bear in mind the difficulties of morale among Civil Defence workers caused by continued delay?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I will, and the hon. Member will have noticed that in my Answer I used the phrase, not merely "near future", but "very near future".

    Cafés (Drug Trafficking)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to give local authorities power to close cafés where drug trafficking takes place.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I do not have such a proposal in mind at present, but I am urgently studying the adequacy of the existing controls over the supply of drugs.
    Mrs. Butler: When my right hon. Friend studies the present controls, will he bear in mind that many local authorities are very concerned about those cafés which are a source of drug addiction among young people and that it is an expensive and cumbersome procedure for local authorities to promote their own Private Bills to try to deal with this problem?
    Mr. Jenkins: I in no way minimise the extent of the problem associated with cafés, but I think my hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that it is a little easier to see this problem than to see exactly what is the correct solution.
    Mr. Deedes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how responsibility in this matter is divided between him and the Minister of Health, and possibly the Minister of Housing and Local Government? Is this not a problem which needs the single direction of one Minister and is there not some danger of it being lost between Ministers?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that is a danger. Certainly I will look at the matter. Clearly the Minister of Health has responsibilities and we have. I do not know about the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but if by some extra co-ordination we can deal with it more effectively, I am certainly prepared to look at the matter with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Manuel: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that there is ample evidence and proof that much trafficking in drugs is taking place in cafés, many of them of poor repute? If so, is he prepared to consider legislation which would give local authorities power to deal with this position?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I am prepared to consider, as I indicated in my Answer, this approach to the matter, but I want to be satisfied that this will not merely result in trafficking being moved to other cafés.

    Police (Numbers and Recruitment)
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will estimate to the latest convenient date the deficiency in numbers of the police in England and Wales; and what steps, in consultation with police authorities, he is taking to remedy this.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: On 31st December, 1965, the number of men police officers in England and Wales was 14,542 below the authorised establishment. The national police recruitment campaign, which has helped to improve recruitment, is to be continued in the coming financial year.
    In order to stimulate recruitment in forces with substantial deficiencies, the Official Side of the Police Council for Great Britain made proposals for increased pay in London and certain other forces. The Police Arbitration Tribunal

    389
    endorsed the proposals for London and recommended further consideration by the Police Council of undermanning allowances outside London.
    The best use of police manpower and other matters of concern to the service will be discussed by the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales at a meeting on Monday next under my chairmanship.
    Mr. Lloyd: While the police are still understaffed, would the right hon. Gentleman consider recommending to chief constables a wider adoption of the scheme of specialised squads which has been so useful in Birmingham, Liverpool and some other large cities?
    Mr. Jenkins: As the right hon. Member will appreciate, through the Inspectorate at the Home Office we are in contact with chief constables to ensure that from advances and progress made in some parts of the country the experience gained is used in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Thorneycroft: Are we to understand from the Home Secretary's Answer—I hope I have got it right—that he is considering eventually a rather more forthcoming method of police pay? If he does, as many of us hope he will be able to, will he angle his offer, award or however he looks at it, to reward for efficiency and give increased pay where police are most needed?
    Mr. Jenkins: We are proceeding now, and intend to do so, to discuss the manning of forces outside London. In reply to the other part of the question by the right hon. Member, I am sure he will appreciate that it is important in matters of police pay to proceed through the established machinery.

    Breath-Testing Machine
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he refused to adopt the British breath-testing machine in favour of one of foreign origin.
    Mr. George Thomas: No decision has yet been taken as to the type of device which would be used for the screening tests envisaged in the White Paper on Road Safety.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister's reply a confession that British scientists
    390
    are unable to produce such a test in this island? Does he not have some regard to the employment situation in making these important instruments? Will he take steps to see that they are produced in this country and used in this country?
    Mr. Thomas: The answer to the first part of my hon. and learned Friend's question is "No, Sir". The answer to the second part of his question is that, of course, we are determined to get the best type of machine possible.

    Pedestrian Crossing, Hampstead (Police Patrol)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policemen, and with what hours of duty, guard the pedestrian crossing at the foot of South Hill Park, Hampstead, where East Heath Road and South End Road are connected by the narrow neck of road opposite Hampstead Heath railway station; and what is the cost to the public of their doing so.
    Mr. George Thomas: This crossing is manned by a police officer or cadet on all school attendance days from 8.45 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and from 3.45 p.m. to 4.45 p.m., a total of 8¾ hours a week. The estimated cost (taking into account pay, allowances, uniform, pension and overheads) is £7 9s. 5d. The appointment of a civilian school crossing patrol has been authorised, but it has not yet been possible to recruit one.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister not realise that this narrow neck is a death trap which is caused by the jutting out of Hampstead Railway Station and that if the railway station and its yard were pushed back there would be a clear passage between the two roads? Will he take steps to see that that place is cleared?
    Mr. Thomas: I am prepared to do a great deal for my hon. and learned Friend, but I cannot undertake to move either the station or the station yard. I can assure him that we are doing our best to get a civilian school crossing patrol.

    Sale of Alcohol (Licences)
    Mr. Mawbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional licences have been granted by licensing justices for the sale

    391
    of alcohol since the coming into force of the Licensing Act, 1961.
    Mr. George Thomas: In the four years ended 30th June, 1965 the number of justices' on- and off-licences in England and Wales in respect of premises other than clubs increased by 6,041 to a total of 98,911. These figures include 5,989 restaurant or residential licences granted under provisions first introduced in the Licensing Act 1961.
    Mr. Mawby: I thank the hon. Gentleman for producing those figures. Will he and his right hon. Friend have a careful look at the figures to see whether in the light of the experience gained any changes ought now to be made in the licensing laws?
    Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Member that I am constantly looking at these returns and I share his deep concern.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement on progress towards international agreement on the imposition of an oil embargo on Southern Rhodesia; and whether, pending such an agreement, he will take steps to stop oil supplies to Rhodesia by the British Petroleum Company.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made in this House on 20th December last.
  Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the attitude of Portugal and South Africa in this matter? Will he care to voice any view as to the accuracy of Mr. Smith's claim that he is getting oil from elsewhere but from sources he did not himself reveal?
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with this the other day. The answer is certainly yes, and I certainly can give no support to the statement made which my hon. Friend has quoted.
  Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the situation in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Rowlandasked the Prime Minister what further measures he proposed to take to bring the rebellion in Rhodesia to an end.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the statement I made to the House on Tuesday.
  Mr. Wall: Is the Prime Minister aware that at present sanctions are having the opposite effect to those intended and are banding together white Rhodesians while causing black Rhodesians to blame him for loss of jobs and for hunger? Will he explain the difference between direct rule and Governor's rule, as the Governor is responsible to the Secretary of State?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is entitled to his opinions which were formed long before the facts were formed, but so far as the last question is concerned, this was fully explained on Tuesday.
  Mr. Rowland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some business circles in Salisbury there are some people who believe that the tougher the sanctions the better because they will have the effect of bringing this affair to an end quicker?
  The Prime Minister: I think it is generally agreed in the House that the policy we are pursuing is the right one for the results we are agreed upon.
  Mr. Evelyn King: As one who has so far supported sanctions, may I ask the Prime Minister if he can confirm the impression I have recently derived from Mr. Smith and other de facto Ministers that up to last week Mr. Smith's Government were prepared to make substantial, very substantial, concessions to meet the will of this House? Is the Prime Minister further aware that the statement he made on 25th January not only would not be acceptable to Mr. Smith but to scarcely any responsible European in Rhodesia? Is he also aware that if this is his last word there will be many hon. Members on this side of the House who will be unable to support sanctions any longer?
  The Prime Minister: Hon. Members will have to make up their minds and take responsibility for that when they have done so. As to the statements the hon. Member put in the question, I am not impressed by any of the views he

  393
  expressed. Certainly nothing said publicly or privately by Mr. Smith, as reported to me, suggests that he has any idea of concessions which would be remotely acceptable to the vast majority of hon. Members of this House.
  Dame Irene Ward: May I ask the right. hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that in the British Parliament, irrespective of all others, the case for Mr. Smith ought to be stated, here in this House?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady very much underrates the contributions made by some of her hon. Friends. In case she thinks it has not been made, I shall be pleased to send her a copy of Punch.
  Mr. Ennals: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of those who very recently spoke to Mr. Smith gained the impression that the only terms on which he wished to have discussions with the British Government were on the assumption that we already regarded his regime as an independent Government? Is he further aware that there are very many responsible people in Rhodesia who were waiting for just the sort of statesmanlike statement that he made on Tuesday, and can he tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that that statement is known and understood in Rhodesia?
  The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of the Question, of course I agree with my hon. Friend and I said so in my remarks on Tuesday. With regard to the point that he has just put, I understand that, perhaps unusually, the statement made in the House on Tuesday was, in fact, allowed to be published in the Rhodesia Herald.
  Mr, Ian Lloydasked the Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the total cost to the British economy of the imposition of sanctions on Rhodesia.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Prime Minister what is the total cost to all Government departments to the latest convenient date of assistance to and operations in East and Central Africa since the unilateral declaration of independence on 11th November.
  Brigadier Clarkeasked the Prime Minister if he will give an estimate of
  394
  the cost to this country of sanctions against Rhodesia to date, including the loss of trade incurred by British firms.
  The Prime Minister: As to the cost to the economy as a whole, I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to a Question by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) on 3rd December; the additional costs to Government Departments up to 31st December, 1965, however, amount to just over £1 million.
  Mr. Lloyd: Since the major cost is not the cost to Government Departments but the cost to the country as a whole, will the Prime Minister not enlist the assistance of institutions such as the Confederation of British Industries, the Electrical Manufacturers' Association and many hundreds of others who could canvass their members and give him a clear, precise and, possibly, dramatic idea of what the cost is?
  The Prime Minister: They might not be able to calculate the even more dramatic costs of what would have happened if we had pursued a different policy, and what the cost would have been to this country if we were to have lost the very important copper supplies from areas to the north.
  Brigadier Clarke: Does the Prime Minister realise that the costs cannot be measured in pounds, shillings and pence? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Does he further realise that it will be entirely his responsibility if we have a lot of starving Africans on our hands and chaos in that country brought about by his own actions?
  The Prime Minister: On the first point made by the hon. and gallant Member, the Question that he put down, Question No. 13, did seem to imply that he wanted an answer in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. But I very much agree that one cannot evaluate these things purely in terms of money.
  Mr. Heath: This is a constitutional, economic, human and, indeed, a moral problem. Ought not the Government to make an attempt to present the economic cost, because surely that will strengthen the Prime Minister's hand in impressing other countries with the length of the

  395
  steps that we have been prepared to take in order to try and secure a solution to the problem? I should have thought that it was a serious matter with which the Government ought to attempt to deal.
  The Prime Minister: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a moral problem. He will remember that I tried to tell him that in the debate just before Christmas. I certainly agree that in these discussions with other countries, many of which are making a contribution proportionately just as great as our own, it is important to make clear to them as far as we can exactly what is involved for all of us. We have done that, but it is very difficult to measure in exact terms what the cost is outside the cost which falls on Government Departments.
  Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate that there appears to be an assumption on the opposite benches that we started the trouble? Can he clarify the position? Was it not Mr. Smith?
  The Prime Minister: It was fairly generally recognised that we did everything in our power to avoid this situation, and many facts that have come to light since have underlined that, not the least the fact that the petrol rationing documents were dated 25th October, the day before I arrived in Salisbury.
  Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the oil industry on the implementation of oil sanctions against Rhodesia; and what reply he has sent.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir, but Departments are in constant touch with the oil companies, who are of course complying with the Order-in-Council and co-operating in the air and surface lifts for Zambia.
  Mr. Lloyd: Was the Prime Minister advised that before he imposed oil sanctions at least two of the oil companies with major responsibilities for oil supplies in Southern Africa were South African registered companies which then and now would be bound to take their instructions from Cape Town rather than Whitehall?
  The Prime Minister: There were rather broader considerations to take into
  396
  account than that in the particular week in which the oil sanctions were imposed. May I say that we have had the very fullest support from oil companies in touch with the British Government, and the same is true of those in touch with the American Government. With regard to the difficult problem of those companies registered in South Africa, it is very much in our minds and we are in constant touch with their associates in this country on those problems. In view of the attitude of the South African Government, I am bound to say that the difficulties have been much less, thanks to the attitude of South Africa, than the hon. Gentleman might have expected.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is the position still the same as we were told it was on 21st December, that is to say, that Britain is the only country in which the imposition of oil sanctions has the force of law and that in every other country it is buttressed only by exhortation?
  The Prime Minister: The law is that no one can import oil into Rhodesia and that has the force of law on supplies from all parts of the world. It is the case that no other country has placed an export ban on oil, but most of the problems here are affected by the fact that most oil supplying countries have themselves placed a ban on the export of their oil to Rhodesia. What I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind is those oil companies who do not come from oil supplying countries but act as distributors. In most of those cases there is no such law binding on them in their own countries, but they are following the law that we made.

  TANZANIA AND GHANA (FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL AID)
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the continuation of financial and technical aid to those members of the Commonwealth who have severed diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given on 22nd December by my right hon. Friend

  397
  the Minister of Overseas Development to a Question by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend say whether consideration has been given to the advisability of redirecting this aid and technical assistance until such time as these two countries recognise what the Government are trying to do in Rhodesia and lend more active support to what the Government are trying to do?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that it will be very long before those two countries realise that they have made a very serious mistake. But it is a mistake which is reparable. Aid, when it is a question of maintaining aid, means teachers, hospital staffs and others, and it cannot and should not be switched on and off like a tap, depending on grave diplomatic action of this kind. I hope that these two countries will be ready rapidly to restore relations with us.

  DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what response he has had from the United Kingdom's Western allies to his suggestion that they should share the cost of the United Kingdom defence burden.
  The Prime Minister: Our allies are fully aware of our anxieties on this score and, among other things, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council is now examining possible terms of reference for a study of the relative effect on the economies of member countries of their defence expenditure.
  Mr. Marten: I am grateful for that reply, but can the Prime Minister say whether any positive approach has been made by the Government to our European friends about the problem? Secondly, would he not agree that their reluctance so far to join in supporting our defence costs shows how very inward looking they are in some ways?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will probably have seen the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Council. That was a very positive and direct way of raising
  398
  the question. On the second question, I would expect my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence to be discussing the whole subject with at any rate one of our N.A.T.O. allies, and we shall have to see what is the attitude of our other allies as a result of the statement to which I have referred.
  Mr. Hooson: Is it not correct that none of our Western allies is prepared to make a contribution towards the cost of British activity east of Suez?
  The Prime Minister: It is a fact that our N.A.T.O. allies, with the exception of the United States and to some extent Canada, are themselves not making any contribution directly, and certainly not any contribution to us. In the statements that we have made there and here, we have followed our predecessors in this matter. We have drawn attention to the fact that in addition to the cost of our contribution to N.A.T.O. we have very heavy costs which are borne in the common interest east of Suez as well as in the European area.
  Mr. Snow: Did my right hon. Friend request his associate Minister on the Western European Union Committee of Ministers to see that the Western European Union is informed of this, since no Parliamentarian attached to Western European Union seems to be conscious of or prepared to face this issue?
  The Prime Minister: That is a useful suggestion. I will see that is done and I will see that any information, particularly on comparative costs and figures of the respective burdens of members of W.E.U. is made available to hon. Members in all parts of the House when they next attend a W.E.U. meeting.

  MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (RESPONSIBILITIES)
  Sir M. Redmayneasked the Prime Minister what variation of responsibilities there has been since the appointment of the new Minister of Transport.
  The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the allocation of responsibilities between Departments the Answer is "None, Sir".
  Sir M. Redmayne: But is it not true, as we learned from the propaganda put out from No. 10, that the right hon. Lady had accepted responsibility to socialise transport by integration, whereas this responsibility had been rejected by her predecessor on the best advice available?
  The Prime Minister: If that is the best the shadow Minister of Transport can do, I am getting very worried about it, because it has been explained on many occasions—before the election, during the election and since—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser) that our policy is to integrate internal transport. That was the policy of my right hon. Friend's predecessor. It is her policy, and she is getting on with it.
  Sir M. Redmayne: Against the best advice already accepted by the Government.
  The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to his own ineffective speeches or whether he claims—
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order. At page 35 of its Report, where the Select Committee on Procedure considered Questions, your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, drew attention to the fact that Ministers were increasingly using Question Time for personal abuse of the questioner, and it was thought to be undesirable for the well-being of the House. Mr. Speaker, will you draw the Prime Minister's attention to the example that he is setting in this direction?
  Mr. Speaker: I still think it is important that there should be only one Speaker in the House, and that the House must leave in the control of the Chair the cut and thrust of debate. I hope, too, that hon. Members are not going to be too hypersensitive. Mr. Heath. Business question.
  The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I was halfway through answering the question asked by the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne).
  Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister: I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was referring to his own effective speeches or
  400
  claiming some knowledge, accurate or inaccurate—presumably the latter—of the advice tendered to the Minister by his and her civil servants.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 31ST JANUARY—Second Reading of the Land Commission Bill.
TUESDAY, 1ST FEBRUARY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Aircraft Industry (Command No. 2853).
Motion on the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-Net Fishing) (Extension) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 2ND FEBRUARY—Supply [7th Allotted Day]: Report stage of the Winter Supplementaries which, if the House agrees, will be taken formally to allow debate on an Opposition Motion on Crime.
THURSDAY, 3RD FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Air Corporations Bill.
Second Reading of the National Health Service Bill.
FRIDAY, 4TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill.
Motion on the Commonwealth Teachers (Extension of Financial Authority) Order.
Mr. Heath: As the Government propose on Tuesday to debate the Plowden Committee Report on a "take note" Motion, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government do not intend to announce decisions or any firm conclusions to the House, but that this is to be an exploratory debate? Will he note that, later, at a fairly early date, we shall wish to have another general debate on the aircraft industry, to expose the Government's failure in this field?
Mr. Bowden: I can confirm that the Motion on Tuesday is on a Motion to "take note". It will be appreciated that some parts of the Plowden Report are acceptable to both sides of the House, while others may not be. Under these circumstances, the Government feel that before decisions are taken, and without commitment, they should take this on a Motion to "take note".
Mr. Mendelson: As the second day of the last foreign affairs debate inevitably developed into a Rhodesia debate, and the House therefore lost 50 per cent. of the time allocated to foreign affairs, and a critical situation is being reached in the Vietnam war and new important decisions are pending, will my right hon. Friend consider allocating a day for a debate on the Vietnam war so that the opinion of both sides of the House might be brought to bear on this dangerous situation before new and serious decisions are taken by our major ally, the United States, with whom we are associated?
Mr. Bowden: I understand and appreciate that the second day of the foreign affairs debate was very largely taken up with the happenings in Rhodesia, but, in view of the pressure at present on Government time—the House will be aware that we have to spend a considerable time on defence shortly—I cannot promise a further foreign affairs debate.
Mr. William Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that on 27th July last year the Government deferred certain capital expenditure? As that six-month period expires today, can the House have a statement next week on whether the Government intend to continue with this deferment, or to let the capital expenditure go forward?
Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman might care to address that question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Frank Allaun: In view of its importance to so many of our constituents, will there be an opportunity for the House to discuss how the Rent Act is operating?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir, I cannot promise that in the near future, but there are opportunities for hon. Members to raise these things on Adjournment Motions and in other debates.
Mr. Russell Johnston: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been drawn to Motion No. 74?—
[That this House views with the gravest concern the salary proposals for the teaching profession in Scotland announced by the Secretary of State which have caused deep and justified resentment and calls upon the Government urgently to review its ill-considered rejection of the recommendations of the Scottish Joint Council.]
In view of the wide concern about recent salary announcements for teachers in Scotland—which is obviously shared by some of his hon. Friends, as he will see in Motion No. 81—
[That this House views with grave concern the continuing shortage of qualified schoolteachers in Scotland, deplores the cut made by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the recommendation of the Scottish Joint Council on Teachers Salaries, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to accept in full the recommendation of the said Joint Council.]
will he find time for a debate on this subject in the near future?
Mr. Bowden: I have seen both those Motions, but I cannot promise time to debate them. The proposed 13 per cent. increase is in line with the increase for English and Welsh teachers, and the Government have referred the whole question to the Prices and Incomes Board to ascertain whether the Board regards that as fair in relation to the other teachers' award.
Mr. John Harvey: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen Motion No. 80, about the deterioration in London's bus services?
[That this House deplores the severe inconvenience and frustration caused by the latest London Transport reduction in bus services and, with a view to securing better service for the public, urges an immediate Government inquiry into the structure, management and operation of the undertaking, as well as a full examination of the conditions of service and wage structure of those employed in running London buses.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate the interests of the consumer

403
in this matter, that is to say, the travelling public?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. Once again I cannot promise time for a debate. We have had three investigations in two years. Another investigation might not do any harm, but it might not do any good, either.
Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend let us have further and better particulars of the crime which the Opposition want the House to discuss next week? What sort of crime is it?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot help my hon. Friend. I am awaiting the Opposition's Motion.
Mr. Grant-Ferris: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to the Report which was published by the Inland Waterways Board shortly before we rose? As this provides a possibility for settling this ancient problem once and for all, and very cheaply, will he consider giving time for a debate in the near future—perhaps not a full day's debate, but at any rate half a day?
Mr. Bowden: I have seen and read this interesting Report. I think that there will be advantage in debating it, and I shall try to arrange a half-day debate; but not perhaps within the next week or so.
Mr. Rose: In view of the widespread interest in the White Papers on The Child, The Family and The Young Offender, and also on The Adult Offender, would not it be possible to have a debate on these two matters together in the near future?
Mr. Bowden: There may be some advantage in debating them, but I cannot promise this for the near future.
Mr. Stodart: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the plan which the Government published yesterday for the Scottish economy for the next five years? As it is over-priced at 12s. 6d., will the right hon. Gentleman give us time to discuss this matter?
Mr. Bowden: Two days in each Session are provided to discuss Scottish affairs. The Opposition could, if they chose, discuss the plan on that occasion.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time to discuss the new
404
economic plan for Scotland for the purpose of drawing attention to the invidious way in which Aberdeen has been penalised in favour of the rest of Scotland?
Mr. Bowden: I note my hon. and learned Friend's reference to Aberdeen, but my answer is the same as to the previous hon. Member.
Mr. Kilfedder: Can the Leader of the House confirm that no decision will be taken about Short Brothers before the debate on the aircraft industry? Will he try to arrange a supplementary debate on Short Brothers, in view of the widespread anxiety that is felt about this matter in Ulster?
Mr. Bowden: This would be in order in the debate next week. We had better see how we get on then.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the concern about the increased cost of living among farmers whose rent has been increased by £200—which might mean 1½d. a gallon on milk—will my right hon. Friend find time to introduce legislation to prevent this increase in the cost of milk?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir—not in the immediate future.
Mr. John Wells: In view of the very long statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on the day we returned after the Recess, in answer to Written Questions, is it not unfortunate that an Oral Question on the same subject was not answered at length yesterday, because of the great importance of this matter to horticulture? Will the Leader of the House look at columns 25, 26 and 27 in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 25th January, and consider giving the House at least a half day's debate on horticulture, with particular reference to the apple and pear markets?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. I cannot promise a debate.
Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that the Electricity Council has now issued its report on the increase in electricity prices to certain consumers on the North-East Coast, can we have a debate on the whole subject of electricity prices as they relate to the increase in the cost of living?
Mr. Bowden: The hon. Lady will be aware that there are three days in each

405
Session of Parliament when reports from the nationalised industries may be debated. The choice of a particular subject is a matter for the Opposition.
Mr. McMaster: With respect to next Thursday's business, in view of the statements made by the Minister of Aviation, and published in the Press, and particularly his Answer to my Question No. 48 yesterday—and also because it will affect my attitude to the debate and the attitude of my Ulster Unionist colleagues —will the right hon. Gentleman say definitely whether a statement is to be made on Tuesday, in the debate on the aircraft industry, on the future of Short Brothers and Harland?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot say definitely, but I will consult my right hon. Friend on the matter.
Captain W. Elliot: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting aside time for a debate on Commonwealth affairs? Does not he agree that over the past year there has been a disastrous decline in Commonwealth relations and cohesion in connection with many questions? Will he consider setting aside time for a debate on this matter?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise time. There will be opportunities to debate many subjects on two days in the week after next, when we have to debate the Consolidated Fund Bill. On this occasion the terms of the Consolidated Fund Bill are narrow, and one related to winter Supplementary Estimates, and if the Opposition wish to do so they can choose a day for a debate on Commonwealth affairs.
Mr. Rankin: In view of the many demands from the Opposition side for debates on a wide variety of subjects, will my right hon. Friend consider meeting on Saturdays?
Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. That would need considerable consideration, and I am not prepared to do that at the moment.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that there is widespread anxiety in the London area as a result of the radical cuts and even elimination of many bus services, the effects of which press hardly on school children and others who are utterly dependent on these services? If we cannot
406
have an early debate on this issue, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for either the Minister of Transport or, perhaps, the Minister of Labour, to make a statement either tomorrow or on Monday, as this matter affects millions of people in London?
Mr. Bowden: I appreciate the seriousness of the position and will consult my right hon. Friends on the matter.
Mr. Gurden: Will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for a debate on the serious gas shortage in the West Midlands and on the breakdown there, in view of the fact that it is reported that there have been several resignations of senior officers? If the right hon. Gentleman cannot provide time for a debate, will he tell us whether the Minister of Power is about to resign?
Mr. Bowden: I cannot promise time for a debate on the situation in the gas industry in the West Midlands. If the hon. Member wished to do so he could take the normal opportunities to raise this matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Power has no intention of resigning. His record in this field is excellent.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: As in recent months there have been a number of most important reports on the docks industry, can the Leader of the House give an assurance that the Government are considering a debate on this most important subject?
Mr. Bowden: Not at the moment.

BILL PRESENTED
  ROAD SAFETY
  Bill to make further provision with respect to persons driving or being in charge of motor vehicles after consuming alcohol and with respect to goods vehicles, presented by Mrs. Barbara Castle; supported by Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. William Ross, Mr. James Griffiths, and the Attorney-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 58.]
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered, That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Bowden.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1965–66
  Resolved,
  That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £149,068,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the services included in the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.:

  Civil Estimates, Supplementary Estimates, 1965–66

  £

  Class II, Vote 6, Colonial Grants and Loans

  1,499,000

  Class II, Vote 9, Overseas Aid (Bilateral)

  16,749,000

  Class IV, Vote 7, Ministry of Aviation

  12,500,000

  Class IV, Vote 15, Transport Services

  3,519,000

  Class IV, Vote 16, Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)

  20,000,000

  Class VI, Vote 7, General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales

  50,700,000

  £

  Class VI, Vote 14, National Health Services, etc. (Hospital Services, etc.), England and Wales

  28,800,000

  Class VI, Vote 15, National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales

  11,000,000

  Class VI, Vote 18, National Health Service, etc., Scotland

  4,300,000

  Class X, Vote 4, Royal Mint

  1,000

  Total

  £149,068,000

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, the sum of £149,068,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

  COST OF LIVING
  3.49 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Barber: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to curb the rapid rise in the cost of living.
  During the coming weeks there will be a number of Supply days when the House will have an opportunity of debating subjects chosen by the Opposition. I want to explain why, on this second Supply day after the Christmas Recess, we have chosen to debate the cost of living. We have done so for three reasons: first, because there is no aspect of Government where the contrast between promise and performance is greater than in the case of rising prices; second, because much of the rise in the cost of living since the General Election is due, as I shall show, to the Government's financial and economic policies; and, third, because all the indications are that, over the next few weeks and months, the cost of living will soar at an even faster rate.
  It is incredible to recall that, only 15 months ago, the man who is now First Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—was stumping the country during the General Election campaign and proclaiming to the electorate:
  "The continual rise in the cost of living can, must and will be halted."
  At the same time, the Labour Party published a manifesto in which it stated:
  "Labour will attack the problem of rising prices at its roots."
  What have the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour Administration achieved? I will tell the House.
  During the first year of this Government, the cost of living rose faster than during any comparable period in the previous ten years. It is difficult to conceive of a more blatant example of political deception. There is no doubt at all that hundreds of thousands of electors in October, 1964, genuinely believed that a Labour Government would produce policies which would stabilise the cost of living. But they were duped. It is no use right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite pretending that the increase in the cost of living which has taken place has
  410
  been outside their control. The cause of the increase can be stated quite simply and it is twofold: first, the deliberate increase in taxation introduced by the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer; second, the wholesale failure of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
  I want to say something about each of these factors. Whatever may be the economic reasoning behind the measures introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, the fact is that he set out quite deliberately to raise the cost of living and he succeeded with a vengeance. The details are well known to hon. Members—the increased tax on petrol, whisky and the cost of car licences, not to mention the 6d. on the standard rate of Income Tax and the import surcharge, all of which added to the cost of living.
  We now read that the First Secretary of State proposes to refer to the Prices and Incomes Board the brewing industry because he wants to keep down the price of beer. This may be a very laudable objective, but it is worth recalling that it was his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, only a few months ago, put up the price of beer by increasing the Excise duty.
  Of course, the Chancellor is still at it. I was told only this morning that the abolition of investment allowances will add another 1 per cent, to the operating costs of the bus companies; and I do not need to elaborate on the consequences of that for the consumer and the traveller. There was the whole succession of price increases in the nationalised industries, all approved by Ministers of the Labour Government—rail fares up by 8 per cent., some commuter fares by as much as 40 per cent., electricity up by 8 to 14 per cent., coal up, postage up—and so one could go on.
  The consequence was that, by April of last year, the Government had achieved another record. The Index of Retail Prices for that month, after the Budget, recorded the biggest monthly rise for 10 years, and well over half that increase was directly due to the Budget. In fact, in that one month of April last year, and mainly due to the Budget, the cost of living rose more than in the whole of 1963, the last full year for which the Conservatives were responsible.

  411
  That was in April and it was in the same month that the First Secretary of State published his White Paper which he hopefully entitled, "Prices and Incomes Policy". Nobody doubts that, when the First Secretary of State launched his prices and incomes policy, he was genuinely and sincerely concerned and, indeed, determined to do all in his power to make it work. But it is equally true that now, nine months later, that policy is in ruins. I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology is here to speak in the debate, because, of course, no one has made a more telling contribution to the failure of the incomes policy than his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.
  The hard fact is that the Government's inability to stem the tide of rising incomes, coupled with falling industrial production, which is the direct consequence of the Government's economic policies, must inevitably lead to a flood of rising prices. This is precisely what is happening. The Labour Government have contrived, within 15 months of taking office, to establish the classic inflationary situation of rapidly rising money incomes and falling production.
  In the words of one of the few Labour Ministers who is prepared to face the facts and tell the truth to the country, the Minister of Labour:
  "Production has been almost stagnant, whilst incomes have risen and risen."
  The Labour Government took over from the Conservatives in a year when industrial production rose by 5 per cent. and, at the election, the Prime Minister, more than once, promised the nation increased production under a Labour Government. As he put it on one occasion:
  "Labour plans to get our economy on the move again so we can have steady industrial growth all the time."
  What a laugh! That was said in a year when industrial production rose by 5 per cent.
  What have the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues achieved? It is not steady growth, it is not even industrial stagnation, about which we used to hear so much when we were in Government. The truth is that we are now slipping back, because the latest Index of Industrial Production shows output actually less than it was in January of last year.
  412
  That is bad enough, but what is really alarming, and should be concerning right hon. and hon Gentlemen opposite, is the conjoined effect of falling output and soaring incomes. Inevitably, the consequence must be increased labour costs and a flood of rising prices. When the Declaration of Intent was signed, the First Secretary captured the headlines with the proud boast:
  "History is being made today."
  But now the dream of the right hon. Gentleman is over, and it is the British people who have to suffer the reality of rip-roaring inflation. That inflation and the rising prices which are still to come are due more than anything else, whatever the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman the First Secretary of State, to the collapse of the incomes policy.
  Again, I should like to quote to the House chapter and verse in support of what I am saying. The Government published their White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy in April last year. If one applies the most generous analysis possible to the Government's incomes policy and assumes that the Government had no effect whatever on the level of incomes between the General Election and April last year, when they published their White Paper, what then are the facts? During the six-monthly period from April to October, average weekly earnings rose by 5·5 per cent., that is to say, at a rate of 11 per cent. a year, or more than three times the norm laid down by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
  There is not a man or woman in Britain today, apart from the First Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the handful of their colleagues, who any longer pretends that the Government's incomes policy is a reality. For the Prime Minister to go on pretending that the policy is working and, what is even more serious, for the Government to base their future policies on that pretence is to court disaster.
  The hard, unpalatable fact is that the prices and incomes policy, for all the First Secretary's good intentions, has been a fiasco. Neither the British housewife nor our friends overseas—who study the figures and who are not quite so simple as Ministers opposite thought when they first took office after the General Election

  413
  —will be bamboozled any longer by the artifice of a public relations exercise which runs counter to the facts.
  This debate is concerned not only with the past, but also with the future, and the House need not accept my word about the future. There is not a newspaper in the land which has not predicted a further surge in the cost of living during the coming weeks and months. I will read a few of the headlines of the sort of thing which has been appearing in the Press.
  The Sunday Citizen:
  "Up go your food bills
  Further price shocks face them".
  "Them" being the housewives.
  The Daily Express:
  "Mr. Rising Price Knocks Brown".
  The paper added:
  "And it looks as if this flood of increases will soon turn into an avalanche…".
  The Financial Times stated:
  "New Flood of Price Increases".
  The Daily Sketch announced:
  "Prices—The Bubble Bursts"
  and stated:
  "Remember what Wonder Wilson promised at the General Election? 'New and more relevant policies to check the persistent rise in prices.' And Brother Brown trumpeted: 'The continual rise in the cost of living can, must and will be halted to give the housewife relief and her family a genuine rise in their standard of living'."
  Then, under the heading "All silent", it continued:
  "Today, those clarion calls sound a hollow mockery. As the cost of living takes off, there is no use in pretending any more: Inflation is back. But not one word from Harold Wilson."
  The rising cost of living is causing concern and hardship not merely to all those people at home who are living on small fixed incomes. That in itself is bad enough. What is far more serious in the long run, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer most certainly realises, is the consequence for our balance of payments.
  Since the Labour Party took office Britain has been living on borrowed money and borrowed time—£1,000 million of international debt has been run up by the Chancellor, an amount equal to the total of our gold and convertible reserves. The purpose of those borrowings can be stated simply. It was to enable the Government to have time to restore
  414
  the confidence which they frittered away during the first few months of being in office—and one essential element of that restoration of confidence was the maintenance of the United Kingdom's international competitive position.
  Time and again during the past year my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have said that we did not believe that, in general, our prices to our overseas customers were out of line with those of our principal overseas competitors. And it was that single fact, more than any other, which led people to the conclusion that British exporters were operating on a sound basis. But it is no good burking the problem which now lies ahead of this country. If the Government are not able to hold back the flood of rising incomes at a time when industrial production is falling, the threat to this country's international competitive position will be great indeed.
  In this connection the Government's attitude to the railwaymen's claim will be crucial. If I say no more than that, it is only because I do not wish to prejudice the discussions which will take place in the next few days.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: My right hon. Friend is rightly emphasising the attitude of the Government. Apart from that, should he not draw attention to the attitude of this House? Here we have the first debate after the Christmas Recess on a topic which affects the nation perhaps more than any other, and the benches opposite are depleted and hon. Gentlemen opposite are streaming out of the Chamber.
  Mr. Barber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that, but, of course, that is nothing new. This has happened time and again when we have been discussing important matters of concern to the people.
  So far, I have concentrated on prices, but the citizen's cost of living is composed of two factors, the prices of the goods and services he buys himself directly and the taxes he pays to the Government. I should have thought that the rise in prices is apparent to all and that nobody will seriously attempt to deny it. But what of the prospects for taxation at a time when money incomes are shooting ahead of production?

  415
  The answer was given clearly by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a debate we had on 29th November of last year, when he said:
  "…if during the course of next year"—that is, 1966—
  "I thought that…our balance of payments was likely to be threatened by the rise of money incomes, I would not hesitate to take action…to offset it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1965; Vol. 721, c. 1020.]
  That statement, considered in the light of the latest figures of wage increases published by the Government, can lead to only one conclusion: that the Chancellor is preparing to impose even higher taxation on top of the additional £600 million per year which he imposed during his first year of office. I must say that it is hardly surprising, in these circumstances, that we read from time to time reports in the Press that the Prime Minister is considering holding a March General Election.
  Even so, Ministers are putting the best face on the situation that they can. There was the extraordinary statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech he made the other day at Hull. It was so ludicrous that it confirmed to some of us that the right hon. Gentleman writes his own speeches. He asked this question
  "What are the prospects for prices in 1966?"
  He went on:
  "My view is that from the spring onwards there is a real chance that prices will rise more slowly than they did throughout 1965, provided that all costs, including incomes, are kept in check."
  The right hon. Gentleman will be telling us next that we can stabilise the cost of living if only we can keep prices steady. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is indulging in sheer fantasy, because there is not the slightest indication, certainly at present, that the Government will have the rise in incomes under control by the spring. It is worth recalling that only a few weeks earlier, away from the heady atmosphere of the Hull by-election, the Chancellor observed that "spring may be a little late this year".
  There are two other aspects of the cost of living which I must mention. I do so because they loom large in the minds of many people who genuinely
  416
  believed that the specific and unqualified promises made at the last election by the party opposite would be kept. They are no longer under that illusion. I am, of course, referring to the level of mortgage interest and to rates.
  When I last quoted to the House the words of the Labour Party's manifesto on mortgage interest rates and the now historic pledge of the First Secretary at the General Election, with a characteristic gesture the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he was somewhat bored with hearing this being repeated. But anyone who has had experience in his constituency of talking to owner-occupiers knows perfectly well that throughout the country hundreds of thousands of owner-occupiers switched to Labour on the strength of that promise. They will not easily forget it. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that there is any likelihood of owner-occupiers forgetting that promise I assure them that we on these benches will take good care that they do not forget it.
  The Prime Minister's television broadcast 14 days before polling day now has a somewhat hollow ring about it. Referring to the Tory Government, he said:
  "The Government, as a matter of policy, have raised interest rates, and this is why…building society mortgage repayments and rates have gone up."
  If the Prime Minister had any sense of responsibility to the electorate he would be a very humble man today—but our Prime Minister is not renowned for his humility. The pledge on rates in the Labour manifesto was quite specific, and I will quote it once more to the House because it is very relevant today. The manifesto said:
  "…We shall seek to give early relief to ratepayers by transferring a larger part of the burden of public expenditure from the local authorities to the Exchequer."
  That was the pledge—that was the vote catcher. They promised early relief but, of course, instead of early relief the overburdened ratepayer last year had his rates increased by no less than 14 per cent., and we now have it on the authority of the Minister of Housing and Local Government himself that this year they are likely to rise by a further 10 per cent., and that may well be an underestimate.
  The facts and figures I have given come almost entirely from Government sources

  417
  and they are beyond dispute, but what is really illuminating is to see how the rising cost of living under Labour is actually hitting the individual. If I take, by way of example, the young family with a small child and an earned income of £1,500 a year, I do so because that is the example which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself took in his first Budget speech on 11th November, 1964. It is worth recalling the solicitude the Chancellor of the Exchequer then expressed for this family. He said:
  "I recognise fully that burdens and commitments grow with an increasing income and that to the young family with a small child and an earned income of £1,500 a year, even another 4s. a week can be meaningful. This is especially true when they are burdened with the cost of buying a home at high interest rates or renting accommodation and paying fares to and from work.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November. 1964: Vol. 701, c. 1038.]
  But if the right hon. Gentleman was concerned in November, 1964, about the family man earning £1,500 a year, and if he then took the view that an additional burden of 4s. a week, to use his own phraseology, "can be meaningful", what must he now be feeling about the same man who, as a result of 15 months of Socialism, finds that his cost of living has gone up by 30s. a week, and by even more if he is buying his own home on mortgage? This means that the young manager earning £1,500 a year, in the circumstances laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his example, in order merely to maintain the same standard of living that he enjoyed in 1964, would now require an extra £75 a year after tax or, allowing for his increased taxation, an addition to his gross income of £110 a year.
  Those are the cold, hard facts of Socialism. This is what it means in practice, and not all the honeyed words of esteem by the Prime Minister for the young technologist and the rising executive will make life one jot easier for either man. Ministers may talk, they may set up emergency committees and try to switch attention from the unpalatable, but, at the end of the day, neither the slick banter of the Prime Minister nor the buffoonery of the First Secretary can camouflage or hide the rising costs of living. The Government have failed, and they know it.
  Mr. Speaker: I should like to announce to the House that I have not
  418
  selected the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
  4.15 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Richard Marsh): The whole House will agree that the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) is always extremely impressive in his arguments—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not today."] I must disagree with my hon. Friends. I do not think that he has ever put on a more impressive performance that he has today. For a man who was a member of a Government who in their time saw the cost of living go up by 51 per cent., I must say that his speech compared very well with that of the man I saw in Trafalgar Square selling the pigeons to the tourists.
  The right hon. Gentleman made a great point about rates. It was symptomatic of his whole speech. There have been increases in rates and—yes—there will be an automatic increase in rates as long as the present system exists. The average built-in rate of escalation of rates during the whole period of office of the right hon. Gentleman's Government was 9½ per cent. per annum, and in some years it was much higher, but in the whole 13 years the party opposite did nothing whatever to change that system. That is typical of so many things. The right hon. Gentleman can point to the problems and to the difficulties, and I cannot help wondering why the rating system he now criticises was left intact for so long by a Government with so great a majority.
  It is not surprising that the Opposition should use this opportunity to debate the problem of rising prices and the cost of living. During their period of office they collected a wealth of experience on what all of us on both sides of the House will agree is a very real, important and tragic problem—particularly for people on fixed incomes. But let me make one thing quite clear at the very beginning. The right hon. Gentleman really was exaggerating his case a little. Any suggestion that we are in, or are even moving towards, a period of runaway inflation is not only nonsense, but extremely dangerous nonsense. I am always intrigued by the

  419
  abandon with which hon. Members opposite exaggerate the difficulties with which the country is faced, and the way they squeal if anyone ever criticises anything they are doing when they are in office —but I am not complaining about that.
  During the last 10 years, prices have risen every year, with the solitary exception of 1959, which was a General Election year—[HON. MEMBERS: "And this year."]There is nothing new about this. I should not imagine that this would be an election year. There is not much point in it. With this sort of opposition we could go on for years. We had regular censure debates like this while right hon. and hon. Members opposite were floundering from one unsuccessful attempt to another to solve this problem.
  The cost of living has remained a problem for all Governments. We can all remember the strange titles which were applied to each abortive attempt by the other side to control the economy: "The Macmillan Price Plateau"; "The Selwyn Lloyd Pay Pause"; "The Guiding Light"; "The Three Wise Men"; "The National Incomes Commission". Each for a time dominated the headlines of the newspapers. They became part of our national language—and, without exception, they failed.
  In the years 1957 and 1961, both broadly comparable in previous cycles with 1965, prices rose by 4 per cent. and 4½ per cent., respectively, and even in the last year of Conservative government—if I may use the word "government" rather loosely—the index rose rapidly from 103·7 in October, 1963, to 107·9 a year later. I do not make these points in any attempt to divert attention from our own policy, the success of which I want to deal with at some length. I just want to establish right at the beginning—because I am quite sure that, leaving the party arguments to one side, we will all agree with this—that this is not a Labour Party problem, that it is not even a specifically British problem, but a problem that has faced all Governments for many years in this and in many other countries.
  Sir David Renton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will do his best, but could he tell the House
  420
  why there is no representative here from the Treasury or from the Department of Economic Affairs or from the Ministry of Labour or from any Department other than the Board of Trade, directly responsible for the Government's policy on the matters which he is about to discuss?
  Mr. Marsh: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has missed the point. On this side Ministers are busily engaged in running their Departments. It is hon. Members opposite who have so much spare time now. Ministers on this side are running the country, while hon. Members opposite are in opposition. In any case, it cannot seriously be suggested that we need a whole array of Ministers to deal with the case which has just been put.
  My submission is that the Government are facing an old problem which both sides of the House have had to face, which the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951 did not solve, and which no one in his wildest dreams would suggest that the Conservative Governments from 1951 to 1964 managed to solve. We are facing old problems, and my case is that we are applying to those problems different policies.
  Mr. Barber: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his reference to the past, would he just confirm or deny the figures which come from Government sources which show that during the first year of the Labour Government—or, if he likes, during the first 13 months or during the first 14 months of this Government—prices rose faster than in any comparable period during the previous 10 years? Will he say whether that is true?
  Mr. Marsh: If the right hon. Gentleman goes on being so impatient for enlightenment, he will miss the rest of the speech. It is all in there. We shall come to it in due course. There will be a veritable deluge of information washing about the ears of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, if only they will listen to it.
  The total rise—this is the point the right hon. Gentleman has just raised—in the cost of living since we took office in October, 1964, has been 5·7 per cent. This is a large increase. It would be absurd to deny it. Faced with serious

  421
  internal disputes, it is quite understandable that the Opposition should seek to get the maximum political advantage out of the nation's difficulties; but I do not complain about that.
  Despite all the right hon. Gentleman's skill, the case he put forward was very weak indeed. It was made all the less convincing because it was grossly exaggerated. In the first six months of the Labour Government, prices rose between October, 1964, and April, 1965, by 3·8 per cent. As has been said many times, and as will be said during the course of the debate many more times, this was a very rapid rise indeed. It was these figures which caused the Opposition's chief spokesman in last year's debate to forecast, with that abandon that the Opposition show on these occasions, that the annual increase in the cost of living this year would be 7 per cent. to 8 per cent.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not go that far today, because events have shown that this rapid increase in the cost of living has not been maintained. Although prices rose by 3·8 per cent. in the first six months of the Labour Government, in the following eight months they rose by only 1·9 per cent. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman who keeps on bubbling there obviously has in mind that there are seasonal factors involved in this as well. This is true. Nobody disputes it. There were seasonal factors in the last year of the last Government, but compared with that this is a considerable reduction in the rate of increase.
  Clearly, it is impossible to talk about the cost of living except in the context of the general economic situation. And, wriggle though they may, right hon. and hon. Members opposite cannot deny responsibility for the economic difficulties which necessitated the policy which the Government have adopted in the past three or four months. Nobody opposite can seriously suggest that, when the Labour Government took office, they were able to operate without being very much concerned with the economic difficulties they had inherited. We knew that the measures the Chancellor of the Exchequer took would be unpopular. We also knew, as did everyone else, inside and outside the House, that the position at that time was so bad that
  422
  those policies had to be followed if we were to get out of the economic mess we were in.
  So this is the argument I want to put to the House. First, it is true, and it would be idle to deny it, that there has been a highly undesirable increase in the cost of living. Secondly, it is true that a large portion of that increase in the cost of living resulted from the emergency measures which were taken in the opening months of this Labour Government. Thirdly, it is my proposition that the position is now under control and that the policies which the Government are pursuing are policies which will enable us to make better headway in this direction than has been the case in the past.
  Sir Alexander Spearman: The Parliamentary Secretary is talking about the future. Would he not agree that up till now manufacturers have been able to absorb some measure of the increasing costs by increasing their turnover? Now that they can no longer increase their turnover, is it not clear that prices must go up much more sharply?
  Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman has just brought up the point which I shall come to later. I will, with respect, make my speech in my own way. I thought that right hon. and hon. Members opposite were complaining about the way in which the debate was being treated on this side of the House. I assume that they want to hear the Government's views. They may disagree with those views, but they may well like to hear them.
  I have no doubt that many speakers in the debate will take a look at the past and make their own assessments as to the achievements of the two parties. I hope, because this is an important issue, that most of the discussions will centre round what the Government are doing, what their policies are, and what the policies of the Opposition would be if they were in office.
  I mentioned just now that this problem is not peculiar to Britain. Virtually all the countries of Western Europe face the same difficulty. There is an article on this in The Guardian today which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, who is an assiduous reader of newspapers, must

  423
  have read. It makes this point, which is very true:
  "Inflation in this sense is the price most countries seem to have to pay in return for full employment."
  What makes the problem, in many ways, more serious for us in Britain is that rising prices have for far too long been accompanied by a very slow rate of economic growth. Our problem is not just the rate at which incomes are rising but the rate at which they rise in relation to productivity. This is important, because I think that there is a tendency to try to isolate wages and prices from productivity. This is, in my view, the reason—I am not making a party point here—why so many previous attempts to solve the problem have failed, and it is, in my view, the reason why I believe that the policies which we are pursuing will succeed.
  Since the White Paper on Prices and Incomes, which set out the considerations for determining price movements, manufacturers and traders have been more reluctant to raise prices than in the past. Some of them have gone to very considerable trouble to absorb cost increases without passing them on to the customer. This is as it should be.
  All these dramatic references to a price-dam about to break seem to imply that to absorb cost increases without raising prices is an artificial exercise. Obviously, there are limits, at least in the short term, to the extent to which increased costs can be absorbed, and it must be understood that if incomes continue to rise at a rate the country cannot afford this must eventually have an effect on prices. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite do not usually get to this condition until much later in the evening.
  The prices and incomes policy, however, is not a wage freeze. Wage freezes can never be the answer to this particular difficulty. The idea that an increase in cost automatically has to be passed on from the manufacturer to the wholesaler, to the retail shopkeeper, and so to the housewife, is an idea which has got to go. It is far too prevalent in discussions on this subject. People assume that increases in prices have to be passed right down the line. There is still too little attempt to absorb increases in prices by increased productivity and increased efficiency.
  424
  We must have both long-term and short-term policies designed to maintain a relationship between prices, incomes and productivity; and all three go together. Any attempt to rely on fiscal and monetary policies alone to keep increases in incomes in step with increases in output can result only in a higher level of unemployment and an inadequate rate of growth. Equally, a faster rate of increase in productivity would not prevent money incomes necessarily outstripping the rise in real output.
  On the question of the prices and incomes policy—
  Mr. Dudley Smith Mr. Dudley Smith (Brentford and Chiswick) rose—
  Mr. Marsh: No; I have given way five times already, and the interventions got worse as we went along.
  It would be absurd to underestimate the difficulties, but I have yet to find a viable alternative to the Government's policy of trying directly to influence movements of prices and incomes with the object of relating them to the growth of output. The right hon. Gentleman made a number of criticisms of the prices and incomes policy, but he has been a consistent supporter of the search for an incomes policy for many years. While one can criticise the incomes policy, what we are entitled to ask for from those who have supported it over so many years—there are some hon. and right hon. Members who do not support it—is what we ought to be doing, what is wrong in detail with this specific policy, and what changes they would make.
  Since it was established in April last year, the National Board for Prices and Incomes has been extremely active. So far, it has published 10 reports. It is not surprising that some of them are controversial. One of the problems in this country, a general problem, is that everyone is in favour of change, but, at the same time, wants an almost cast-iron guarantee that it is the other chap one is talking about and that the change will not affect him personally; and this, with respect to my hon. Friends, is not confined to any particular section of the community. But the fact that the reports of the Board are not always unanimously welcomed is no reason for declaring that the policy has failed. I sometimes feel

  425
  that it is the decisions which do not precipitate a row which we ought to be most worried about in this connection.
  It is almost impossible to quantify the degree of success of the prices and incomes policy since it was introduced, but there are clear signs that the Government's policy has already had a restraining effect on the trend of prices. The rises in the wholesale and retail price indices have certainly been less than might have been expected from the movement of labour costs and import prices during the past year.
  It can be argued—it was argued quite fairly at some length—that the policy has had less effect on the level of pay settlements last year. I do not regard this as surprising. By the beginning of 1965, there were forward commitments for pay increases or reductions in hours, or both, for nearly 7 million manual workers and well over 1 million non-manual workers. Claims for another 3 million workers were already in the pipeline. Again, I do not imagine that anyone on either side of the House would seriously suggest that it would have been possible to have an immediate effect on those. About half the increases in hourly wage rates which took place in 1965 were, in fact, accounted for by these previous forward commitments.
  Nevertheless, there are signs that the policy is influencing negotiations. It is not always possible to give specific examples, because much of the discussion we have with private firms and bodies in this connection inevitably has to take place in confidence. But, to mention the much-publicised increase in the price of the standard loaf recently, about which, understandably, there was a great deal of concern, this was by no means a defeat for the policy. I think that no one will dispute that, had it not been for the prices and incomes policy, the housewife would have been paying higher bread prices at least eight months earlier than she has in fact.
  To give another example, it is now generally known that, as a result of the Board's interim report last June, the Road Haulage Association has abandoned its practice of recommending general rate increases, and hauliers are now expected to fix rates with regard to
  426
  their own costs and the prospects of greater efficiency.
  A prices policy is not a price freeze. Increases are bound to occur. The aim of the policy is to ensure, by every means open to the Government, that increases occur only in the circumstances which the White Paper foresaw. The present incomes policy is not just a Labour Party affair. It has been accepted by both sides of industry. It has already progressed further and done more to change ingrained habits and attitudes of mind—I think that this is probably the real problem in these economic matters—than any previous attempt in this direction. It is today more widely accepted than ever before.
  I do not claim this as a Labour Party achievement. Industry has joined in with far more enthusiasm than we have had from the Opposition. There is now a greater realisation than ever before that movements of prices and incomes are not merely the concern of those directly involved but are matters which affect the nation as a whole and the nation has a right to be involved in the decisions.
  I know that people disagree with us. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) leads a perfectly legitimate body of opinion that the policy is fundamentally wrong.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West) indicated assent.
  Mr. Marsh: I see that he nods assent to that. He has always been very open about it. He says that it cannot succeed, and I do not think that he will disagree if I say that he would probably argue that it should not succeed.
  Mr. Powell Mr. Powell indicated assent.
  Mr. Marsh: The right hon. Gentleman nods even more vigorously to that. He is, of course, a member of the Shadow Cabinet.
  Mr. Powell Mr. Powell indicated assent.
  Mr. Marsh: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. I have debated them with him. On this issue I believe that he is terribly wrong. But his is a perfectly legitimate point of view which he is entitled to hold, and all of us respect the very considerable intellectual ability with which he backs his particular arguments.

  427
  What I cannot respect is the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who consistently support the attempt to obtain an incomes policy when the Conservative Government are in office and now deny their support to an incomes policy which succeeds because they dislike the complexion of the Government in power. They would do very well to have a word with some of those people who violently disagree with this Government's politics, but who have devoted very considerable energy and time to helping the policy along not because they support the Labour Party but because they believe it to be in the national interest to try to solve this problem.
  What we are entitled to have, at least from members of the Shadow Cabinet—it is no good taking it out on one chap if one is scared of tackling the big fellow —is an answer to this question: does the right hon. Gentleman's opposition to the incomes policy represent the policy of the Shadow Cabinet of which he is a member, or does it not?
  Mr. Frederic Harris: What about the great disputes on the Government's own Front Bench?
  Mr. Marsh: There is no dispute between members of this Front Bench that they are in support of a policy which links together prices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Look who is coming in."] It is rude to interrupt someone when he is in the middle of a sentence, and I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend is quite capable of speaking for himself.
  In any event, one should first of all make sure whether there is anything with which he wants to disagree. There is no dispute within this Cabinet or among Members on this side, who are in favour, as my right hon. Friend has always been in favour, along with his colleagues, of a policy which links prices, productivity and incomes together.
  The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank Cousins)The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank Cousins) indicated assent.
  Lord Balniel Lord Balniel (Hertford) rose—
  Mr. Marsh: Let me just finish this bit. Now that I have dealt fairly with that point from this side, will the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale now assure me that there is no difference be-
  428
  tween him and his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West?
  Mr. Barber: What we would really like to know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] We do not mind whether the hon. Gentleman or the Minister of Technology answers—is whether the Minister of Technology is in favour of the Government's incomes policy or not.
  Mr. Marsh: The position is clear. What I am putting to right hon. and hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.] They are about as straight as a load of rubber corkscrews on this issue. I am asking a simple question. I will leave it if no one opposite wants to answer it. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West might wish to intervene. Does the right hon. Gentleman's view represent the view of the Shadow Cabinet?
  I can justify those who disagree with this policy. They have a perfectly respectable argument. There is no monopoly of argument on either side. But what we and, I think, the House as a whole, deplore is the consistent attempts by some hon. Members opposite to do everything they can to sabotage this policy. That sabotage started on the day this Government took office and was purely the result of the election of this Government.
  No policy which concerns itself solely with prices and incomes can possibly succeed. One of the main tasks of the Government has been the production of policies designed to stimulate technological efficiency and increased productivity in industry. The Ministry of Technology was established for this specific task. [HON. MEMBERS: "What has it done?"] I am grateful to be invited to tell the House. I thought at first that it might take up too much ime, but now I have been given the opportunity I will tell the House.
  The Ministry of Technology has done a great deal. It is not enough merely to ask, "What has the Ministry done?" It is not enough to say that one disagrees with a particular aspect of the Ministry's policy. We are entitled, again, to a straight answer. Do the Opposition believe that the Ministry of Technology should continue or do they not? It is

  429
  not enough merely to make carping criticism. We want constructive comment as well.
  Some people say that the Ministry of Technology is primarily concerned with the invention of gadgetry.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Gimmickry.
  Mr. Marsh: Such a view is based on misunderstanding of the major problem of the economy. The country is not short of scientific invention. Our scientists and technologists are as competent and imaginative as any in the world. We tend sometimes to lose sight of the very wide range in which we lead the rest of the world.
  The main obstacle to accelerated technological development in Britain is not lack of new inventions and techniques, but the failure of a significant section of British industry to make full use of those which already exist. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must get used to the idea that one cannot talk about the cost of living except in this economic context. One cannot just solve a prices problem. All previous Governments have tried and have failed because they failed to face up to the fundamental economic difficulties.
  There is almost no limit to the factors which affect technological development. There is the resistance of workers who have yet to realise that the rapid spread of automation and mechanisation, far from threatening their standard of living, is the one thing which can maintain it. There is the short-sightedness of some managements. For example, there was the multiplicity of screw threads, which were not common with those used in Europe that existed when we took office. We all recognised that this was a small but significant contributory factor in our difficulties. As I say, it was a small problem but significant, but it was not until there was a Ministry of Technology that anyone did anything about it. The significance of that problem was not that it was large, but precisely that it was so easy to overcome; and right hon. and hon. Members opposite, when they were in office, failed to face up even to that.
  Then there has been the realisation that the metric system will not just disappear if we try to ignore it. All these
  430
  things the Ministry of Technology is concerned with, along with many others, in an effort to get increased productivity. But productivity is not just a question of manipulating machines. If the policy is successful it is bound to have a considerable impact on the lives of ordinary people.
  If we are to succeed, many men, as a result of making the country more efficient, will have to change their jobs and homes. That is not a joking matter. It is certainly important for those involved. One of our greatest needs is not just for improved geographical policies, but for an improved occupational policy. That is nothing new. Both sides have known it for years. Our complaint is not that right hon. and hon. Members opposite did not recognise the fundamental problems, but that they did not do anything about them.
  Since taking office, the Government have introduced the Redundancy Payments Act as part of the general, total economic policy of trying to get industry more mechanised. We have undertaken as well considerable expansion in the numbers of men at the Government training centres. At these centres, men from declining industries are being trained in six months on crash courses in a variety of skilled trades. That is with the agreement of the trade unions, and I want to stress that point because the unions are not always given credit for what they have done in bringing about change.
  One can argue against any or all of the policies that the Government have pursued so far, but it is not enough for the Opposition to confine themselves to pointing out the difficulties we face. Stable prices are essential if the weakest sections of the community are ever to get their fair share of the nation's wealth. No previous Government have ever succeeded in achieving price stability for any prolonged period. If the Opposition have alternative policies to ours they have a duty to let us know what they are. Their record has proved how incapable they were of dealing with such a situation in the past. This debate demonstrates that they would probably do even worse in future.
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I wish that I could follow the

  431
  usual courtesies of the House and congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on his speech, but to do that would not be courtesy but a kind of deranged generosity, because his was one of the feeblest and most complacent speeches we have had the misfortune to suffer in this Parliament from the Government benches. In that competition, in which there are a considerable number of entrants, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on carrying off the palm.
  It would be ludicrous, if it were not so tragic for the people of the country as a whole, that the only reply that he could give to the appallingly accurate picture of our economic position, so ably and briefly outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), was to say that the whole problem was inherited from the previous Government. Even if that were so, which it is not, surely nearly 18 months later something could have been done to have dealt with this inheritance.
  In fact, our position is now infinitely worse economically than when the Government came to office. It is the Government who are in the dock today and not the Opposition. We are here to criticise the performance of the Government and no kind of wriggling by the Parliamentary Secretary or any of his supporters can change that basic fact.
  This debate is rightly concentrated on the cost of living, because that is the question uppermost in the minds of the people. Other questions may be at the forefront of our minds, for we are directly involved with politics—questions of foreign policy and Rhodesia, for instance—but to the ordinary man and woman it is the prices in the shops that count. They are right in thinking that it is important, right not only because their own self-interest is involved but because their self-preservation is involved as well, because the cost of living is the best indicator of the success or failure of the whole of Government economic policy.
  On the stability of prices depend not only the happiness of people at home, but the whole future of the country abroad. After all, a soaring cost of living is only a reflection of rising prices and as prices rise, so inevitably shall we be kept out of our markets abroad. There
  432
  can be no political strength abroad without economic strength at home.
  If one reflects for a moment on the problem of Rhodesia, whatever our views on that may be, how much stronger would Government policy be if it were backed by a strong economy at home! Surely one reason why it is proving such an intractable problem is that the Rhodesians know that in attempting to quell this rebellion we are placing a great strain on our economic position which has been so weakened by the present Government.
  I do not want to go into a great many figures and statistics because they have been extremely brilliantly and trenchantly put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: What figures?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: If the hon. Gentleman was not here to hear them, I was.
  I can add that the only figure needed in this debate is perfectly simple. It is that in the first year of the Labour Government the cost of living rose by 5 per cent., the highest rate of increase in the cost of living for the last 10 years. That is the relevant figure and the only figure we need to know to asess the performance of the present Government.
  It is not only every reputable journalist who has forecast a further rise in prices and a further rise in the cost of living. It is also true that every reputable economist in the country has forecast that there will be a further upward swing in prices in the first months of this year, and the evidence is there. Commodities have consistently gone up in prices; commodities from pork pies to coal, rates, fares, fuel bills, petrol—the list is very long and dismal.
  Against the background of this situation, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said that it was dangerous nonsense to talk about an inflationary situation. The dangerous part of the situation today is the extraordinary complacency which is shown by that remark of the Government spokesman today, an extraordinary complacency indeed when all over the country, hardship is being suffered because of the rises in prices,

  433
  particularly by pensioners and those living on small incomes.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that this was not a Labour Party problem. But, of course, it is a Labour Party problem. It is a problem created by the present Government, who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has pointed out, have succeeded in combining for the first time stagnation and inflation. The only sense in which it can be said not to be a Labour Party problem is that it is quite clear that it has no idea of how it is to be solved.
  The rise in prices and the rise in the cost of living are not matters of opinion, but of fact. Our duty is not to make the facts known—every housewife in the country knows the facts—but to make the causes known. The rise in prices can be attributed to any of a number of causes, but that which surely stands out is the failure of the Government's incomes policy. There are other contributory causes—we have had no industrial expansion and externally we have been loaded with £1,000 million of debt—but it is the failure of the Government's incomes policy which is primarily responsible for our present situation.
  Before I pursue this line of criticism, I should like to take up one comment of the hon. Member for Greenwich. It is illustrative of the growing tendency of the Government to treat any criticism of their economic policy as being in some way unpatriotic. This was the line taken by the First Secretary who, when he was speaking at the Hull by-election, referred to us as saboteurs. This afternoon the hon. Member for Greenwich again spoke of the "sobatage" of Government's economic policy. They are confused about their constitutional position. The first Secretary is not a member of the Royal Family. He and his colleagues are temporary trustees—and I stress "temporary" and after midnight tonight it will be even more so—of the economic future of the nation. It is our duty, which we shall discharge undeterred by these accusations of being unpatriotic, to criticise sharply and constructively the discharge or non-discharge of that trusteeship.
  The measures or non-measures which the Government have taken to remedy the economic crisis into which they so
  434
  foolishly and unnecessarily plunged the country when they came into office 18 months ago—[Interruption.] Oh, yes they did. The Government undermined our credit abroad by exaggerating our difficulties at home; and credit is like a woman's reputation—as soon as it is suspected, it is gone. The Government succeeded in making the credit of Britain suspect in every financial capital in the world. That is the root of our present difficulties, not the 13 previous years of Tory expansion and good government.
  Dr. David Kerr: If one accepts the hon. Gentleman's premise, would he explain how sterling is at its present strength and exports are at their present height?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Certainly. It is quite easily explainable. It is a tribute to British industry which, despite all the handicaps of the present Government, has managed to survive and to get its products sold abroad. But that is in spite of the Government and not because of them.
  I want return to the central question of the incomes policy and the cost of living. Again, a very simple statistic is suitable. The guiding light, or whatever it is—"will o' the wisp" might be more suitable—of 3 to 3½ per cent. has been matched by actual increases in wages averaging 8 per cent. Although the Government succeeded for a time in holding back price increases, precisely because they failed to hold back wages, the increase in prices will now go on faster than ever. That is the measure of the failure of the incomes policy.
  A challenge has been thrown out by the hon. Member for Greenwich—and I am never one to avoid a challenge—to state what our position is on an incomes policy. I am perfectly willing to put my criticism of the Government in that setting. I am not against an incomes policy as such and nor is the Tory Party as a whole. The theory of the Government's incomes policy is admirable. It is the practice which is so lamentable. It is perfectly logical to be in favour of an incomes policy but not in favour of the shadow of an incomes policy which is all that the present Government have so far produced.
  Of course, in modern conditions of full employment we have to have an incomes policy, but the Government's

  435
  mistake has been that they have tried to make the incomes policy do too much. They have used it not as an aid to policy, but as a substitute for policy; they have failed to back up the incomes policy by the right fiscal and monetary measures and above all, and this is the great failure of the Government, they have failed to put it into practice in the very sphere where they have the most influence—in the nationalised industries.
  The acid test, it is said, will come when the Government make up their mind on their attitude to the railwaymen's pay claim. Certainly, if the Government give way to the railway unions and abandan their Prices and Incomes Board, the incomes policy will be reduced to the level of a farce. One can go back to a point in time earlier than this to when the whole policy perilously approached the point of vaudeville. The guiding light, the will o' the wisp, is 3 to 3½ per cent. If one applies that to the railway industry one sees that the increases in railway wages are now, leaving out of account the decision of the Prices and Incomes Board, running well ahead of that guiding light. It was calculated by the Board that by May of this year the workshop men will have an increase of 6½ per cent., and that there will be a further increase of 3½ per cent. by October. The Government are now dithering as to whether there should be a further increase in the future.
  The truth is that if the Government were serious about their incomes policy they should have intervened in the railway industry not today but six months ago. If they are prepared, even now, to stand by their own policy, they may save something from the wreckage. The only example we have of a successful incomes policy in Britain was the period after the London bus strike of 1958–59 when the Conservative Government of the time stood up to the busmen. We had a successful incomes policy for 18 months.
  The Incomes and Prices Board has a part to play and I believe that its Chairman, Mr. Aubrey Jones, has pushed it in a very worthwhile direction. He has directed it towards the task of increasing efficiency and exposing restrictive practices. He set a very good pattern in the
  436
  Road Haulage Report and one saw the same enlightened approach in the report on printing. The Board has succeeded in that it has made the public aware of its direct interest in wage increases, because these tend to be immediately passed on in increased costs to the consumer. As a result of the Board's activities people are more aware of this than at any time in the past.
  Where the Board has been let down, where it has been sabotaged, if I may use the phrase of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, is not by the Opposition, but by the Government, because they have expected Mr. Jones's Board to become a kind of viceregal body which will fill the gap left by the Government through their failure to take appropriate action, either fiscal or monetary, to manage the economy.
  The Government attitude towards their own Board has been both unrealistic and irresponsible. If the rumoured decision that all dividend increases are to be referred to the Board is true the Board will become ludicrous, because it will break down under the burden placed on it.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: How does the hon. Gentleman equate his demand that the railwaymen must be treated severely by the Prices and Incomes Board and the Government with his comment that dividends should be excluded from such treatment?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I hive never suggested that dividends should be excluded from a prices and incomes policy. I was saying that it is ludicrous to think that every dividend increase can be referred to the Board and that the Board can deal with that sort of volume of work. It can no more deal with that volume than it can deal satisfactorily with the volume of wage settlements which have been referred to it at present.
  If every wage settlement was referred to the Board it would collapse. The truth about the Government policy is very simple. It is that the Government have no means, no knowledge, of how to break out of this wage-price spiral. There is only one means which is coining into sight, and it is coming clearly into sight to everyone except the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich. That is compulsion.

  437
  This is where the strain will be placed upon the loyalty of the Minister of Technology because the only possible outcome for the Government's policy, other than that of complete collapse, seems to be a legislative control of wages and prices. That is the policy towards which the First Secretary of State is inevitably moving, and it is this policy which is causing the rift between himself and his colleague, the Minister of Technology. That is the conflict of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich is so blissfully and happily unaware. If that policy of compulsion is adopted by the Government it will be rejected, not only by this side of the House but by the whole trade union movement.
  Dr. David Kerr: I am not very impressed by rifts on this side, I am much more interested in causing rifts on the other side. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman's views are about compulsory reference to dividends to the Prices and Incomes Board, and if we were to accept the dictum which he has just promulgated, which dividends would he select to go to the Prices and Incomes Board and on what basis?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The second part of the question does not arise, because I am not in favour of a compulsory reference of all dividends to the Board any more than I am in favour of a compulsory reference of all trade union decisions on wages to the Board. I hope that that answers the question.
  The fault of the incomes policy is the same as the fault in the National Plan. At least, the Government are consistent in that neither appears to have any relation to reality. The Government are not lacking in aspirations; they are full of aspirations and hopes, but what they are lacking in are practical proposals to translate these aspirations into reality. There seems to be no awareness that while an incomes policy has some part to play it must, if it is to be effective, be accompanied by steps to fashion a more competitive and efficient society than we have today.
  I regard efficiency as a means and not an end. The gospel of efficiency is certainly not an inspiring one but it may be a necessary one at this period in our history. There is a new realism in Britain today which knows that we can
  438
  neither help ourselves nor can we help anyone outside unless we come to terms with our own economic problems. Rising prices are the bitter fruit and the symbol of our failure to tackle our root economic problems. It is the failure of the Government. It is the Government who are indicted this afternoon. Rising prices are the visible and painful signs of the Government's lack of economic policy, which threatens the whole future of Britain in the world and that is why—
  Mr. George Rogers Mr. George Rogers (Kensington, North) rose—
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: —the Opposition has been right to table this Motion of censure and that is why we shall do all in our power to carry this Motion in the Division Lobby tonight.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lomas: It is a privilege and at the same time something of a disappointment, to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) because, until this afternoon, I was firmly of the opinion that he was a liberal-minded Tory. He seems to have proved quite conclusively that he is as bad as the rest. The whole point of his argument seems to be to prove, perhaps to himself, that the Conservative Party has some semblance of a policy after all. He mentioned that the success or failure of a Government should be judged by the cost of living. We accept this as a fair comment. But it must also be said that, as my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, during the 13 years that the Tory Party was in power the cost of living rose by more than 50 per cent. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits until we have been in power for 13 years and sees then by how much it has increased.
  The hon. Gentleman also made the point, which he thought was very telling, that in order to be strong we must have an economy which is sound and strong. This is all very well. He went on to accuse the Government of weakening the economic situation. It was hardly possible to weaken a situation in which we had a £800 million deficit when we came to power. In the latter part of his speech the hon. Gentleman referred to what he presumably considered to be the successful

  439
  prices and incomes policy of the Tory Party under which, for example, over £80 million was given to the Surtax payer and 6d. was offered to the nurses. We reject this sort of thing.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the cost of living has risen. There is no denying this; there can be no argument about it. But the question which we should be debating is not whether it has risen but what have the Government tried to do about it, and what would the Opposition have tried to do about it if they had been sitting on these benches. Because we know the history of the Tory Party and its mentality, we realise full well that the attack which has been launched today is a sham, an empty and a meaningless gesture, in the hope that it will influence the by-election result in Yorkshire. It will not, because the fact is that if the policies advocated by right hon. and hon. Members opposite over and over again had been put into effect the cost of living would have soared infinitely higher than it has done under this Government, who have done everything in their power to control rises in costs.
  Our first task on coming to office was to establish elementary social justice. We set out as a Government—and this is what we have been doing over the past 15 months—to ensure that those who could least afford to pay any increases in the cost of living would be protected by the legislation which we brought before the House. We did this in our very early days of office in spite of opposition from hon. Members opposite. People on small incomes, pensioners and those at the bottom of the wage scale are grateful to the Government for the measures which they have taken. The unemployed and the sick are thankful for the measures which we introduced early on when we came to power. The Insurance Bill which will be debated in the very near future is a clear indication of where our priorities lie—in helping those people at the bottom of the scale.
  We have tried, through the National Board for Prices and Incomes, by our incomes policy and by budgetary measures, to ensure that taxation was fairer than it has ever been before and that people pay their rightful contribution and do not escape their responsibilities to
  440
  society. We took the view that as soon as we could establish a more equitable system of taxation and the mechanics of a prices and incomes policy this would create the means whereby we could have the sort of social equality we sought.
  As has been said, the Prices and Incomes Board, in the short time that it has been in existence, has dealt with road haulage, soap and detergents, and bread. Many other matter will be referred to it. I want the scope of its inquiries to be extended. I see no reason why it should be confined merely to matters such as these. Contrary to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, I look forward to the day, not very far off, when firms, before they declare their profits and dividends, give early warning of them to the Board so that they can be examined to see whether they are in the national interest. This is what we should try to do.
  During the last 15 months we have been engaged in a levelling up exercise We have been engaged in an exercise to achieve the social equality which we believe essential. I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite should say that the railway workers must receive only so much when many hon. Members—and perhaps the hon. Member for Chelmsford knows of this better than most—can obtain in five or ten minutes on television a fee more than the average railway worker earns in a week. We must have some sense of values about wages and incomes. The Government, by the efforts which they are making to create social justice, are earning the applause of the people who have been neglected by successive Tory Governments for so long.
  Reference has been made to housing and rates. This is fair enough. But, as has been pointed out, there is an inbuilt escalator in rates. As an interim measure, the first thing which we are trying to do this current year is to ensure that rates do not rise so quickly and that those who own their own homes and who are on low incomes and have to pay rates are relieved of a certain proportion of the rates due. This is the sort of thing towards which we are moving—the transfer of charges from the local authorities to the Government. This is the sort of thing which will help people and help to reduce the cost of living.

  441
  We seek to control price increases, but we get precious little help from hon. Members opposite. We must relate the cost of living not merely to cost but to the standard of living. This is an important factor. We must, therefore, try to raise the standard of living of the people, and I believe that the Government, over the past 15 months, have set about doing that in the correct way. It is true that the cost of living has risen. But I say without fear of contradiction that it would have been far worse under the Conservative Party, with its declared policies of uncontrolled rents and of a jungle law mentality about supply and demand.
  Speaking on 13th January, 1965, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said:
  "There is only one price which a firm or person is justified in trying to get for his goods or his service. That is the price which he believes will bring in the best return. To attempt to get this price is every seller's duty."
  In other words, the right hon. Gentleman was saying, "Forget the national interest. Get what you can. Charge whatever you can if your product is in short supply. Make the biggest profit you can." We on this side of the House are a little more conscious of the fact that any increase in price is reflected in the living conditions of our people.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are political hypocrites, something which I have called them many times in the House, in that time after time they have argued that if they were in power we would see a massive increase in the building of houses, schools and hospitals, and the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said on television a few days ago that all this would be done and that at the same time the Conservative Party would reduce taxation and make tax cuts the order of the day. We are entitled to ask: if this is so, where is the money coming from so that these tax cuts can be made and who will pay the price of high Toryism? These are the sort of questions we are entitled to ask and to which we are entitled to have an answer.
  In an article in British Industry, the hon. and learned Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe), who I understand is an official spokesman of the shadow Cabinet
  442
  —one does not know these days who is in the shadow Cabinet; its members come and go almost at will—argued, and it has been argued by other hon. Members from time to time, that if the Conservative Party was in power, housing subsidies would be cut, which would inevitably mean a rent increase for people living in council houses; private building would increase, which would encourage even further the rackets which go on concerning flats and accommodation for people in need of a home who cannot afford the high price of private housing; and prescription charges would be reimposed, regardless of those in need. As part of its agricultural policy, the agricultural deficiency payments, which run at £175 million, would be abolished. Its official spokesman said in a speech not long ago that as a result of this the food bill would go up by over £400 million. Who will pay for this? The housewife and the person at the bottom of the wage scale will suffer most.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have argued over and over again in connection with their pensions scheme that there should be a movement away from the central Government contribution and that the cost should be passed to the employer and employee. Who will bear the brunt of this?—the very people who today we are trying to get to accept the idea of a policy of submitting wage claims so that they can be considered in the light of the National Plan and the policy which we are pursuing. We can never hope to get that kind of co-operation if the suggested Tory policies were carried out.
  The Labour Party and Government, throughout the 15 months they have been in office, have sought by practically every means at their disposal to level up, and create a situation in which we can have the assurances from industry and from the trade unions that we intend working closely together for the common good and not for selfish interests.
  We are stimulating industry. We are introducing new techniques and methods of technology. We are harnessing the benefits that science and automation can bring. These things will reduce the cost of living if they are introduced and applied properly.
  I do not know the Tory Party's view on the investment allowances. Possibly

  443
  they will oppose them for the sake of opposing. We, however, are doing something, which is more than the Tories ever did, to make the Prices and Incomes Board a reality, to make our prices and incomes policy work and to obtain the maximum co-operation of the trade union movement, with industry and the Government working three-in-one for the common good of the nation as a whole. We are trying desperately hard to do something to stop the spiralling of costs and prices.
  I believe that today, in the important by-election to which the hon. Member for Chelmsford referred, we shall get the credit at Hull for trying to do this. It will be found that the electors of Hull will turn their backs on the cheap electoral gimmicking policies of the Tory Party and will keep a Labour Government in office for a long time so that we can build upon the foundations of social justice which we have laid and on which we can as a consequence build a better Britain.
  5.21 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Mills: I am grateful for this chance to put before the House the effects of the rapidly rising cost of living. Before the election, it was one of my jobs to put to many people in the South-West the danger of allowing a Socialist Government to come into office. I said that there would be a rapid rise in the cost of living. I never thought that my words would come true so quickly. Just as we said it would happen, it has happened.
  I recall that my Liberal opponents, who are the chief ones in the South-West, laughed. They said that I was overstating my case. Now, they know better. Where are the Liberals, particularly from the South-West, in this important debate on the cost of living? It is extraordinary that they have disappeared.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: May I point out to the hon. Member that there is a higher proportion of the Liberal Party present than there is of the Tory Party?
  Mr. Mills: I never knew that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) came from the South-West, but we have much to learn. It is a sharp reflection on the Liberals
  444
  in the South-West that none of them is here for this important debate.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Mills: I am sorry, no. I have just given way and I want to continue.
  I want to concentrate these few words upon the effects of the rise in the cost of living in the South-West. It is true to say that the elderly and those living on fixed incomes suffer most. I must draw the attention of the House to these people and the problem that confronts them. We have in the South-West a very large number of elderly people and those living on fixed incomes. It is, I think, true to say that this proportion is greater than in any other region.
  We have always welcomed those people into the South-West. They have come from various parts of the country to the South-West to retire. We are grateful to them for what they do for the community and the help they give. But these people who live on fixed incomes in the South-West, who have retired for peace and to enjoy a little of the beauty, who had saved, so they thought, enough to live on and enjoy life on a modest scale, are the ones who are suffering through the very steep rise in the cost of living. One of them came to me the other day in Bideford. He was pretty rude to me. He said, "What are you going to do about it?" I answered back pretty smartly and said, "We are not going to do very much about it while we have this lot in power."
  I have been a Member of Parliament for only about 18 months. Many people have come to me with their problems and difficulties, but the problem which hurts most of all is the rise in the cost of living and its effect upon the elderly and those who are trying to live on a fixed income. They are in a helpless position. Surely, it is the duty of any Government to deal with this problem. I regret to say that in my view the Government have done absolutely nothing about it.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Nonsense.
  Mr. Mills: What I am saying is true. Indeed, the Government have aggravated the situation by their actions and have caused this steep rise in the cost of living.

  445
  It is not only the elderly who are affected, but the young as well. They are caught up in this spiral of rising costs. In the South-West, we find that the cost of living affects us just the same as it affects people in any other region. We have to pay the extra penny on this, the 2d. on that and, of course, the extra taxation.
  Unfortunately, however, in the South-West our wages and incomes do not rise anything like as fast as in other areas. We have a lower level of earnings, for a variety of reasons. Therefore, the younger people in the South-West are hurt even more, perhaps, than people in other regions. We find that our wages cannot keep pace with this rapidly rising cost of living. It hurts the young people as they start out in life and as they start to build their homes. They find all this very difficult with a lower income. This is a headache not only for the elderly and those on fixed incomes, but also for the young people starting out in life. This is a headache that has been brought on by the Government.
  The effect on transport in the South-West also is very apparent. Transport in the South-West has not escaped this spiral of rising costs. Travel is costing considerably more. This is a big and important item in the South-West, particularly when one lives in a rural and scattered area. To say the least, it is not helping the rural folk who live there.
  Bus fares have gone up. We have just had another increase. Train fares are up and car expenses are higher. It is in many cases simply a question that one cannot afford now to go into the town to see one's relatives or to visit people in hospital. Many people have said this to me. The rural bus operators are in a jam. They are finding that costs have risen so rapidly that it is almost impossible to continue to operate these rural services, and many of them are going out of business. This was, I believe, the direct result of the increase in fuel taxation. Coupling all this with the closure of many of our branch lines, one begins to think that perhaps a return to the bicycle is the only means of transport while we have a Labour Government in power.
  We are experiencing a rapid rise in the cost of transporting essential goods such as food and fuel. Road transport is playing an ever-increasing part in the distri-
  446
  bution of these goods in the South-West. There is no other way. There are long distances between the towns and these costs are rising rapidly. We find that goods in the shops are more expensive in the rural areas than in the towns. The extra cost of transport is the reason. These costs have been increased by the fuel taxation and by the increase in the cost of licences. The South-West is particularly hit by this combination of circumstances. One thing that the Government could do to help the problem would be to reduce the fuel tax. This would help to cheapen the cost of distribution.
  Rates have been affected seriously in the South-West. The rapid rise of approximately 14 per cent. is a real burden to us, not only amongst the elderly and to every householder, but among our hotel and boarding-house keepers. The hotel industry is an important one in the South-West and vital to our economy. The rise in rates has particularly hit these people when coupled with the increased cost of food. There is a limit to the price that they can charge visitors who come to the South-West. Competition is severe. People tend nowadays to go abroad, and those in the South-West find themselves in considerable difficulty. The hotel and boarding-house industry is being affected severely by the increase in rates.
  Even in our smaller towns in the South-West people are finding the burden of increased rates very considerable. In my constituency and in some of the towns affected, they are very concerned about this. More and more demands are placed upon their shoulders and more and more is asked of them, all with one end in view. It means increased rates and, therefore, an increased cost of living.
  The reasons for this have been stated clearly this afternoon. They were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). I believe that much of this burden is a direct result of the Government who are now in power. I say that this burden is intolerable and that it is time it was removed.
  I cannot get on my feet without saying something about the effect on the farming community of the rising cost of living. This rise affects the farmer, the farm-worker and all who live by the land. The effect is considerable. Another man

  447
  came up to me the other day and said, "Everything is going up, Maister". How right he was. Everything is going up. The cost of food, lighting, fuel or whatever one likes to mention is going up.
  Unfortunately, the farmer finds that his income is being reduced. There is a sharp drop in his income and he finds it difficult to meet these added expenses. I am prepared to say that the community in which I live is an unhappy community. Resentment is widespread at these tremendous increases in costs without any extra return to the farming community.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: The price of beef.
  Mr. Mills: I could say quite a bit more about this, but perhaps I had better not or hon. Members opposite will accuse me of being biased.
  Mr. Bence: Oh, no.
  Mr. Mills: The effects that I have mentioned add up to a very sorry state of affairs. I believe that the people of the South-West will remember this Socialist Government as the Government who caused a rapid rise in the cost of of living.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Unlike the last hon. Member to speak in his comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), I cannot compliment the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on his speech. That is not through any lack of generosity, but we are dealing with a very important subject and an attempt to deal with a rise in prices which has been going on now for 20 years. I do not know whether we shall succeed or not. Some people are determined that they will have nothing to do with this policy. I suspect that the hon. Memberber for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) is one. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is not the only one in the party opposite who has said that.
  Equally, my hon. Friends have a sublime faith in the efforts of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to bring off such a success. I do not share that confidence. I do not
  448
  know whether he will, but I hope he will. I am fascinated by all the attempts which are being made in this direction. No one could have done more in the last 15 months than my right hon. Friend with his Declaration of Intent, the setting up of the Prices and Incomes Board and the Report. All these are fascinating documents making most important contributions to the transformation of the climate of industrial relations. Now we have the early warning system, and I do know what will come next. If one shares the concern of the hon. Member for Torrington, one should recognise that price rises have been going on since 1945 and one hopes that the First Secretary will now be able to make a change.
  Sir William Robson Brown: I agree with everything and support and endorse everything that George Brown has done, but will the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) say what is the obstacle that prevents George from succeeding? Would he indict the employers in this respect?
  Mr. Duffy: That is a fair question, but I think these questions need to be—
  Sir W. Robson Brown: Will the hon. Member tell us the main obstacle to success?
  Mr. Duffy: No, because I have not the main responsibility in the matter. I think we know George well enough—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. This has gone far enough. Hon. Members on both sides of the House must refer to Ministers in the usual manner.
  Mr. Duffy: We know the First Secretary well enough to know that he is unlikely to hedge on such matters. The hon. Member asks for helpful contributions, but we did not have a helpful contribution from the hon. Member for Torrington. His was an electioneering speech. Certainly one such as I, who knows the South-West and has campaigned there for a long time, knows that there it would come in for a tougher hearing than it did in this House, but it was not a helpful contribution. Neither was the speech of the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber). I admire the right hon. Member, but I do not think he deserved compliments for

  449
  his contribution this afternoon. His speech was surprisingly short. That may have been welcomed by other hon. Members who wish to speak, but it lacked substance.
  Like his two colleagues, he presented an exaggerated picture which did not square with experience abroad nor in this country. We know why that was so; it was because he was so selective in his quotations. He spoke about 10 years, not 20 years or 11 years. We know why he stopped at 1956. It was because the rise in prices in the previous year was greater than in last year. I hope that I shall not be too selective, but I cannot help mentioning two things. I hope to be more objective than he was when I refer to the experience of the last Labour Government and to the succeeding Tory Government and compare like with like.
  The House should know that from 1945 to 1951 the United Kingdom's experience placed it seventh from the top in the international league table of price rises, but from 1951 to 1964—the period of Conservative Government—the United Kingdom went up to third position. I do not know what conclusions we can draw from that, and I do not wish to draw any conclusion, but I make the point that price rises have been going on for a long time and we should be careful about making comparisons. We know the reasons and we know the strain on the economy, but we should be careful about the price rises we are talking of. Some prices, for example, have gone down over the last few months while others have gone up.
  If prices represent one thing which has happened in the last 20 years and one cost we are paying in our society—which we are all prepared to pay—it is the prolongation of full employment. The mood of society has changed in recent years, and not merely since October, 1964. Society is no longer prepared to accept this as an ever-continuing burden. We are prepared to do something about price rises. Just as prices did not start to rise a year ago so attempts to deal with price rises did not start a year ago. I hope that when the hon. Member for Torrington speaks to audiences in the South-West he will accept my voice as one who knows them very well there and will not mislead them in this way but will
  450
  remind them that price rises took place from 1959 to 1964, under the last Government, of 14 per cent, to 15 per cent.
  I have not been in this House for very long, but in the few months I spent in the old Parliament, the last three or four months under the old Government, I distinctly recall two debates on this subject of the cost of living. We have had only one such debate in the 15 months of this Government. We know the reason for that. It is that over the last year, except in the early part of 1965, prices rose by only 2½ per cent, to 3 per cent., which is less than the rise under the Conservatives in 1964.
  I make an allowance for the increases in prices due to taxation increases in the early part of 1965, which I suppose account for about 2 per cent. If that 2 per cent, is left out of account, we see how much better is Labour's record in its first year of office than that of the last year of Conservative Government. Why should we not do this? Taxpayers are still getting the article, although they are paying more for it, and are making a contribution to increased social services which do not figure in the cost of living index. Although indirect taxes do so, such additions to the cost of living index are misleading.
  Mr. Peter Walker: I am interested in the hon. Member's argument, but, in his view, were the increased taxes put on by the Chancellor for the purpose of giving increased social services or for the purpose of creating a more deflationary position? If it were the latter, has it failed?
  Mr. Duffy: I should say the latter, but it would still have the effect of the first. I hope the hon. Member does not dissent from that view.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I suppose that I ought to put into words what I was muttering. I was surprised at the sort of argument which says that it is a 5·3 per cent. increase in the cost of living now, but if we deduct the 2 per cent. of taxes the increase is only 3·3 per cent. and if we deduct something else of something else it is down to nothing. That argument seems to be a kind of window-dressing.
  Mr. Duffy: Although the hon. Member may think it window-dressing, it is

  451
  the argument which was used by his right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in the last cost of living debate in 1964. He will find the reference in Vol. 689 Of HANSARD in col. 181. I accepted it then and I accept it now.
  If we look at price rises in the last year we see that the further we get from the Tory Government which ended in 1964 the more does the price record improve. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes. As the First Secretary told me just before the Christmas Recess, from May to October prices rose by just over 1 per cent. From last spring to the present time prices have held remarkably steadily.
  Sir W. Robson Brown: This is a very important point. I agree that prices have not risen so spectacularly until now. It is now that the rise is beginning to show. This has been due to the control by manufacturers and all others who have the nation's affairs at heart to hold down prices against all pressures from all sides, wages, transport and everything.
  Mr. Duffy: I agree and I think that because of what the Government are trying to do there is no evidence to contradict the view that I have put forward that prices have held remarkably steadily since the spring of 1965. Our export success is the best proof. We have little room for manoeuvre because of what has been happening in other countries, notably some competing countries. Nevertheless, we could not go on increasing exports as we did last year and establish an all-time record as recently as last December if prices were in the runaway state which hon. Members opposite would have the country believe. If the dam were bursting as the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) has said—
  Mr. Dan Jones: And as hon. Members opposite hoped.
  Mr. Duffy: My hon. Friend makes the point that it seems some hon. Members are anxious to give the impression that prices are going up. But if we look at the prices of food in countries such as France, Germany and Sweden and compare them with those in England, we find that in Paris the French traditionally
  452
  spend over 50 per cent. of their incomes on the housekeeping budget. On the national radio and television food prices are given, but they are treated as a joke. Germany compares favourably with Britain, but in Sweden as in France prices are astronomical.
  I am making a genuine attempt to give a more balanced picture at home as well as abroad, but in trying to do that I have to make reference to the reasons for the spurt which took place in prices in 1965. Hon. Members opposite tried to gloss over the reasons when they were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas). They seemed unimpressed, but I do not think it can be stressed too often that the reasons for the taxation measures were the consequence of the balance of payments crisis at the end of 1964, and notably the surcharge. When its renewal was debated I opposed it because I want it to be taken off as soon as possible. The remarkable thing is that as a country we have remained so competitive and kept prices so steady, given the surcharge which I intensely dislike.
  There is another reason for the spurt in prices during the early part of 1965, namely, the demand inflation, which we also inherited. In some ways I take this more seriously than I do the balance of payments crisis, because when the right hon. Member for Barnet introduced his Budget in 1964, many hon. Members of my party criticised the Budget simply because we thought it was too mildly deflationary, and now, of course, we know that it was. We therefore inherited not merely a balance of payments crisis, but a demand inflation. We now have a cost inflation, and for that we are responsible, but I repeat that we inherited a demand inflation.
  Mr. Peter Walker: Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that the White Paper on the economic situation published by the Government a fortnight after they came to power specifically stated that there was not a demand inflation, and that no measures were necessary to deal with it?
  Hon. Members: Answer that.
  Mr. Duffy: I cannot, because the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has the advantage of me, but I

  453
  shall look at this matter again. All I can say is that there was no shortage of critics, both outside and inside the House, of his right hon. Friend in the spring of 1964.
  The increase in 1964 in the cost of many imported foods only worked its way through to the shops in 1965, and, in fact, some are only now beginning to be felt in the shops. There were a large number of wage increases in the pipeline when the present Government came into power, and these had to be dealt with in 1965. When we came into office the 40-hour week was already on the way, and we now know how that aggravated costs daring 1965. That is not an exhaustive list, but those were the real reasons for the spurt in the price increase in the early part of 1965, and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that the implications of them were to a considerable extent outside the control of the present Government.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) will agree with me about that, and yet he and his colleagues are proposing to vote against us tonight. They are proposing to vote with the Opposition. I do not see how he can accept my analysis, and still oppose us. He will go into the Division Lobby with the hon. Member for Torrington, who has attacked him and his colleagues. We know why the hon. Gentleman attacked the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. He did so because his main opponent at the General Election was a member of the Liberal Party.
  I, too, had a Liberal opponent, but I do not attack the Liberals, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will bear me out on that. I do not attack the Liberals in my constituency, and I do not attack them in the House, and yet the hon. Gentleman is going into the Division Lobby with someone who, although he has been in the House for only 18 months, has attacked him and his colleagues.
  If the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland had been in the House a little longer he would have discovered just how often Members of the Conservative Party attack the Liberals. In fact, the hon. Gentleman does not know what it means to be opposed by those with whom he
  454
  is going to vote tonight. He ought to consult the former Member for Bolton, West.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: I should like to explain to the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Party looks at each case on its merits and that there is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my colleagues that we would rather go into the Lobby with an honest man like the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy)—on a personal basis—than with the nauseating hypocrisy evinced by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills).
  Mr. Duffy: No doubt if the hon. Gentleman gets an opportunity to do so he will tell us the merits of the Liberal case for going into the Division Lobby with the Opposition tonight.
  The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues know of the success which has attended the Government's policies. They know that the balance of payments deficit has been halved, that exports are booming, and that for some months sterling has been above parity with the dollar. They know that we have achieved this while preserving a high level of employment. This is the big difference between the Conservatives and ourselves. The country was faced with a similar situation in 1961, and we know how the Conservatives tackled it, and what it cost in terms of unemployment. Whatever view hon. Members may take of the Government's efforts, I am sure they will at least concede that the Government have managed so far to preserve employment.
  Moreover, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and his colleagues know that our policies have been selective, and have been good liberal policies. They have been so selective that they have paid a good deal more attention to the hon. Gentleman's part of the world than the previous Government did. The Liberals also know that the Government's policies have been carried out in such a way that they have enabled industry to continue to build up productive capacity on which future productivity depends. I do not pretend that a price has not been paid. These policies have been carried out at the cost of production, which must inevitably lead to a rise in unit costs. That has been going on, and is continuing.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but there is one point on which I find it very difficult to follow him. He said that increased prices due to Conservative policy had now started to filter through. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that on 11th March last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that any increase in taxation must increase prices. If these two facts are added together, it is apparent that we have not yet started to reap the whirlwind of price increases which will result from the policies of the present Government.
  Mr. Duffy: I hope that I am not doing the hon. Member an injustice, but I wonder whether he has only lust entered the Chamber. I do not think that he has been present throughout the whole of my speech, otherwise he would not have made that intervention.
  Mr. Dan Jones: Would my hon. Friend agree that if the measures now advocated by the Prices and Incomes Board are accepted by both sides of industry there will be no whirlwind at all?
  Mr. Duffy: I hope that we shall get this break-through in productivity which we have been promised for so long. There have been many false dawns. We are working with our fingers crossed, just as hon. Gentlemen did two or three years ago, but I am a little more optimistic than they were then. Until we get this rise in productivity, we shall have the cost inflation which is with us now. The Liberals know this. They know the difference between the efforts of the Conservatives in 1961 and their aftermath, and the efforts that we are making now. They know the qualified success which we are having, and yet they are going to vote with the Opposition tonight.
  My right hon. Friend the First Secretary has had astonishing success with his policies. We remember the Declaration of Intent, which was a tour de force even for the First Secretary. The Prices and Incomes Board was set up and we have seen the high pressure way in which it has worked, and here I pay tribute to the chairman and members of the Board. I share the hope expressed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford that the Board will not be overworked. It is better that the Board should produce a few good reports in terms of industrial relations on
  456
  which firms can act, rather than that, because of pressure, it should produce reports which have not been properly thought out, and which are unlikely to be acted on.
  The Liberals will vote with the Conservatives even though they know that the Conservatives have not yet made up their minds about incomes policy making, and one suspects that there is a fundamental cleavage in their ranks on this subject. It is not merely that members of the Conservative Party are indifferent to an incomes policy; several hon. Members opposite do not believe such a policy to be necessary. If they do not believe that it is necessary I should like to know what is going on in their minds, because they cannot insist that there is not a need for such a policy now, given the present high level of employment and the present state of the labour market.
  They must be thinking that if only we had a higher level of unemployment we would not need an incomes policy. That is probably correct. Professor Paish wrote about this. He said that we probably do need an incomes policy now, although I suspect that he was not greatly enamoured of the idea. In justice, I think that he would say that an incomes policy is more likely to be realised with a level of unemployment of 2 per cent. or 2½ per cent., and that above that level we do not need one at all. I suspect that that is the view of some hon. Members opposite.
  Yet the centre in British politics is watching the attempts of this Government at income policy-making more closely than it is watching any other item of Government policy. I got that impression last week, when I met the electors of Hull, North on their doorsteps. I am quite sure that the electors—and not merely those in Hull, North—are prepared to make many allowances for the stumbling that has taken place in incomes policy-making, and which may yet take place. I think that they realise how difficult it is. No other country in the Western world has gone as far in this direction as they would like. We are surely out on the frontier of development, certainly in our industrial relations, and I suspect that many of our people appreciate this and want the Government to persist in their efforts. They will go

  457
  a long way with the Government in this direction.
  This does not mean that criticism cannot or should not be made. It should, and it is. Not all of it has been fair and justifiable. Dramatic success simply was "not on." It is not good enough to say, as the hon. Member for Torrington said, that the Government have done nothing about the cost of living. They have tried. No one could have expected us to do more than we have in the time. I insist that dramatic success simply was not a starter.
  Our attention to prices has come in for some criticism, but I cannot see how we could have done otherwise than start with prices if we wanted to break out of the wage-price spiral. Only by starting with prices could we ease the pressure of shortfall wage increases. If we can bring pressure to bear on industrial profit margins we may be able to ease the pressure of shortfall wage increases where it really matters—not at national level or in the high echelons of collective bargaining, but on the shop floor.
  I may carry the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) with me in this. He has done more thinking about wage drift than anyone else in the House, and he may agree that it is the biggest single obstacle to incomes policy making. It is the most intractable problem that arises in such policy-making at the moment. That is why I believe that the Government have been right to start with prices. They may be able to slow up and eventually arrest the wage drift on the shop floor.
  Furthermore, pressure on industry's profit margins should have the effect of promoting interest in cost-saving innovations. In this and in other ways employers must be encouraged to absorb as much of their increased costs as possible, and not pass them on in the form of higher prices, as some are still prone to do. It has been so easy for them to do so for so long, and with the best will in the world some of them cannot be expected to behave differently now. The home market has been too easy for too long.
  Vigorous wage pressure can undoubtedly be a stimulus to increased productivity, and it ought not to be deplored as it is by some hon. Members opposite. I submit, in all modesty, that I have tried to be a little more constructive than
  458
  hon. Members opposite have been so far—including the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale.
  Mr. Dan Jones: And my hon. Friend has succeeded.
  Mr. Duffy: All this presumes that such a policy does not threaten investment. All the indications at the moment are that business confidence is still strong. This was borne out in the Board of Trade's inquiry into industry's investment intentions recently. The latest Report of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research is very hopeful—and this before the cash incentives scheme was announced.
  So the Prices and Incomes Board is quite right to stress productivity and, above all, to seek to match it to income growth. I agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford about the need for efficiency. I am sorry, however, that he did not show equal concern for social justice, because productivity bargaining by itself—and we are all interested and even fascinated by the attempts that have been made and are still being made in industry in this respect—cannot be an adequate substitute for planning, manpower and social justice.
  It is easy to say, "We have to stand up to the railwaymen". I agree that the First Secretary must stand firm in the face of pressure, and even intimidation, from whatever quarter it comes, but, having said that, I go on to point out that right at the beginning of the incomes policy-making by this Government it was stressed that the norm might have to be waived in favour of exceptional cases—and the railwaymen's case may be in this category. We cannot just talk productivity—always assuming that we can define it—in relation to the railway industry, and to the low-paid workers in it. We must have as much regard for social justice as for productivity bargaining. Neither will be easy. In some cases social justice will be even more difficult to achieve than productivity bargaining, but it must not be lost sight of.
  If we can do all this on a voluntary basis we shall want to do so, but in my opinion we shall have no choice but to put the matter on a legislative basis if we cannot make it work voluntarily. Our overall economic position does not allow us any choice in the matter.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: I rise to support the Motion, because the cost of living is surely the area in which the complete failure of the Government's economic policy is most evident. I hope to cover some of the points made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy).
  There has been some discussion of statistics in the debate and some question whether the statistics have been chosen selectively. But every elector and person in the country knows that the rise in prices recently has been at a much faster rate than it was under the previous Administration. The hon. Member for Colne Valley suggests that prices have been going up for 20 years. I put it to him that they have been going up for much longer than that. But it is the rate of inflation which is so important and which I believe that we on this side of the House are rightly deploring this evening.
  We should be quite clear at the outset that the responsibility for this must be laid at the feet of the Prime Minister. He created the Department of Economic Affairs in addition to the Ministry which is normally responsible for maintaining the stability of the currency. By doing so, and by failing to co-ordinate the work of the two Ministries, he has been largely responsible for the rapid rate of inflation which we have had in recent months. Therefore, we should be quite clear that the responsibility is first and foremost that of the Prime Minister.
  It is also, I would suggest, the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because one cannot hope to maintain price stability unless the Chancellor, by his fiscal and monetary measures, is prepared to maintain a level of aggregate demand which will induce employers to resist unjustified wage claims. It is only if he maintains such a responsible policy that we can hope for anything approaching price stability.
  When he came into office, the present Chancellor imposed a number of measures which came into effect only gradually, so there was no immediate incentive for employers to resist wage claims. At the same time, the First Secretary was going about declaring that he would have an incomes policy. It was
  460
  surely to be expected that, in these circumstances, any trade union which had the interests of its members at heart was likely to put in wage claims earlier and to put in larger claims than it would otherwise have done.
  Therefore, in the early months of the Labour Government, there was an increase in wage claims, not controlled by downward pressure on aggregate demand. This combination built up the pressure which, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod) and Barnet (Mr. Maudling) have rightly pointed out, is now likely to lead to an even faster rate of inflation in the coming months.
  We are by no means at the end of this sad tale and it is, therefore, right that we should deplore the Government's failure at this stage and also warn that, on figures like those which the First Secretary gave to a Question of mine recently, we are likely to face a much greater increase in the future.
  The policy which the Government are pursuing is entirely irresponsible. They have been so aware of the fact that there is a danger of a stop-go policy when one is balancing on the knife edge between unemployment and inflation that what we have now is not a stop-go policy but a "go-go" policy—"go" with wage claims, "go" with an increase in prices. This is likely to go on until the Labour Party has gone from office.
  This is our situation at present. It is particularly unfortunate for a number of reasons, first, because it creates not only problems for export markets, but also very real human problems on the domestic front. We should be particularly clear that there are three groups of people who are particularly badly affected by inflation. Pensioners are always badly affected by inflation. The increases in pensions given soon after the Labour Party came to power are gradually being whittled away.
  Also affected are some aged groups, particularly old age non-pensioners, who could have been helped by the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) last Session and by one which will shortly be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Mathew). These old age

  461
  non-pensioners have no protection whatever against inflation and their real standard of living has declined 5 per cent. during the last year.
  I hope that this will be recognised by the Government and that they will be prepared to accept the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is to introduce and not resort to the disgusting tactics which were employed when the similar Measure came before the House before. Otherwise, these old people have no way of protecting themselves against the effects of inflation.
  The second group are the people trying to buy houses on mortgage. The promises made by the First Secretary before the General Election are notorious. The reason that interest rates have remained so high and it has been necessary to maintain them at such a high level is that which I gave at the beginning of my speech: wage claims have come in so rapidly following the announcement of the incomes policy that it has been necessary to maintain interest rates at a continuously high level, whereas previously they tended to fluctuate up and down. Therefore, it is the Government's own policy which has prevented them from getting anywhere near achievement of their election promise on mortgage rates.
  Finally, one should consider ratepayers. Mention has been made of them. They have suffered badly. The rate increase of 14 per cent. this year will probably have grown, at the end of two years of Labour Government—if they are in power so long—to about 25 per cent. This is in the face of a promise from the Labour Party at the General Election that they would give early relief to ratepayers by transferring more of the cost of public expenditure from the rates to the Exchequer.
  They have made no attempt to implement this promise. The only excuse given by the Minister of Housing is that this was impossible because of the economic situation. What absolute nonsense. The economic situation is quite irrelevant to a consideration of whether the money comes from ratepayers or taxpayers. Therefore, this group of people have suffered very badly from the effects of inflation and nothing has been done to help them.
  462
  The Chancellor has, it is true, tried to reassert his responsibility for price stability while he has been in office, but it has been an extremely naive attempt. I will quote from a speech which he made at Swansea:
  "How long are we going to deceive ourselves into believing that a wage increase greater than the norm will make us better off, if output per man hour only goes up by the 3 per cent.? The difference will take the form of higher prices at some point or other. We might as well take 3 per cent. in the first place and save hardship for those who are unable to get the larger increases."
  Is this not an incredibly naive statement for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to make? Does he really believe that, if he makes this kind of speech, trade unionists and others will not put in wage claims? If he could tell them, "If you do not put in a claim bigger than this, I will guarantee that the cost of living will not go up", his speech might have some effect. This kind of ear-stroking, this kind of mere exhortation without a sensible fiscal and monetary policy, is completely irresponsible, naive and not fitted to a Chancellor of the Exchequer of this country.
  There are several points in connection with the Government's income policy that need to be made clear. It would be a great help to the country if we knew when the policy was supposed to have started, so that we might appraise how successful or unsuccessful it has been. So far, we have been given no starting date to take as a yardstick for this purpose.
  The Minister of Labour has made no attempt to provide figures covering "wage drift", broken down into regions and areas. Such statistics would be of immense help to any Government in attempting to succeed in their incomes policy. Unless we get this kind of data we will find ourselves having constantly to rely on figures for wage rates which are not as meaningful in this context. The hon. Member for Colne Valley described the Declaration of Intent as a tour de force, but I would describe it as an unmitigated disaster for the reasons I gave earlier.
  It is abundantly clear that while the Prices and Incomes Board is fulfilling a useful function in examining specific claims, it is no substitute for an overall incomes policy as such. It is really a separate exercise. It may, by example

  463
  and by bringing out some of the principles involved, fulfil a useful purpose, but that in no way exonerates the First Secretary, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister from adopting a responsible overall policy. Nor does it exonerate them from putting into effect the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board, because it is the Government and not the Board who are responsible for taking this kind of action.
  It is important to appreciate the crucial impact of action in the public sector. The disastrous aspect of the Government's policy is not merely their failure to achieve an incomes policy for the country as a whole, but their failure to stand up to unjustified wage claims in the public sector which, after all, are under their control. The events of the next few weeks, particularly over the railwaymen's claim, are likely to be extremely important because, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley knows, that claim is far above the norm. I do not see, in the light of the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, how he can maintain that it can be justified as a special case.
  Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman is talking about unjustified claims. Would he consider that the claim of the British Aircraft Corporation for a £1¼ million interest-free loan of the taxpayers' money so that it could obtain a market in the Middle East for aircraft was justified or otherwise?
  Mr. Higgins: That is totally irrelevant and I would be out of order if I attempted to answer the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that I will deal with investment allowances. The system of investment allowances which we had would have been better from the export point of view than the system being introduced.
  I come to the points made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology. He asked for my hon. Friends and I to explain our policy in this sphere. In view of the disastrous nature of the present Government's policy, I do not know why we are called on to answer at this stage since they are the Government and not us. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to outline what I believe to be a sensible policy from our point of view.
  464
  First, we must get rid of certain aspects of the present policy which are bedevilling the whole income policy concept. One is the idea of giving increases in wages on the basis of increases in productivity. If this means that a productivity bargain should be struck, as a result of which restrictive trade practices are removed in exchange for a wage increase, then that is something which we can all agree upon.
  However, it is a mistake to extend this argument and to maintain that, whenever productivity goes up, wage increases are justified, for this is to take only a partial view of the process of wage determination. It may be that if productivity goes up one will want fewer higher paid people in a certain employment. One must, therefore, not only consider productivity, but whether more of the articles being produced can be sold to the public at the higher level of productivity. It is dangerous to adhere to a simple productivity argument of the kind the Joint Parliamentary Secretary seemed to have in mind.
  It is all the more dangerous if one combines this productivity view with another equally prevalent argument which is based on the principle of "comparability". If one has a 3 per cent. increase in productivity in an industry and, therefore, argues a 3 per cent. wage increase is justified, and then one adopts the idea of comparability—that the same percentage should be awarded in a different comparable industry—the 3 per cent. increase given to both groups of workers becomes 6 per cent., and inflation results. We must, therefore, not only take a sophisticated view of the productivity argument, but also get away from the idea that the justification for a wage increase in a particular industry is that a wage increase has been given in another industry which is said to be comparable.
  It is crucial to understand—and I suggest that this could form the basis of a reasonable incomes policy—the importance of the question whether one wants to attract more people into an industry or encourage them to go to another industry which is making goods the consumers want more. We must make it clear that a wage increase is justified in order to attract people into an industry, and that no increase is justified if we wish

  465
  to encourage people to move elsewhere. This should be the heart of an incomes policy.
  I do not think that there is any difficulty in reconciling the views which all my hon. Friends hold. We agree, in contrast with hon. Gentlemen opposite, that one must maintain a sensible monetary and fiscal policy before one can hope to achieve an incomes policy and that the incomes policy itself is concerned with the question whether one wishes to attract labour into one industry or to attract it to another.
  Increases above any norm are justified if there is clearly a shortage of a particular kind of labour. It seems absurd that when we have the undermanning which now exists in the police force, and the resultant difficulties of attracting people to the force, wages in this service are not increased. There is an entirely justified case for an increase. On the other hand, if, in another industry, there is no shortage of labour, the Government should—particularly in their own sector—state that no increases are justified, regardless of what is happening to earnings in similar industries.
  I appreciate that I have expressed a very Right-wing view, but I am sure that it is the only way to break the wage price spiral in which the country has found itself in successive periods. To illustrate my point, it sems certain that, from a regional point of view, we must get away from the concept of national wage agreements, for at present, if there is a shortage of labour of a particular kind in, say, Birmingham or London, that shortage is being used to raise wages in other areas—say, the North-East or the North-West—where there is no such shortage. Inevitably, national labour agreements are, therefore, inflationary. I believe that we must get back to a regional incomes policy rather than an overall policy based on national wage agreements—
  Mr. Geoffrey Howe: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the two halves of his argument can be closely linked together; that for the police themselves one needs a much more sensitive regional policy so as to attract police to the areas where there is shortage?
  Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and I entirely agree
  466
  with him. I trust that the House will follow the argument I was trying to outline.
  I want to deal with the question of regional policy, because the whole heart of the dilemma in regard to the cost of living has been that whenever we have increased aggregate demand in order to cure unemployment in some areas, prices have risen in other areas, such as London and Birmingham. On the other hand, when we have taken deflationary measures, before we have stopped inflation in London, Birmingham, and so on, we have created unemployment in, say, the North-East and the North-West. It is this regional imbalance that we need to stop.
  I think that a regional incomes policy would do much to help in this situation. It is also true that the Conservative Government were right to introduce investment allowances, which attracted firms to the areas which were typically places of high unemployment; and also to increase investment which was likely to increase productivity and, therefore, ultimately justify increase in real wages throughout the country. I want to make quite clear my view that the system of cash grants which the Government are proposing to introduce is not likely to be anywhere near as beneficial as the measures which we on this side introduced when in office: first, because the impact of the original allowance has been diminished to a considerable extent by the Government's Corporation Tax; and, secondly, because the cash grants will go to all firms regardless of whether they are profitable or not.
  It seems to me that a system where the profitable firm benefited but the unprofitable firm did not was the right approach. We want to encourage the profitable firms—profitable either because they are efficient or because they are meeting the increasing demand of consumers, or both—but we do not want to encourage firms that are either inefficient or are not meeting the demands of consumers.
  It was argued against our tax allowances that they could only with difficulty be calculated by firms. I think that this difficulty has been over-estimated. The new cash grants will go to all firms, whether they were capable of calculating the benefit of the previous allowances

  467
  or not. But we were surely right to encourage firms that had managements sufficiently efficient to calculate the benefit of depreciation allowances. We will not get any stabilisation of prices if we give cash grants to firms which cannot even calculate the advantage of tax allowances or even do not have the good sense to employ an accountant to do it for them.
  These arguments are even more true in regard to development districts. It is there that we want more efficient firms, more profitable firms and well-managed firms. We do not want unprofitable firms that are badly managed.
  The Government propose to hand 40 per cent. cash grants to firms in the development districts, even if they are unprofitable. I may be a little suspicious, but I think that if we give 40 per cent grants to unprofitable firms is may be rather easy, if the Labour Party ever has a larger majority, for the Government to say that these firms have been helped by the Government, they have "failed the nation" and should be nationalised. That view is reinforced by the proposals made in the last few days by the First Secretary in regard to the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
  We cannot hope to maintain price stability unless we can get the most efficient industry possible, and I do not believe that this Corporation will help the country to become more efficient. The argument advanced by the First Secretary was that this body would enable mergers to take place that would not otherwise take place, and help firms that might otherwise have difficulty in getting sufficient capital is unconvincing. If there is any imperfection in the capital market or in management it is not, I think, in the field of obtaining capital for large firms or facilitating mergers.
  Here, again, there is a real danger. It is true that this will not be nationalisation by the back door—this was denied by the First Secretary—
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The side door.
  Mr. Higgins: My hon. Friend says that it is nationalisation by the side door, but I think that it comes a great deal closer to nationalisation by the front door. I do not believe that any move towards
  468
  more nationalisation—a thought that appears to be firmly in the minds of the party opposite—is likely to result in the kind of industrial efficiency and wage structure that will enable the Government to pursue a policy of price stabilisation.
  In short, I believe that we are absolutely right to deplore the Government's performance in this field of price stabilisation so far. We are equally right to be suspicious of their likely performance in the future, because their measures and their whole philosophy afire inflationary and will remain inflationary until such time as they are removed from office.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The last two speeches have taken over an hour between them. I hope that hon. Members who are called will remember their colleagues who are waiting to be called.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall not seek to detain the House at great length, Mr. Speaker.
  This discussion has ranged very widely, and I do not intend to follow all the points raised by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). But there have been one or two disturbing things about the debate and, in particular, the concentration which has been put on the prices and incomes policy from one point of view only. Speech after speech from the other side has referred to the need to be tough with, for example, the railwaymen, but there has not been one speech to say that if the prices and incomes policy is to work it must be based not only on economic efficiency but on elementary human justice.
  The hon. Member was, perhaps, getting on to that point when he said that it was also a human problem, but in referring to this being the crux when dealing with the railwaymen's position in a few weeks' time I do not think that he really saw it as a human problem.
  While I accept that a wages and prices policy is necessary, I do not think that the kind of prices and incomes policy envisaged by hon. Members opposite will produce either the kind of efficiency, investment, and so on, that they anticipate, or the kind of co-operation from the people from whom productivity must come. The Tories, of course, have a

  469
  prices and incomes policy. They had their own prices and incomes policy working very well for a long time, and I shall quote some figures which are very interesting and important, because the policy operating during that period is also a blueprint for the future.
  The kind of society that was emerging in that period, and the imbalance in terms of wealth and the ownership of wealth, is a kind of blueprint in line with their policy statements for the future. The "pacemakers' society" is based on that concept. When we examine the period 1954–62 we find that the top 6 per cent. of incomes amounted to more than the bottom 40 per cent., representing nearly half the people. This was after taxation [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) always gets to the heart of the problem. Therefore, despite all the talk about the use of fiscal measures—taxation, etc.—to produce a more equitable society, it was producing an increasing disparity in wealth.
  Breaking it down even further, the top 3 per cent. had nearly 12 per cent. of the total income. So the Tories had a prices and incomes policy very much in line with the kind of pacemaker policy which is advocated in their current policy statements. We cannot tolerate that, because in the twentieth century mankind is concerned with more than the economically efficient.
  Now a tough line is advocated by hon. Members opposite to the railwaymen's claim. Those Members include intelligent economists such as the hon. Member for Worthing, some of the crude Right wing of the Tory Party, and also isolated liberal elements of the Tory Party such as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). They have all been asking for a tough line towards the railwaymen. But we must have a balance between social justice, on the one hand, and the country's needs, on the other, rather than a show-down line, which is basically what is demanded by some hon. Members.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman has been quoting some figures. The House would be interested to know the source of those, figures.
  Mr. Buchan: The source of these figures, as always, is the Library. They
  470
  are based on the National Income Blue Book, table No. 21. There are also the Retail Prices Index, the Consumer Average Prices Index, and so on. I have some other stuff from the Library. The Library is a most interesting place. Hon. Members opposite should consult it a little more often.
  Mr. Burden: The Library merely provides the information. It does not provide the source.
  Mr. Buchan: It enables me to use the information in the House and to ensure that the public is given the information, because if some of these things were more well known there perhaps would not be this discrepancy in wealth.
  Mr. John Biffen Mr. John Biffen (Oswestry) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the intervention, may I say that I hope that we shall not continue discussing the Library. There is a Motion before the House.
  Mr. Biffen: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to say whether the figures he quoted relating to the distribution of wealth came from an article written by someone else or whether he has a reference to the original source.
  Mr. Buchan: The source is table 21 of the National Income Blue Book, 1962. The table here shows the personal incomes between 1954 and 1962. It appears in an article by an Oxford economist, Mr. John Hughes. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman.
  I was discussing the attitude of hon. Members opposite. Two factors are involved when considering the cost of living. Hon. Members opposite say that it is governed entirely by wages. However, I remind the House of the title "Prices and Incomes Board". In my innocence I have always thought that the cost of living is somehow related to prices, but hon. Members opposite assert that prices do not enter into it and that only wages are involved. One of the contenders for the leadership of the Conservative Party—I never remember constituencies; this is one of my problems—I will refer to him as the shadow Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling).
  Mr. Buchan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
  The right hon. Gentleman has said that:
  "The failure of the Government's prices and incomes policy lies in their actions and inactions whereby prices have been held down while costs continue to rise."
  Therefore, apparently prices is the answer; prices are allowed to rise and then by some magic costs can be brought down. I cannot follow that one. If prices are allowed to rise automatically, apparently the cost of living will come down. No doubt we shall hear the answer later.
  Hon. Members have asked for toughness. Will hon. Members co-operate in securing toughness about price control? This is where some toughness is needed. It can be done. The hon. Member for Chelmsford, when he was challenged about which dividends he would refer to the Prices and Incomes Board, said that he could not say. He was then asked which prices he would refer to the Board. We were then told that care must be exercised; a whole deluge of prices could not be unloaded on the Board, we are told, because it could not cope with them.
  But this is done in other countries. The system exists. It happens elsewhere, so it can be done here. For example, Denmark has a Monopolies Control Authority, a system under which there is an obligation to obtain advance approval of prices of many types, including the prices of wholesale materials, such as building materials. In France, there is in existence a very rigid price freeze system which they have been freeing bit by bit as the free economy has developed since 1956. However, in fact the system still exists of a very competent and not too complicated price freeze system.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: Denmark had the highest rise in the cost of living of all European countries in 1964–65.
  Mr. Buchan: Of course. This is not the point we are making. The question is whether such a system can be introduced.
  France, too, had a very heavy rise in the cost of living, but it nevertheless
  472
  has a competent system which operated until it began freeing itself from the system as it existed up to 1956 by making exceptions from the system. It is not the practical application that we are discussing but its practicality and feasibility. The system is in operation. I shall not argue that the French example of a free economy should operate here. We are trying to prove the feasibility and the possibility. In Norway, almost half the commodities that are brought into the price index are brought under one form or another of price control, either profit control or some other control. Therefore, prices can be controlled.
  Hon. Members opposite demand toughness towards the railwaymen. I have seen this attitude adopted in my profession over the last week or so in relation to Scottish schoolteachers. It should be remembered that this can operate both ways. It is time that some teeth were put into the Prices and Incomes Board by applying it also to prices, not merely to wages.
  I promised to be brief. I have been brief. I exhort hon. Members opposite, who tell us that exhortation is no substitute for fiscal policy, to join those of us who advocate the operation of fiscal measures by a real price control system. Then they will be happy. I shall be happy. No doubt the Government Front Bench spokesman who will reply tonight will also be happy if we control the economy in this way, remembering that social justice can depend upon price control and remembering that wage demands referred to the Prices and Incomes Board should also be settled within the criterion of justice as well as raw economic efficiency.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I do not in any way wish to impugn or criticise the sources which the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has just relied upon, but it has seemed at times, listening to the debate, as if some hon. Members opposite rely upon academical and statistical sources rather than what, in fact, can be easily found out by anyone who cares to move out of Westminster and go into some of the constituencies which surround London.
  This is where the truth can be found of the problems created by the rise in

  473
  the cost of living. Let there be no mistake about it. I am sure that no one in the House will think I exaggerate when I say that the feeling about the rise in prices has produced some of the most bitter frustration which has been felt by people in this country for years.
  Let no one mistake the way in which the electorate can remember promises made at a previous election. One of the firmest and clearest of promises made by the Socialist Party in its election manifesto in October, 1964, was a promise to check the rise in prices and to attack the problem at its roots. This, presumably, was one of those instant policies which the First Secretary of State promised would surprise us by Christmas—referring not to last Christmas, but to the Christmas before. What has surprised us is not the rise in prices under the Socialist Government, for this was to be expected, but the rapidity of the rise.
  The only statistic which I shall impose upon the patience of the House is this. I agreed with the Parliamentary Secretary when he said earlier today that the problem of rising prices is one which must be tackled by any Government and it had given all Governments trouble. But when we were in power, for 13 years, the average annual rise in prices was a little more than 3 per cent. When the Socialist Party was in power last, between 1945 and 1951, the rise was more than 6 per cent.
  It is no good hon. Members opposite saying that this is a problem which we all have and, as one hon. Member put it today, there is no dramatic or quick solution to it. If they knew that, as they must have done, how on earth did they come to give an undertaking to the electorate in October, 1964, that they had in their possession some magic formula which would solve a problem which they now admit is very nearly insoluble?
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: Deliberately misleading.
  Mr. Gardner: It is misleading. Since this Government came into power, prices have risen fast, furiously and mercilessly, like a beanstalk, only this time none of us, including Jack himself, will be all right in the end. Moreover, this dramatic
  474
  rise in prices has been accompanied by a dramatic pageant of events which never happened. One seriously wonders whether the promise to solve this problem of rising prices is another of these "nonevents", like the visit of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance to Hanoi, which never happened, like the Commonwealth peace mission which did not take place, or like the recent visit to Salisbury by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, which never happened.
  Is their promise somehow to solve the rise in prices another non-event like the investment by trade unions in Fairfield's or the promise that the power supply problem would somehow be solved by the Winter Emergency Committee?
  Mr. Burden: Or 3 per cent. mortgages.
  Mr. Gardner: Or 3 per cent. mortgages and many other things of that kind.
  The people are being treated as though they were an audience promised a wonderful show. The footlights go on. The orchestra begins to play. The compère comes on the stage, smoking his pipe. Although he may not look like everyone's favourite uncle, he manages somehow to give the impression that he will not really do a great deal of harm, and this impression is strengthened by our noticing that his left hand is, apparently, tied behind his back. Within a moment of promising a superb performance, he has to tell the audience that, owing to circumstances which are entirely the fault of the previous management, the show cannot go on, but, so that none of us will be disappointed, he has arranged an even better show which will take place tomorrow, or next year, or in a decade.
  The curtain never rises. But we know what lies behind. If ever it did rise, we should see what has so far been hidden from our eyes, an empty stage, without scenery, without merit, without hope. Of course, the Government will prevent our being embarrassed by the embarrassing spectacle of a naked non-event.
  Statistics are only a dull reflection of the realities and serious consequences created by the rising cost of living. I prefer to relate the problem to what anyone can find out by travelling in the Home Counties and talking to people there. I speak of the Home Counties

  475
  because my own constituency is in the Home Counties.
  I do not for a moment pretend that I could address the House with interest or with authority on statistics. Whether I can ever address it with interest is, perhaps, debatable, but I say with no immodesty that I can tell the House with authority—I think it relevant that these things should be said because some hon. Members on the Government Front Bench do not know—what the people who live within 30 miles of this City are feeling and saying today about the problem of the unchecked rise of prices.
  I do not wish to make a constituency speech. That would, obviously, be offensive, and I am not doing so, but I think it right and justifiable to relate what I have heard to a particular part so as to give it proper importance in its context and also to put to the House what is being said in the place I happen to know well. Incidentally—I do not boast about it—there are more people living in my constituency than in any other constituency in the country. Obviously, it is a very good place to live in.
  What is being felt and said in my constituency is being felt and said by millions of people in the constituencies around London. Young and old alike have one serious constant complaint, and that is about the cost of living. We all know this. In housing, they now find—they did not find it a year ago or two years ago—that prices are moving out of sight of their means. Mortgage interest rates have reached the record high level of 6¾ per cent., but only the day before yesterday I had two young people complaining to me that they were being asked to pay more than 7 per cent. on a mortgage. The prices of food, electricity, coal and essential services have all rocketed up.
  Many of these people commute to London every day and when they have paid for the increased cost of living in the constituency they have to find extra money for increased fares on trains, buses and tubes. In addition, this is just about the time when they are faced with the biggest demand for taxation on their personal incomes—bigger than they have ever had before.
  476
  Among the old people living on pensions, the continuing topic of conversation is round the question, "What are we to do?" They say that, on the one hand, they have been given an increase in pensions by the Government, but that during the whole year afterwards it has dwindled in value. What of those on fixed incomes whose capital is monthly going down in value? Many of them find that the money they once thought would carry them through will not do so after all.
  What about those who have no pensions—people who are now in their eighties—many of whom have no means and who are too proud to ask for National Assistance? Could not the Government begin to think about helping these people? They have not many years left. Could not something be done for them? The Government contains people who have boasted that they have more or less an exclusive concern for people of this kind, so surely something can be done. Is it not shameful that there is a complete and apparent neglect by the Government to do anything to assist these people.
  The country, instead of getting a solution to the rise in prices, is being fed on a daily diet of headlines. The Prime Minister and the Government know, and the country is beginning to learn, that the daily manufacture of headlines is no substitute for sound Government. When the Prime Minister decides—I hope that it will be soon—to go to the country [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and after tonight's result it might be sooner than some hon. Members opposite would wish—I hope that the voters will bear in mind the words of Prospero:
  "Our revels now are ended; these our actors,
  As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
  Are melted into air, into thin air."
  I hope that the country will never again follow this fantasy of unfulfilled promises to appear.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Bence: I have listened to many debates on prices and incomes over the last 15 years. The dramatic interlude to which we have just listened was a wonderful performance by the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) and I congratulate him. He must have done

  477
  a course at drama school rather than at a school of economics. He obviously had good training. I enjoyed his language. I thought that his gross exaggerations were good for the hustings and typical of the 19th century. But I do not think they could be compared in any way with the meritorious contribution of the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
  From time to time, when I read the economic history of our country in the 18th and 19th centuries, I am always amused by the revelation that in those years in which there was widespread poverty and suffering prices were falling, according to the economists. The prices of grain and leather and all sorts of things fell, but the Liberals went on with free trade and an unregulated market and we had tragedy. Then in came the progressive Tories calling for a regulated market and we got a period when prices rose. The history of such an era was of prosperity because prices were rising. Then we came to the terrible slump in the early part of the 20th century when people finally got fed up with the unregulated market. Indeed, not even the Liberals now believe in an unregulated market.
  Mr. Biffen: If the hon. Gentleman heard his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) he will remember that there has been some interest in sources. Could he now help us by quoting the source of this economic history he is relating?
  Mr. Bence: The source of the history of the years of prosperity under the Tories in the 19th century comes from the Tory Party and the reports of the years of prosperity under the Liberals come from the Liberal Party.
  The Conservative Party took office in 1951 having convinced the people that, after six years of Socialism, the Conservatives would mend the hole in the purse. There were posters all over the country showing a purse with money running through it. Thirteen years later, a period during which there was an incomes policy from 1960 onwards, we found that the average increase per annum in the cost of living was between 3 and 4 per cent. I well remember that, at one time, there was the unfortunate phenomenon of the price of potatoes beginning to fall, for example. The price of barley also
  478
  began to fall at one time, as did even meat prices. I recall the awful row because tomato prices were going down. There was a demand for quotas to be put on imports to prevent prices falling. Indeed, whenever there was a tendency for temperate zone foodstuffs to fall in price there was lobbying for higher tariffs. The hon. Member for Devon, North—
  Mr. Peter Mills: I am not the hon. Member for Devon, North, but for Torrington.
  Mr. Bence: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon.
  I met some farmers recently and they were protesting most strongly that both this Government and the last had expected them to produce more and more for the same income. If they increase their productivity they want an increased income. I am sure that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) would support them in their claim that their income should be raised to match increased productivity, but the hon. Member for Worthing must be careful because he will have all around him hon. Friends supporting the N.F.U., which is demanding a proportionate increase in incomes.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: That is exactly what the trade unions are asking—that they should have a share of any increased productivity in wages.
  Mr. Bence: I am glad that you have saved me the trouble of saying so.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would never save any hon. Member.
  Mr. Bence: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I should have said that the right hon. Lady has made the point.
  The hon. Member for Worthing was criticising the trade unions for asking for increased wages based on increased productivity. But that is what the farmers intend to do. I do not argue the merits one way or the other, but the hon. Member for Worthing, and those who said "Hear, hear" when he made that point, will have to support the Minister of Agriculture when he tells the farmers that they have to increase their productivity without necessarily proportionately increasing their incomes.
  Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman has not quite correctly paraphrased what I said. I was simply arguing that productivity alone was not sufficient.
  Mr. Bence: That does not get away from what I was saying. For 13 years there has been an effort to regulate the market and at least to bring some stability into prices of commodities and services without intensive deflation. It is a delusion to believe that it is possible to move from the old system of the free market and fiscal policy and intensive deflation to relieve pressure on the market to the modern system in a very short time. The old system operated before Keynes and operated in 1922, when there was the great deflation in currency, a reduction in the quantity of money leading to a reduction in pressure on the market and thence to the terrible slump with falling prices and mass unemployment, poverty in the midst of plenty.
  Governments have learned from those years that the old technique of stabilising prices cannot be applied again and that no modern society can stabilise price levels through the operation of the market.
  Mr. Burden: That is what the hon. Gentleman's party promised at the last election.
  Mr. Bence: One cannot with certainty stabilise price levels over a period. What one can do and what we have said would be one of our first priorities of economic action is to try to achieve that very objective, but I have never believed that any Government could achieve it in 18 months, or even in four or five years. This is a great change from the old concept of the free market. What we can do is to achieve reasonable stability in price levels if all of us, in whatever job we do, in the factories and the workshops and on the farms, or in whatever services we give, increase our output and so put more and more goods on the market. Some items will rise and some fall, but at least it would be worth giving a long trial to the techniques employed by the previous Government and the present Government so as to get reasonably stable prices without resorting to the old fiscal policies of devaluation and revaluation.
  Mr. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman is correct, he must agree that the Gov-
  480
  ernment must not increase taxes. On 11th March last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that to increase taxes automatically increased prices.
  Mr. Bence: We spend £2,000 million a year on defence, an enormous figure. The hon. Gentleman says that to reduce prices we should reduce taxation and leave more purchasing power in the hands of those who go to the market place. But if taxes are to be lowered, some expenditure must be cut. I am in favour of cutting a great deal of expenditure, but we have to decide where it is to be cut. If national expenditure is reduced by £100 million a year and taxation is reduced by £100 million a year, the same amount of money is in circulation so that there is the same pressure on the consumer market.
  If our export drive is successful and productivity increases and more and more goods are sold not in our own markets, but in foreign countries, purchasing power in this country will increase and the prices of the goods to match that purchasing power will tend to rise. These are the problems and are among the phenomena of our modern age. These are the problems we have to solve, whichever party is in power, and they will not be solved within the next decade.
  While these problems are in course of solution, prices will tend to rise. I only hope that the rise will not be too rapid. We never promised that we would bring prices down or stop them from rising. We promised that we would do everything we could to keep them down. The increase over the last 15 months has been about 5·3 per cent., which is only about 1 per cent. more than it was in the preceding 15 months under the last Government.
  Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman's party has hardly started yet.
  Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman should not make prognostications. That is always a dangerous thing to do. If I were to read some of the literature published by the Conservative Central Office between 1950 and 1959, there would be a long story of broken promises. I remember that Sir Winston Churchill said that he would never preside over the dismemberment of the British Empire—a famous phrase—and the Tory Party

  481
  wants to forget what it used to say about the hole in the purse.
  Hon. Members opposite are concerned that the prices of the products which their businesses produce should be kept up so that they can get good dividends, but they want prices of the raw materials which they buy to fall or remain stable. That is human nature and I do not complain of it, but they should not complain about Governments which have to try to harness these divergent interests and resources and to regulate the market, as everyone wants. I think that only the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) wants a free market, but the farmers do not want it and the big manufacturers do not want it.
  If we are to have a regulated market, there have to be disciplines, from the office boys to the chairmen of directors. There have to be disciplines right through the economy so that we can get that stabilisation which I believe is essential. For many years we have been living beyond our income. There have been concessions for years to anyone and everyone. The time has come when the Government have to be strong, right through the economy. We have to earn our living and we have not been doing so.
  During the last year of the last Administration we ran up an adverse balance of payments of nearly £800 million. We cannot do that again. We all know that. In Europe and in various other parts of the world people knew what was happening. We must remember that the party in power was spending those 10 months not in governing the country, but in electioneering. The Leader of the Opposition said so at the time. He said that his party must be concerned in the next 12 months with electioneering, with winning the confidence of the people. While this was happening, the country was "going to pot", and we built up this huge debt of £800 million.
  Let us make no mistake about it, everyone has to pay for that little stunt. The people have to pay and they are paying for it. We are all paying for it. In my view this Government have been very steadfast, direct and forthright and very successful in restoring confidence among people all over the world, in assuring them that we are determined, within this new world concept, to regulate markets,
  482
  to get some stabilisation in our price factor, to get some stabilisation in our incomes and to try to stop the spiral of wage demands and price rises, although very often the price rise comes before the income demand.
  My right hon. Friend has made a declaration of faith and hope that we can achieve in a longer term this policy of prices and incomes stabilisation. If this does not succeed, either under this Government or some other Government we will have to go back to the sordid efforts of the Liberals in the 19th century and use fiscal policy to drive people down into the sort of despondencies that we had in the 19th century.
  7.22 p.m.
  Lieut.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Maydon: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) went back a long way in history. Like good old soldiers and good old trade unionists he is very fond of fighting today's battles in the terms of last year's campaigns or, as he did, in the terms of the last century's campaigns. I would agree with only one thing which he said towards the end of his speech, when he wished that the Government would be tough. We have had a lot of talk about prices and incomes and the Prices and Incomes Board. It is time that someone paid a tribute to that body which is doing a very difficult job with consummate skill. I wish that the Government were doing their side of the job with equal skill.
  People talk about being tough with the railwaymen, being tough with this claim and that claim. I want to see a Government who have the courage to say, "A plague on all your houses, we are going to be tough with the lot of you." Then we shall start getting somewhere. We need a Government who have the courage to say that it is not a question of a claim but one of no money at all. We shall not get the country out of the mess that it is in today nor begin to see any results until that is done.
  When historians come to write the history of this political generation they will note five inevitable consequences of each Labour Government in the United Kingdom. First of all, an international crisis in confidence; secondly, increased taxation; thirdly, and following closely on the heels of this, inflation, and the increased

  483
  cost of living which follows that, and lastly the reduction in voluntary saving. All of these things are very bad for the economy. The honest stalwarts of the Labour Party in the past admitted this quite openly. I refer to people like John Strachey and Stafford Cripps. They knew that these were inevitable consequences of Labour policies. Within a month of taking office the Prime Minister referred in this House to a new crisis of confidence which had aggravated our economic position and caused the Government to raise the Bank Rate in order to protect sterling. In a year taxes, postage costs, insurance contributions have risen by about £1,000 million.
  Now we are all expecting more to come in April. We have a wages-prices spiral and instead of the much-advertised norm of 3½ per cent. we are certainly getting 8 per cent. and some estimates talk of 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. There is every sign of further lack of restraint, and there is also every sign that this much talked of prices dam is going to crack and burst at any moment. Whichever way one likes to look at the Labour Party record this is true. I do not take this present Government's record alone. Let us go back to the end of the last war. In the last five years of the previous Labour Administration the Retail Prices Index rose 38 points, an average of 7·6 points each year. That rise of 38 points was precisely the same as the rise in the first 11 years of the Conservative Government which followed.
  The annual rise under the Conservative Government in those 11 years was 3·5 points per annum, less than half the previous rate of rise. If one takes the whole 13 years of Conservative Administration the cost of living went up by 50 points, which was 3·8 points per annum overall, precisely half the rate of rise of the previous Administration. Now, in these first 13 months of Labour Government we have a rise of 5·7 points, a 4·8 per cent. rise in the cost of living in the first 13 months, and this after all of those promises which Labour made at the time of the last election.
  Savings are the other side of the coin because if costs and prices go up people have not got so much to save and they cannot invest in National Savings. When one examines National Savings during
  484
  our Government's Administration they were more than £200 million a year on average. In the first year of the Labour Administration National Savings have gone down by £26 million. This is bound to happen. These are the things which both Stafford Cripps and John Strachey, and other courageous men who believed in the party opposite, put their fingers on. They knew about it, they wrote about it, they spoke about it. In the words of the 1964 Labour Party election manifesto:
  "Labour is ready. Poised to swing its plans into instant operation. Impatient to apply the 'new thinking' that will end the chaos and sterility."
  I ask hon. Members opposite: what have we got today? Industrial production is stagnant. We are told one thing today and something different the next, as is illustrated by one of the motor manufacturers in his telegram to the Prime Minister about the gas shortage in the Midlands. The position is chaotic. All that I can say is that if the Labour Party was ready, it took a mighty long time to swing these wonderful plans into instant operation, despite what the Prime Minister said at Glasgow on 2nd October, 1964, just before the last election about his dynamic, exciting, challenging plans.
  How the Prime Minister likes that word "dynamic". It is rapidly becoming a very over-worked cliché. I prophesy that by the end of this century the writers of the new Oxford Dictionary and the new Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage will insert a little note on "dynamic". They will say something like this: "A modern colloquial meaning; something which does not go off; a damp squib; origin: the Labour Party's manifesto of the 1960s".
  It is easy to bandy statistical figures across the House. We have had plenty of them today. But let us consider the matter in human terms and think of what happens to an ordinary family. The national expenditure survey figures for last year showed that in 1964 the weekly expenditure on goods and services for a man, wife and child with a gross income in the £25 to £30 a week bracket was £22 8s. If we apply to that the current rise in the cost of living, that man and his family in 1965 would have been, and probably is today, spending £23 9s. 6d. a week, a rise of £1 1s. 6d.
  Mr. Marsh: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House, but when he refers to the increase in the cost of living which has occurred in the previous year for this family, does not he think that he should take into account increases in wages and salaries?
  Lieut.-Commander Maydon: But the complaint is that wages and salaries are not keeping up with the cost of living. Naturally one could compare wages and salaries. We do not know what work this man was doing or whether his wife had a job. The gross income of that family was in the £25 to £30 a week bracket. If those figures are projected to the present time, that family is £1 Is. 6d. worse off than it was in 1964. Something must burst. Either the family's budget bursts or the Labour Government bursts. After we have seen what happens in Hull, North tonight, we shall know which will burst first.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: As the most recent Member of this honourable House, I have been reading the newspapers over the last week with great interest and expecting to come to this debate today and hear a vigorous new attack on the Government by the party opposite. What have we had?—a dismal, turbid, ridiculous, "phoney" attack supported by about six or seven Members who are now on the benches opposite. This is the much heralded Tory attack on the Government. I only wish that the electors of Hull, North could have been here to see what is taking place.
  Like the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Wells (Lt.-Commander Maydon), I wish to deal with a few statistics. I agree with him entirely that it is very easy to bandy statistics about, but this is what is being done, here and in the country. From October, 1963, to December, 1964, the cost of living increased by 5·5 per cent. Taking a comparable period, from October, 1964, to December, 1965, the cost of living increased by 5·7 per cent. Hon. Members opposite can, therefore, say with glee that the cost of living has risen by ·2 per cent. Take another set of figures. From December, 1963, to December, 1964, the cost of living went up by 4·8 per cent. From December, 1964, to
  486
  December, 1965, a comparable period, the cost of living went up by 4·5 per cent., a decrease of 0·3 per cent. We on this side of the House can put these figures forward with equal glee.
  I want to quote another set of figures to show how stupid and futile it is to use percentage increases in the cost of living in political argument. From November, 1963, to November, 1964, the cost of living increased by 4·8 per cent. From November, 1964, to November, 1965, the percentage increase in the cost of living was exactly the same, 4·8 per cent. Therefore, we get nowhere by making these ridiculous comparisons. If there is very much difference in the figures for a comparable period of 12 months between the two Administrations it is so small as not to he worthy of discussion.
  What we have to consider are the serious implications of what has taken place under the administration of the Conservative Party and what is taking place under the administration of the Labour Party. I think that it was the hon. and learned Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) who said that we should consider this matter from the point of view of how it affects ordinary people. Indeed we should. Let us see how the cost of living of pensioners, widowed mothers and the 10s. widow has been affected by the activities of this Government. It has been affected very favourably. The 10s. widow has had an increase in her pension to 30s. Let right hon. and hon. Members opposite go out and tell these fundamental truths to the people. Of course they will not. They would rather follow the lead of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), with his famous statistics on television.
  Let us take pensions generally. Does anybody say that the old age pensioners have not had tremendous assistance to deal with the cost of living when they have received the second biggest increase they have had since the war? Let me remind the House that the biggest increase was made by the first Labour Government after the war. What about the forthcoming rate relief which will have a fundamental effect on the cost of living of old people when the rate relief Bill is in operation, providing that the party opposite allow us to get it

  487
  through in time for this year's rates? I will return to this matter because I come from a London borough and I want to say something about the effect of the Tory Government's Greater London Act.
  I wish to say a few words about the cost of living as it applies in real human terms to a man I met in my constituency during my by-election campaign in November last year. He worked on the railway. He had been paying 16s. a week in prescription charges. If anyone doubts that, he should see this man. His cost of living has been fundamentally reduced by the Government's activities, because he does not have to pay that 16s. now. He said to me, "I have not taken my family on holiday for years". He will be taking them on holiday this year because his cost of living as a family man has been reduced by 16s. through the abolition by the Labour Government of prescription charges.
  I want to say a few brief words about rates particularly as they apply to the new Greater London Council area. The Conservative Party forced the London Government Act through the House against the advice of the then Opposition and of almost all the local authorities in the London area. It forced it through without providing any basis on which local authorities could evaluate the impact of that Act on rates in the London area.
  Let me tell the House what the effect has been in the London Borough of Bexley, to which I belong. It has meant a substantial increase in salaries alone because, in common with all the other authorities in Greater London, we have found ourselves forced, in the market for local government officers, to increase substantially salaries for doing precisely the same work. There was not a single thing that a local authority could do to avoid this.
  My own former authority, the Erith Borough Council, pleaded in representation to the former Minister to postpone the implementation of the Act so that we could stabilise the cost of living in the London area by an evaluation of the impact of the Act and by a serious attempt to introduce sensible arrangements between the boroughs affected in amalgamation to avoid this great cost. Obviously, there will be an increase in the cost of
  488
  living of Londoners this year when the rates are declared, again as a direct result of the situation created by the London Government Act in the great Metropolitan area.
  Here is another instance of what has happened in my constituency concerning the cost of living and what the Government have done about it. Some constituents of mine, a young couple with one child, were living in two rooms, paying £4 10s. a week rent and having to share a toilet with six other families two flights below their two rooms. Their cost of living has been substantially reduced by the activities of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the introduction of the Rent Act. On my advice, those constituents have gone to the rent assessment officer and I have every reason to believe that shortly they will have a substantial reduction in their cost of living. These are the things that matter.
  Hon Members opposite can look at their "phoney" figures, but there is not much to choose. They can point to an odd ·01 per cent. perhaps. When it comes down to real terms of the impact on the cost of living of ordinary people of the things that this Administration have done in terms of pensions, the Rent Act, the Bill to give rating relief and in terms of bringing about the country's recovery quickly, there is no comparison between the record of those 13 dismal, stagnant years without the courage to do any of the things for which the party opposite now clamour and the record of the last 15 months.
  The record of the Government is one of which we can all be proud. It is a record of the recovery of the nation's economy, of the recovery of the nation in its social consciousness and of recovery in real terms in the cost of living. We repudiate the "phoney" figures put out by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place. He was here when I first came into the Chamber. We all know that he is an imaginative, versatile political sportsman. Most hon. Members will probably recall when he played away from home and lost. He got thrown out, I believe, and became an idle spectator standing on the touchline. I am sure we are all delighted to see that

  489
  by some touch of magic he is back in the circle.
  I hope that the House will reject this "phoney" Motion by the Opposition and support the great endeavours of the present Administration to do something real towards reducing the cost of living.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mackie—Mr. Barber.
  Mr. Barber: I do not wish to prolong the speech of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), but I wonder whether he would say in what particulars he objects to the figures given by my right hon. Friend in his broadcast.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: One can give all sorts of figures. One can use figures, as I have done, by quoting three sets taken from three comparable periods in time. The figures given by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West in his party political broadcast—I do not recall whether he gave his sources of information; I assume that they were from the Tory Central Office—bear no relation to the figures quoted on page 133 of the current statistics.
  Mr. Marsh: Would not one justifiable complaint about the figures to which my hon. Friend has referred have been that although the right hon. Gentleman mentioned 250 items which had increased in price, he omitted to mention 600 which had gone down, which were advertised by a major grocery chain immediately before and immediately after the television broadcast of which my hon. Friend complains?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Quite so. I now resume my seat.
  Mr. Speaker: That shows the danger of allowing anyone to intervene in a speech which has already finished.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: I will endeavour to be brief, knowing that many hon. Members wish to speak from the Government side and also because I am hungry. I have listened to the debate with a certain amount of interest. With respect to the two Front Benches, I thought that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy) and
  490
  the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) were the only two who said anything worth while. That position will probably obtain after I have finished my speech.
  Nevertheless, I should like to say one or two things which appear to me to be relevant to the situation. One is that we have the continual argument between the Front Benches, of which I am getting very tired, of saying, "You said this." "Who?" "You said that." "Who?" "My bastard is a smaller one than yours and, anyhow, sucks to you." This does not seem to me to be logical political argument.
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley made a great appeal to the Liberals and seldom have I been moved with such vigour and at such length. He asked why we were voting against the Government on this occasion. The answer is that it is a debate on the cost of living, and the cost of living has risen considerably. During the past 13 months it has gone up by over 5 per cent., whereas even the Tories in the previous 13 months put it up by only 4.8 per cent. Nevertheless, it has still gone up. It is a problem that the Government have been unable to tackle.
  I do not deny that the Rent Act, to which the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) referred, will help some people's cost of living—of course it will. We have, however, to deal with the cost of living of the majority of people, and the cost of living has gone up. This has gone on since the war. The first post-war Labour Government dropped the value of the £ to 14s. in their period of office. The Tories dropped it to 13s. in a rather longer time, but with many favourable factors in their favour.
  Mr. William Baxter: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Mackie: No. I am about to give the hon. Member the favourable factors which he was just about to mention.
  The Tories had an advantage in the fall of commodity prices after the Korean war which, if the Labour Government had the courage to hang on, they would have got, too. Under the present Government, the £ has fallen about Is. in value. This goes on and on. If it was

  491
  accompanied by a large rise in production, one could tolerate a fall in the value of money, but this is not happening. We are well behind other countries in the productivity rise. In total terms, we are falling behind several European countries. France, Denmark, West Germany, Sweden and others have surpassed us in total income per head of the population.
  There are many factors in the rise of the cost of living, but the biggest is our failure to produce competitively. There are many examples of this. One of the industries which cannot be blamed is agriculture. The farmers have been under heavy squeeze, and because they want to protect their standards of living they have been forced to take measures about productivity. We all know the figures. The farmers have put up their productivity by 6 per cent. in each of the last four years. They have done this because they have got to, and because farmers, like me, anyhow, like a high standard of living. Therefore, we follow advice and we do it to keep up our standard of living. We do not do it because the Government exhort us.
  Farming has now got to the stage when we must have higher returns, because what we will get now in farming is a fall in production to keep up the standard of living of the farmer. The only way that he can do this is by producing less and saving costs. In the nation as a whole, however, there is little doubt that exhortation will not do this.
  When some hon. Members opposite talk of not applying the old disciplines and how terrible they were, I cannot understand their argument. It does not mean that because market discipline has been bad in the past we must not use it in the new controlled environment. That is nonsense. It is like saying that because some people eat too much we should not feed anyone. Of course, we should use the market, and use it to advantage, as we can see around us in many examples in other countries.
  The price of bread has gone up. We still have a 10 per cent. tariff on imported flour. We have tremendous monopolies including the C.W.S. Three big firms control practically the whole of our flour production. In addition, they buy up the
  492
  bakeries and call it vertical integration. In fact, they are monopolies.
  In 1964–65, the rise in the cost of living in the United States was one of the best at only 2 per cent. The United States has heavy anti-monopolistic legislation and legislation with teeth. In this country, we have a curious body without teeth and without any ability to force competition. I have a long string of figures. It is interesting that the United States is at the top of the list with the smallest rise in the cost of living, Denmark has the highest and the United Kingdom is comfortably esconced low down in the table at 5 per cent., as against 2 per cent. for the United States and 8 per cent. for Denmark.
  There is little doubt that exhortation on the part of the Department of Economic Affairs will not make people more efficient. I do not think that to give away gifts to manufacturers who lose money, who are inefficient or who make too much money because of a monopoly situation, will improve productivity. Just because the productivity of countries with a high investment rate is good does not mean that if we artificially create a high investment rate, our manufacturers will become efficient and we shall "go to town". Of course not.
  We have to use the weapon of competition, the stick as well as the carrot. The Government are maintaining a 10 per cent. extra tariff on manufactured imports. I know all the circumstances about the balance of payments and the need to correct it, but in what the Government are doing there appears to be no realisation that they are keeping up prices and making our manufacturers more and more inefficient. It is a simple fact that high investment rates will not do it alone.
  One has only to look at Fairfield's, which invested up to the hilt. I am told that it is the most modern yard on the Clyde, but its management was bad and, therefore, it went to the wall. Now we are getting new management. The only really healthy thing about the Fairfield experiment is that new, good management may produce a new look in the labour relations and general efficiency of the yard, which might help the rest of the industry.

  493
  I could go on in this vein for some time, but I content myself with saying that it is a simple old truth that without competition in a mixed economy, we are unlikely to get the sort of efficiency which can make us compete in the world and keep prices down to a reasonable level. Until the Government learn this, all the exhortation will get them nowhere. I hope to goodness that they do not adopt the at least honest policies of Left-wing Members like the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), who wants everybody to be ordered to keep prices down and to keep their wages down. I hope that we never come to this. It is, however, more honest than the present attitude of the Government in thinking that exhortation without competition can work in a mixed economy.
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I hope to make a few remarks about the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) in a few moments. I know that he is very hungry; we have seen him wilting before us. It is almost like cruelty to ask him to stay a bit longer, but there are a few comments I wish to make on his speech. I therefore hope that he will be able to restrain I himself a little longer.
  I had not intended to try to participate in this debate. Therefore, I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), because I did not hear the whole of his speech, and also to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, because I did not hear the whole of his speech. I think it discourteous not to listen to speeches of Members on the Front Benches, but on this occasion, for various reasons, it was not possible. I apologise on that account, but the speeches I have heard incline me to think that I have not missed much in those I did not hear.
  I do not wish to be insulting, but I consider that this is the worst debate that I have heard in the House of Commons. The responsibility for that rests not with my hon. Friends, but squarely with the Front Bench opposite. For weeks past, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said, we have had forecast in the newspapers that a great campaign would be launched against the Government and that thunder-
  494
  bolts would be let loose against them. We were told that this would happen when Parliament reassembled at the beginning of this week. The Opposition had it planned all very carefully and have worked out with extreme care which speakers they would deploy and which arguments would be presented. Today was to be the main day when the new, dynamic Opposition—to use a phrase which they seem annoyed with us for using—were to go into operation.
  There may be a few Conservative newspapers which tomorrow will say that it happened, but no one who had the misfortune to be here would say that. Strangers in the Gallery come voluntarily, but we have to be here. No one who has listened to what has occurred could doubt that this has been probably the feeblest attack on a Government which has ever been delivered in the whole long 600 or 700 years of the history of Parliament. This is the best the Opposition can do even when the cost of living has gone up 5 per cent. Some of us should perhaps help them. We might have a try a little later. It has been a shocking exhibition. I hope that no newspapers will prophesy great attacks in future from this Opposition until we actually receive them. Even then, I hope that they will carefully consider whether there has been any attack.
  It is possible that the figures in the National Opinion Poll this morning may have knocked the stuffing out of hon. Members opposite, but they have many years ahead of them if they get it knocked out of them as quickly as that. If this is the sort of opposition we get at the beginning of 13 years, what will it be like at the end? I hope that there will be a thorough examination of Her Majesty's Opposition after this debate. Up to this moment at least there has been absolutely—[Interruption.] I am not surprised at the withdrawal of the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale. I did not have the good fortune to hear his speech, but from all the reports of it I am not surprised that he has now left the Chamber.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) must realise that all he has done so far is to admit that the rise in cost of living under this

  495
  Government has been more than 5 per cent. He has admitted that. It was only 4 per cent. under the last Government.
  Mr. Foot: I am going through all the arguments. First, I will deal with the Liberal Party. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) maybe has plenty of time, as he may have had his meal, but the hon. Member who represents the Liberal Party wants to be released. He has a great panacea. The Liberal Party has a solution for the complicated problem of how to get a stable price level in a modern industrial society—a problem which so far has baffled every modern industrial community.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: Including the United States for the past six years?
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Member must live in a very strange world if he thinks that the United States has not been extremely concerned since 1945 with the problem of how to stop inflation. They have not succeeded even though they have many advantages over us. They have the advantage that they did not have to spend their wealth, or a great part of it, in the Second World War and to build up their export trade. They had the advantage of not having, as this country has had, a perpetual problem of balance of payments around its neck. Even so, they have had persistently great problems of inflation. The intervention of the hon. Member has only fortified my argument because, even in the United States with all their advantages, they have still had to face this problem. He spoke as if it hardly existed.
  Mr. Duffy: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) omitted to mention something else which the United States have and we in this country do not have—unemployment in the region of 4 per cent.?
  Mr. Foot: We have collective oratory, but we do not need it on this side of the House. Nevertheless. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his assistance.
  The representative of the Liberal Party talks as if competition is the sole remedy for dealing with these problems. This is the great method by which we are to overcome these problems. He does not
  496
  talk quite so confidently on that aspect of the matter when he is speaking in his capacity as a farmer. When speaking as a Liberal he is in favour of the purest milk of competition. As a farmer he gives some indication of it, but I am not sure that he is in favour of the full blast of competition. If so, my respect for him as a farmer diminishes; and my respect for him as a farmer is much more than my respect for him as a politician.
  We have had some historical lessons here. If he looks at history he will see what happened to agriculture in this country throughout the 19th century, when for most of the period his party was in charge. The agriculture of this country suffered almost persistent decline. It was only in periods of wartime that agriculture was rescued.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie Mr. George Y. Mackie rose—
  Mr. Foot: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment. I am glad that I am overcoming his hunger.
  Right from the time the Liberal Party succeeded in abolishing the Corn Laws there was a serious decline in the status and position of British agriculture and in the standards of the people who work—not the farmers who were landlords—on the land. It was only the intervention of the State or the community in wartime which altered that situation. The first Government which attempted in peacetime to stop this radical disease in British agriculture was the Labour Government after 1945, who deliberately interfered with the processes of competition.
  In the face of such facts as these, for the hon. Member to advocate competition as the grand remedy for all our difficulties is to put him in the same class as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: I have tremendous respect for the hon. Member as a politician, but as an economist and historian he is slightly further out. The 19th century was the period of greatest expansion in British agriculture. The period right up to the 1870s was the greatest period of expansion in British agriculture when it led the world in expansion and organisation. I suggested that it is foolish to ignore the use of competition, not that competition is a panacea.
  Mr. Foot: I am not denying that competition has its uses in proper cases, but in

  497
  his speech, which can be recalled by anyone who heard it, the hon. Member said that what was totally wrong with the policy of the Government was the absence of any competition. He is supporting a Motion of censure on the Government yet the sole case he made was that the Government had failed to introduce more severe competition. Anyone who heard his speech will recognise that this is correct and that he did not have any other argument. Indeed, he simplified the whole question and protested that no one thought the question was a complicated one.
  The way in which modern industrial societies are to establish non-inflationary systems of economics while maintaining full employment is a problem which no country has solved. To say that all we have to do is to have more competition is not to deal with the problem, but to take the same course as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and say, "I do not want to deal with the problem, but to replace it." If the Liberal Party wants to follow that course it should make it clear that we have had no contribution from the Liberal Party on the national incomes policy and how to make it work and share the national wealth. All that the Liberal Party says is that we should get back to fiercer and more competition. Take the case of the official Opposition—
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: I am going out.
  Mr. Foot: There may be some oblique references to the hon. Member, but I can excuse him now and he can go.
  Take the case of the official Opposition. Their case is that the cost of living has gone up in the past year and that the Government are responsible. Let us take the strength of their argument. It is perfectly true that the cost of living has gone up since the Government have been in power. No one can deny it. They say that the Government have been responsible on two main grounds. First, because of the deliberate action of the Government in putting up taxes. That is the main part of their argument. Then they say that the incomes policy has broken down.
  Take the argument about taxes. It is a little late in the day to have this argu-
  498
  ment, for we have had it over and over again in this Parliament. We had it when the Budget was introduced, all through debates on the Finance Bill and now, as the first item in the major attack of the new, reorganised Opposition on the Government, they revive this old story of the Government putting up taxes.
  The Government put up taxes; so far, the Opposition's argument is valid. Why did they put up taxes? First, they put them up because they wanted to raise old-age pensions. That was one reason, and a very good reason. It was partly done to assist the redistribution of the national wealth. The other main reason why the Government put up taxes was to deal with the balance of payments situation. If I were to say that we should discuss the balance of payments situation the Opposition would say, "Do not let us have that old story again." Of course they do not want to hear that old story.
  The old story of the balance of payments is inextricably connected with the story of the increase of taxes, so let us rule them both out, or keep them both in, whichever way is preferred, but the idea that we can have a debate in which we are allowed to discuss taxes which the Government imposed a year ago in their Budget, but we are not allowed to discuss what happened in 1964, and the balance of payments, is an absurdity, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know that it is.
  We know the line on which the Opposition are now embarking, not having had any policy to suggest as an alternative to what the Government have done. The chief demagogue is the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). He says, "Do not let us have any complicated discussions about economics, or the state of the nation, or the complications and difficulties which we have to face. Let us go up and down the country saying that we will bring down taxes." He says that that is how the Socialists got into power after 1945. He says that they did not worry about facing the problems which the nation had to tackle, or having to deal with awkward tasks which the Government had to deal with after 1945.
  What the official Opposition's own Sir Winstone Churchill did in those days was to go to the country and say, "Every

  499
  shortage is due to these wicked Socialists. Get rid of them, and we can deal with them all."
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The Conservatives brought down taxes.
  Mr. Foot: They did not. They raised more and more money in taxes, and were responsible for greater and greater public expenditure, although they said that they would do the exact opposite.
  The Opposition, having fixed on the idea that they do not wish to argue with the Government about the real problems facing the nation, wish to concentrate solely on saying "We will bring down taxes", hoping that people will believe them. That is all that they have to worry about. That has been their policy, and, therefore, they run a debate today in which the main charge, when we are discussing these matters in January, 1966, concerns taxes which the Government introduced in April, 1965. It is, indeed, a very poor kind of opposition.
  The other part of their argument affects the incomes policy, and here, of course, they are in similar difficulties because they have not made up their minds about it. They do not know whether they should say that they are in favour of an incomes policy or not. One of the further reasons why they have conducted their propaganda outside on the lines of saying that they will bring down everybody's taxes is that they do not want to get involved in these difficult arguments.
  But people throughout the country are much more intelligent than that. Whether they agree with an incomes policy or not, people throughout the country know that this is a serious argument. They realise that there must be some way of sharing the nation's wealth. As a Socialist I am strongly in favour of an incomes policy. I can understand those who are opposed to Socialism being opposed to any form of incomes policy, because they say—and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) says it more intelligently than anybody else—"Let us leave it to the present system. That is suitable to us, and the more intensively we restore the old capitalist influence, the more it will suit us".
  There is some logic in the argument of the right hon. Member for Wolver-
  500
  hampton, South-West. Indeed, as we can all see, he is winning. Every week the right hon. Gentleman gets stronger and stronger support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The more they get into difficulties, and the more the Government come up against difficulties with their incomes policy, as they are bound to, the more the Conservative Party will follow the leadership of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
  The right hon. Gentleman is an extremely courageous and intelligent politician. He has staked out his territory very wisely and with great panache, and the more the Government have to face considerable difficulties over their incomes policy the more the Tories will say, "We will follow the standard of the man who says that we do not want any incomes policy at all".
  The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has changed his allegiance very swiftly. He was once the chief Tory opponent of entry into the Common Market. What does he say about that now? Maybe we will hear one day. He was once a great champion of a Tory communal policy. He was once a supporter of the idea of a controlled Tory economy. Now he is more and more following his newly elected Leader, and his Leader is more and more following the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, so when the hon. Gentleman speaks at the end of the debate he will bring up a long trail. He will have to run very fast to catch up with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but in the past we have seen how fast he can run to catch up, so I think that he will be able to run in that direction this evening.
  There are a few who will stay put. There is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who will stick it out to the end. There is the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), but it is a bit awkward for him, because he has advocated an incomes policy so often that he cannot eat such a huge meal of his own words so speedily. Within a few months, and within the coming years, as they watch the Government trying to carry out their incomes policy, hon. Gentlemen opposite will follow the lead of the right hon.

  501
  Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and I prophesy that within about two years he will be the elected Leader of the Conservative Party, instead of being merely the unofficial, unelected leader, which he is at the present time.
  I am in favour of an incomes policy because I think that it is the only way in which a modern industrial society can share its wealth, and the idea of leaving that to chance, of leaving it to market forces to decide how the nation's wealth should be shared, is utterly repugnant to me as a Socialist. I repeat that I am strongly in favour of an incomes policy, but I am critical of some of the things which the Government have done in the operation of that policy.
  One of my criticisms arises because I do not believe that the Government have fully appreciated—something which the official Opposition do not appreciate at all—that there their main difficulty in carrying out their incomes policy is that they have to insert that policy, which is designed for sharing more fairly the nation's wealth, into a society in which the nation's wealth is already shared very unfairly. That makes it very awkward, because, with the best will in the world, the Government are not able to carry out all the rearrangements of society at once to enable an incomes policy to be inserted fairly.
  It is often forgotten in the country that the Government have taken a number of measures designed to fortify the incomes policy and to assist its introduction, such as the Capital Gains Tax, which was designed to ensure that people who had not been paying any contribution to the nation's income should start to pay something—a very good measure—and Corporation Tax, which were designed to achieve these aims. There are many other measures which the Government have taken, such as the redundancy payments scheme. This is a good start in the right direction, but they will have to go further and give all the working people the same rights of redundancy payments as the middle classes have always had and at the same level.
  All that countributes to making our society a little less unfair, but it does not alter the fact that the main source of the Government's difficulties with the trade unions, and with many of my hon. Friends who support their views, is not
  502
  the nature of the incomes policy itself, but the fact that it has to be inserted into a society where the distribution of wealth remains very unfair.
  It is very difficult to change that all at once. It is precisely for this reason that I think—though I am not an expert on these matters—the Government have put too many eggs in the incomes policy basket. I think that they have to introduce more measures of redistributing wealth in other ways to make their incomes policy acceptable. They have to go faster in bringing in other measures for sharing fairly the nation's wealth in order to make the incomes policy acceptable. That means that we must have more Budgets which are designed to redistribute the national wealth. Only after we have had two, three or four such Budgets shall we have an incomes policy which is accepted by the mass of the people. It is a very difficult operation in timing that the Government have to carry through.
  The Government should not proceed with some parts of their incomes policy until they have been able to carry out more of their fiscal measures to reshape our taxation system. The Government have introduced many such measures. Many of the measures in their social services programme are designed partly to remedy defects in the social services, but also partly to carry forward the redistribution of wealth. The more that the Government can carry through their social services changes, and their changes in the taxation system, the more they will be assisted in trying to carry through their incomes policy.
  I want to see a Government empowered to carry through their other measures. It is not possible to talk of a successful incomes policy in isolation; it must be accompanied by several other measures. I want to see a Government with a sufficient majority to be able to do this. Inflation is a great peril. It is not the only one, but everyone wants to curb inflation. It is not such a bad peril as mass unemployment, but it is bad enough. I want a society in which we have full employment and no inflation. That is our aim, but if we are to achieve it we must tackle some of the major causes of inflation, which we are not tackling to anything like a sufficient degree.

  503
  The major cause of inflation in the past 20 years has been the enormous expenditure upon arms. It is the biggest inflationary expenditure that the country has. If we could alleviate that further it would be of the greatest possible assistance to the Government's incomes policy. It would enable them to have more to share fairly under their incomes policy. It would be incorrect to say that the Government have not taken any steps in this direction; they have introduced many measures to try to restrict the soaring arms expenditure. The previous Government completely shirked this issue. Nothing was more pitiable—and that is a very high charge—than their record of refusal to deal with expenditure in the aircraft industry and many of the other huge expenditures which were being incurred.
  All these things they voted against. Whenever the Government introduced a cut in arms expenditure hon. Members opposite voted against them. If their will had succeeded it would have pushed up the cost of living a good deal faster. The hon. Member for Worcester has cast many more inflationary votes in this House than I have. Every time he has voted against these cuts he has been voting for an increase in the cost of living.
  The Government have made cuts, and I give them credit for it, but they will have to go much further. Wasteful arms expenditure remains the biggest source of inflation. It must be cut still further and much more drastically even than the Government have attempted to cut it if we are to fortify our incomes policy with other measures.
  We must take many other measures if we want our incomes policy to work, and if we want a proper sharing of the national wealth to be acceptable it will have to come partly by Government intervention. I do not speak of it in terms of competition, but we must make much more intelligent use of our resources. Some hon. Members have spoken about the contribution to the increase in the cost of living caused by rising bus fares in London. A lot of blame is being attached to the busmen in this respect, but it is scandalous, because for years they have been putting forward proposals to solve the problems of London Transport. They have been telling the country and London
  504
  for years that if much more radical steps are not taken to deal with London Transport there will not be enough busmen to drive the buses and many more people will have to walk to work.
  They have been saying that for years, and they have been putting forward proposals for a more intelligent use of our resources. That is the real way to tackle the dangers of the cost of living.
  In the same way we must intensify all the measures we have introduced for the better planning of industrial sites. I know that the President of the Board of Trade has been specially interested in this throughout his political life. That is one way to deal with the cost of living. If only we can stop the hideous process whereby more and more of our people have to spend more and more of their time travelling to and from work we can make a big cut in the cost of living as we can if we bring factories to the people on a proper planned basis. That is the way to tackle the cost of living and to bring down the huge and mounting costs of transport which are becoming increasingly difficult to deal with. We have to cut out much of the travelling that people now have to undertake. That is the solution to the problem. It is easy to talk about, but difficult to carry out. But we must aim at it.
  These are the kind of measures which the Government are seeking to carry into operation in their transport policy and their idea of an integrated transport system. These are the kind of measures that we should be discussing. If the Government are seen by the public to be carrying through radical measures to deal with transport and the siting of industry, and introducing Budgets to make our taxation system fair—if the Government are seen to be proceeding as fast as economic circumstances permit to carry through great innovations in our social services, we can persuade the people that it is an intelligent thing to do to share out fairly the extra wealth that we get each year.
  Of course, it is an intelligent thing to do, and it must be done, but it will be done only by the increasing intervention of the community. The idea that we can do it by having more competition is absurd. We must have a much more purposive, deliberate and consistent intervention by the community in our

  505
  economic affairs, and the name for that is Socialism. I do not complain, because the Government have not been able to carry out Socialism with a majority of three, or two.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Or one.
  Mr. Foot: Or one. That is why I am in favour of an early election. It is essential, so that the Government can carry out an incomes policy.
  It would be a disaster for the nation—leaving aside the question of a disaster for the Labour Party, although the two things are connected—if the attempt to secure the intelligent idea of an incomes policy were destroyed because the Government that were attempting to put it into operation did not have the power and authority to see it through, but had to deal all the time with an unscrupulous and half-witted Opposition who had no desire to see such a policy work, but were out—to use a terrible word—to do everything they could to sabotage it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Of course they are. That is the one idea they have of opposition. They believe that if only they oppose this policy they have a chance of getting back. That is all that they are concerned about.
  We are concerned about something more. It would be a disaster for the nation if the whole idea of planning on a much more ambitious scale were to be destroyed because the Government seeking to do it had not the full authority to carry it through. Therefore, I am in favour and have been for a long time—if my advice had been taken last autumn, when many disagreed with me, we should be home and dry now with a majority of 30 or 40 and the Government would have four years ahead of them to plan, which is what we want. These measures cannot be carried out in three weeks. Most of the measures which the Government have in mind need time to fructify, time in which they can be put into operation and time in which their results can be seen in one Parliament.
  The Government have been extremely skilful in their Parliamentary management. Although many of us have assisted them—much to our delight—in all these difficulties and have proved that, in Parliamentary terms, it is possible to carry on with a tiny majority, it is not possible in social or political terms over a long
  506
  period. We need that bigger majority as soon as possible. I trust that what is happening tonight in Hull will give us a further spur in that direction. Whether we have it or not, I hope that the Government will consider these matters in all their aspects and put their confidence as early as possible in the determination of the people to have a real Socialist policy carried out in this country—[Laughter.] That is the last time the hon. Member for Worcester will be able to laugh. He does not do it very easily, does he?
  If the Opposition had wanted an early election, we should not have been treated to a debate like this. If the Prime Minister wishes any further evidence of why he should have an election, all he needs to do is look in tonight and see that lot. I do not know whether the Prime Minister's P.P.S. is here, but I should like him to have a look. This is what the Prime Minister has to fight. This is the Tory Opposition off the leash and pulling no punches. This is them fighting absolutely all out. This is it. This is all we have to deal with—
  Sir W. Robson Brown: I have been listening with great interest to what the hon. Member has said and he listened earlier this evening to me giving 100 per cent. support to the prices and incomes policy. He has been asking for more power to put the policy into effect. What more power does he want? Would he answer me?
  Mr. Foot: I cannot recite the whole of my speech again: I might be "had up" for tedious repetition. I have been trying to explain that, if the incomes policy and the aim behind it are to be successful they must be fortified by a whole series of other measures. I do not think that the hon. Member for Esher (Sir W. Robson Brown) understands what an incomes policy is. The kind he wants is one which keeps incomes down—
  Sir W. Robson Brown: Rubbish!
  Mr. Foot: If the hon. Gentleman is such a passionate supporter of the incomes policy, let him go and fight with his leaders and not with me. He had better find one of his leaders in favour of it if he himself is so strongly in favour of it. Let him listen to the hon. Member for Worcester, who is to wind up for the Opposition, and see exactly

  507
  on what fence he is sitting tonight. Then we shall see whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with him.
  I was concluding my few remarks by saying that the political situation has greatly altered over recent months and there is every prospect of a Labour Government being elected in a few weeks, I hope—at any rate in a few months—with a majority of 30, 40 or 50. We could do it with 20. Even 20, after recent years, would be rich, but with 30 or 40 our position would be better. What we need is time, time for all the people to understand that the Government are here to stay, time for many gentlemen abroad to understand as well, time for the Government to make more radical proposals on many of these matters and time for us to make it clear to the nation that we propose to carry through the full programme and to make it a real success. In the whole of this operation, the official Opposition will become even more irrelevant than they are at present, if, indeed, this is conceivable.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: This evening's exercise has been one long whitewashing operation from start to finish by a Government who know perfectly well that they have betrayed the electors of this country. They have not at any time during the debate come forward with one justifiable argument for the position in which we are vis-à-vis rising prices. It is perhaps just as well that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the First Secretary was here today to listen to the speeches of hon. Members opposite.
  Speaker after speaker has risen in the most complacent manner and tried to persuade this House that there is no crisis, no problem at all. At the same time we are being exhorted by Ministers to tighten our belts and be prepared for tough times ahead. Indeed, the Prime Minister said only recently that 1966 would be a "make or break" year.
  I regard this debate, certainly from the point of view of the speeches we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite, as one of complete hypocrisy. At the end of the day it will certainly be safe to say, on the basis of those speeches, that the only stain on the Government will be the whitewash and nothing else.
  508
  I believe that the situation today is extremely serious. The amber light has been showing for some time and now the red is firmly on. I believe that we are heading for real runaway inflation in this country. To get that into perspective it should be pointed out that one is bound to have a measure of inflation with increasing prosperity. Hence, one has the situation in which one has a measure of rising prices which nobody has been able to conquer.
  That is not the problem about which I am mainly concerned. I am worried because the increase in inflation is now beginning to get out of control—that having, through the Prices and Incomes Board, managed to persuade manufacturers to swallow some of their increasing costs, we are reaching the position when the dam of price increases is about to burst. After all, true inflation can exist only in an economy in which one is unable to increase one's productivity; in the beleaguered city, perhaps, where stocks are running low and the value of money tends to fall. Thus, true inflation should not exist in the sort of economy which we have—that is, unless productivity either does not rise or is completely static and even falling.
  That is the position in which we are tonight. Our costs, prices and incomes are rising but, under the present Government, our productivity is static. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) pointed out, it is even worse than that. It is sinking badly.
  Dr. David Kerr: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us to what he attributes the rise in the cost of living under the previous Government?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I thought I had made it clear that in an increasing prosperity economy a measure of inflation is synonymous. I am saying that when one's productivity ceases to rise one goes into steep inflation.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale quoted from a recent speech of the Minister of Labour at Ilford, in which the Minister said that production had been almost static while incomes had been rising and rising. As a nation, we had been living beyond our means, the right hon. Gentleman said.

  509
  This debate has proved the hypocrisy of the Government because it was not such fighting words as those that got them elected 15 months ago. They were the siren voices which the Prime Minister has told us to beware of.
  The people who were persuaded to elect the party opposite were told that the Tory Party had mismanaged the country's affairs and that the Labour Party would conquer rising prices, that there would be cheap mortgages along with all the other benefits which have been shown to be a mass of paper promises, promises not even worth the paper on which they were written. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not say that mortgages would be at their highest level ever, but we read about the difficulties of the building societies, about what is having to be paid, and we are told that while the rate went up by 14 per cent. last year it may go up by another 10 per cent. this year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may think that this is trivial and unimportant, but to the country it is not.
  Mr. Walter Monslow: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that his party promised many things and that, had hon. Gentlemen opposite been elected, the cost would have risen by £650 million if their promises were implemented?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am discussing the record of this Government.
  Mr. Monslow: Really!
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Throughout this debate hon. Gentlemen opposite have been trying to find excuses and somebody else to blame. They are trying to persuade us that everybody is out of step except our wee Johnnie. They cannot blame anyone, whether we mention the breakdown in the gas industry, rising rates or anything else.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me, very humbly, to come to his assistance. Are we to understand that what he is saying to the House is that when prices rise for every one of 13 years of Conservative Government it is due to increasing prosperity but that when they rise during 13 months of a Labour Government it is due to lack of productivity?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member might have listened to me when I quoted his own Minister of Labour on the subject of productivity. The First Secretary told us that the continual rise in the cost of living could, must and would be halted. Those were the words we heard from him, and it was words like that that won the Labour Party the last General Election.
  Political parties are always said to die in the end of swallowing their own lies. If that be true, I believe that the party opposite is in some danger of dying very soon indeed, because we cannot expect to keep prices down if all the time we allow our costs to rise. It is wonderful how many King Canutes we have, sitting on the beach in their armchairs and telling the tide to go out, when we have an economy, as it is at present, in which costs are being induced to rise all the time by direct Government action.
  If there is increased Income Tax, petrol tax, vehicle licences, and all the other increases that have been directly caused by the Government, we must be prepared to face increase in costs, and thereby to find people asking for increased wages and manufacturers asking to put up their prices.
  That is, perhaps, all right if productivity is also rising, but if, at the same time, we are telling those engaged in industry to cut their profit margins and, in the same terms, telling them not to invest more, we will trim our expansion and get the situation in which we are today where wages and prices go up, productivity is static, profits are down, investment is down. If I were asked to tell the House what that means, I would reply that it means real inflation of the type of which I spoke at the beginning of my remarks—not the inflation built into increasing prosperity, but inflation of a country of 52 million people needing to import over half of their raw materials to keep the island alive at all, and finding themselves in a situation where costs take the country out of the competitive position it should occupy in the world.
  It is no good for the party opposite to try to ride away—as some hon. Members opposite have—on the basis that the Labour Government have been tough on the people who have had an unequal

  511
  share of the profits. Profits are merely a visible sign that what one is producing is wanted, and why it should now be unfashionable to make profits when all the time the taxpayers foot the bill for any loss which may take place in the nationalised industries, I do not know.
  The fact is that over the last 15 months the price of practically the whole range of goods has increased; from bread to mothballs, the housewife is today paying more. I have just been to Hull, and I am convinced what the result will be there tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—the Conservatives will win. The electors there are not interested in the statistics bandied about by hon. Members opposite. I asked housewives in the street what they felt about costs, and the prices they had to pay in their daily round of shopping. We should not ask politicians whether prices are going up, but the people of the country.
  The fact is that we have inflation. We have £1,000 million worth of overseas debt—equal to the whole of our whole reserves—and we are now in what I believe to be a critical situation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology may be convinced that this is not a problem for the Labour Government—personally, I thought that to be one of the most disastrous things he said this afternoon—but if it is not their problem, whose problem is it? And why, if they are the Government, are they not tackling it?
  Mr. Marsh Mr. Marsh rose—
  Mr. NcNair-Wilson: I am sorry—I am just coming to the end of my remarks—
  Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman cannot attack people without giving way.
  Mr. NcNair-Wilson: If the Parliamentary Secretary tries to pretend that it is not the problem of the Government—
  Mr. Marsh: The hon. Gentleman is entirely misrepresenting what I said. I said that this was not a problem of the Labour Government or the Labour Party as such. This is a problem which has faced all Governments.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: Exactly. If the Parliamentary Secretary had been here,
  512
  he would have heard me admit that it was a national problem. What I am saying now is that it is no good the Government trying to run away from the situation in which they find themselves owing to the failure of their present policies and then trying to pretend that it is a problem which must be tackled by somebody else. They are the elected Government. They must get it right. They made the promises. They must honour them. This is the fourth Labour Government this country has had. If they feel so confident that their policies are right. I hope that they will do what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) suggested, namely, call an early General Election and let the people judge them. I believe that they have been a dismal and costly failure.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. James Tinn: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who has been present for most of the debate, is not in the Chamber at the moment, because at the outset of the debate he drew attention to the fact that there were not so many Members on this side of the House as there were on his. If he were here and able to look behind him, he would see what is left of his hon. Friends after the dust of this debate. After all, this is a Supply day, when the Opposition have the choice of subject and when we expect to see a little of the dynamic Opposition of which we have heard so much.
  What we have been treated to instead has been a spectacle which has become depressingly familiar, even in my short time here, of an Opposition bereft as they seem to be of leadership and devoid of practical alternative policies, desperately casting around for subjects on which they might attack the Government with some semblance at least of reality and substance. As the Government in their short time, about 15 months, in office have honoured increasingly their election pledges, so the Opposition has become even more shrill and strident and more and more divorced from reality.
  I share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) about the quality of the Opposition, though I have, with the warmhearted generosity towards my opponents which is customary for me, some sympathy for

  513
  the predicament in which they find themselves at the moment. I find it difficult to have sympathy for the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who accused my hon. Friends of seeking in speech after speech to whitewash the Government. I may be doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice. I hope that I am not. He may have been listening to the debate from outside the Chamber. I have been in the Chamber during most of the debate and I certainly have not seen the hon. Gentleman present throughout.
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: I may not be a giant, but I am a fair size, and I have been here since the debate started.
  Mr. Tinn: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance on that point. Perhaps the lighting in the Chamber is not all that it might be. I can understand, without sympathising with, the distaste that the hon. Gentleman and so many of his hon. Friends have for statistics. This is understandable in a party which is so anxious for itself and for everyone else to forget its immediate past and its responsibilities. One hon. Member opposite referred to statistics as a pale mirror of reality. Perhaps they are a pale reflection of reality, but in so far as they have been quoted prom this side of the House at least they are an accurate one. The real quarrel which hon. Members opposite have is with the accuracy of our figures and their uncomfortable implications for themselves rather than with statistics as such.
  I shall not give a long list of statistics because, as well as being uncomfortable for the Opposition, statistics can certainly be boring to the House. But to put the question of price rises into perspective, it is necessary to point out that, taking the retail prices index based on 100 in 1955, over the years up to October, 1964, the index rose by 30·4 points. By June, 1965, there had been a rise of 5·8 points—statistically, this might seem uncomfortable for us, though I do not feel that it is—but by November of last year the rise was only 1·2 points.
  Any objective observer of the economic situation is bound to be struck by the fact that the price increases which were steep in the earlier part of this Government's period of office have since levelled off as the Government got a grip on what was
  514
  an emergency situation at the outset and as their measures began to work.
  In support of this view and in order to establish something of the real responsibility for the price rises which we have been discussing, I shall quote from an authoritative source—some authorities have been challenged in the debate—the Economic Survey of the United Kingdom published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. On page 28 we read:
  "The attempt after 1961 to reflate the economy and to reach a steady and sustainable rate of growth of output had disappointing results".
  This was under the Conservative Government.
  "The pressure and pattern of demand generated by the expansionary measures taken in 1962 and 1963 proved too great for price stability and balance of payments equilibrium to be maintained. By the second half of 1964, a renewed deflation of demand had, therefore, become unavoidable."
  This, coming from an international organisation whose objectivity, I think, will be unquestioned, places responsibility for the price rÏises which have been substantial fairly and squarely on the economic policies pursued by the previous Administration.
  Leaving statistics and economic journals aside for the moment and looking at the ordinary across-the-counter transactions which, after all, most affect the individual housewife's mind, we know that there have been recent price increases. The journal The Grocer listed no fewer than 579 individual items on which there had been price increases in the four weeks after Christmas last year. But in the corresponding period in the last year for which right hon. and hon. Members opposite were responsible, no fewer than 716 individual items were reported as subject to price rises.
  The price of beef went up last year, but no hon. Member opposite has drawn attention to the fact that other prices, for instance, the price of pork, have gone down. The price of milk went up last year, but my recollection of our debates on the Farm Price Review is that the Opposition's objection was that the price of milk had not gone up more; they were criticising us for not allowing the price to go higher, not for holding it down.

  515
  There is, perhaps, a depressing familiarity in the continued price rise which went on during the first months of this Government's period of office, but there is one great difference in the present situation from what happened in the past. This is the consequences on the regions. The hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) ought to appreciate the difference between the treatment meted out to the North, to Wales, Scotland and most of all to Northern Ireland by this Government and the treatment accorded by the last Government.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that the Plowden Report, which advocates a reduction of between 3,000 to 4,000 in the number of those employed by Messrs. Short Bros. and Harland—which now stands at 8,000—is something that Ulster can look forward to with happiness?
  Mr. Tinn: In the closing minutes of the debate I would be foolish to allow myself to be sidetracked on a point of detail. The point of my argument, which appears to have escaped the hon and learned Gentleman, is that, while the Government have pursued policies to contain the surplus demand against which the Conservatives failed to take remedial action, they have been selective in operation, achieving the highly satisfactory result of maintaining at the same time high employment in the regions. It is true that the unemployment rate in Ulster is still deplorably high. Perhaps this is not entirely unconnected with the fact that Northern Ireland chooses to return, faithfully but misguidedly, Conservative Members of Parliament.
  Again, we have been subjected to the depressingly familiar but still nauseating spectacle of the crocodile tears of the Opposition about pensioners, owner-occupiers and others. Not even the Opposition can pretend that the considerable and unprecedented increase in pensions, introduced by the Government as a first step to removing the neglect shown by the party opposite, has been eroded by such increases as have taken place in prices. The 10s. widow's pension was increased threefold. Try telling such a widow that because the price of
  516
  apples, for example, has gone up less than 6d. her 300 per cent. increase in pension has vanished.
  Reference has been made to the by-election at Hull, which is perhaps not unconnected with the choice of subject today by the Opposition. I do not pretend to have a crystal ball but I have a feeling that the electors of Hull will show the pretences of the Opposition for what they are worth. With perhaps the slimmest majority ever, the Government have, in an astonishingly short period, proceeded to carry out more of their programme than any previous Government have carried out their programme in the same time. But in doing so the Government have restricted the ground of possible attack by the Opposition so that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are reduced to the shadow boxing to which we have been subjected today.
  Sir Knox Cunningham Sir Knox Cunningham rose—
  Mr. Tinn: I have already given way once to the hon. and learned Gentleman and, as I am rather short of time, I know that he will forgive me if I do not give way again. In any case, for a comparatively inexperienced speaker, it is a great mistake to give way just as one is approaching one's peroration and to allow oneself to be caught short in it. I may already have done that.
  I close by expressing the sincere conviction that the course which the Government have followed with conviction and skill in piloting the country through some of the most difficult economic waters which we have ever sailed entitles them to the confidence of the country, a confidence which, I am sure, will be reflected at the next General Election.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Walker: We have today witnessed a debate in which the Government have been endeavouring to defend their policy about rising prices. The only Member who defended it with any spirit was the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It was his usual fluent, vigorous speech and one could see the signs of relief on the Front Bench opposite as right hon. Gentlemen found that at least for the first half of his speech the hon. Gentleman was basically supporting what they had had to say.
  Then the hon. Gentlemen got to the second part of his speech and the theme

  517
  was one of great confidence, confidence typical of a Socialist Member representing Ebbw Vale for another election. He thought that he would hold Ebbw Vale in another election. He was convinced that he would hold Ebbw Vale in another election and he pointed that out to us. The advantages to him are considerable, of course. He was much happier when he was the official Opposition instead of the unofficial opposition and, therefore, if the Government lost the election he would be happy.
  Then the hon. Gentleman made his real contribution to the debate. He acted as the early warning system of what would happen if we had a Labour Government with a real majority. He said that with the present small majority the Government could not create the type of Socialist society in which his type of incomes policy would work. He said, "Give us a bigger majority and then we can create the real Socialist State which we want to achieve; then we can nationalise the industries; then we can do away with the defence programme; then we can have three or four Budgets of increasing taxation." This was the theme, the honest theme as always, of the hon. Gentleman and I hope that the country will take note of his words and know exactly what a future Socialist Government would mean.
  This has been a remarkable debate for many reasons. One of them is that we have been debating prices and although there are two Ministries primarily concerned with prices, the Treasury and the Department of Economic Affairs, throughout the whole of the debate, with the exception of 11 minutes, no Minister from either of those Ministries has been present. If the Government's prices and incomes policy is so good and so effective, why has there been no attempt to have a Minister from the Department of Economic Affairs to defend it? There is no shortage of Ministers in either the Treasury or the Department of Economic Affairs.
  In all fairness to the First Secretary, he did speak this afternoon on the prices and incomes policy—but not in the House of Commons. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, in his opening speech, when challenged on this issue, said, "Our Ministers are busy; they do not bother with the House of Commons; do not expect Ministers to bother
  518
  with the House of Commons." That was his attitude. The general attitude of the First Secretary is that the House of Commons does not matter, that he is a kind of economic dictator who ought to be able to lay down the law and blast accusations about saboteurs and themes such as that, and yet never come here to answer for himself in the House Commons. That is a very poor reflection on the faith which he has in his policy.
  I would like to deal further with the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. He had a difficult task, because he was representing a Ministry not specifically concerned with this problem. One may wonder why the Government decided to put up the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology to speak on this subject. Perhaps it was because of his reputation as a good debater, or perhaps it was to persuade the country that there was at least one person in the Ministry of Technology who believed in the Government's prices and incomes policy.
  It was a good attempt. First of all, there was the defence of the rising prices in the past year on the basis of, "Well, after all, it was not very much worse than the worst year of the last 10 years of Conservative Government. There were some years in the last 10 years when the Tories were almost as bad as we have been since we became the Government."
  Then the hon. Gentleman moved on to the justification. This has been brought up by several hon. Members, particularly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Duffy), whose speeches on this subject are always listened to with a great deal of attention. But in his attempt to defend the Government he used the same argument as the Parliamentary Secretary—"Some of those rises were due to the Chancellor and one cannot really count those. They were due to the Chancellor raising taxes to deal with the balance of payments problem". Several hon. Gentlemen opposite argued in this way. They said that this was the reason why higher taxes were introduced.
  If one is introducing higher taxes to deal with the balance of payments problem it is presumably because one believes that the higher taxes will have a deflationary effect on the economy. The Government says, "We have increased the cost of living, we have created inflationary

  519
  policies as a result of our taxation and you will excuse us from those and deduct them from the calculations."
  The third part of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary was one of tremendous complacency and it is a complacency that has been repeated, of course outside this House, by the First Secretary of State this afternoon. It was argued that things had been much better recently, that recently the rise in the cost of living had been nowhere as great as it was up until the end of April. I believe that the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary were that in the first six months of this Government the cost of living went up by 3·8 per cent., but that in the last eight months it had only gone up by 1·6 per cent. "Look what an improvement this has been," he said.
  This afternoon the First Secretary of State said:
  "The rise in prices has been much lower in the year we are talking about than it was in the comparable period before."
  What complacency for a Government Minister when, during the last two months, the cost of living has been rising at the rate of 5·4 per cent. The Government have based their figures on the last eight months, as the Prime Minister said in his letter to the Labour candidate at Hull. He remarked how stable prices had been in the last eight months. Not nine months, because that would have proved to be a very bad figure indeed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Like your 10 years."] Not two months either, because that, too, would have proved to be a very bad figure.
  The reason for this is that this period, as the President of the Board of Trade well knows, includes the price stability of the period May to October. This has been the Government's case—looking at the stability from May to October. If one looks through the cost of living figures over the years there is always the seasonal stability from May to October,
  From May to October last year the cost of living rose by less than 1 per cent. In the previous year, under the Conservative Government, it rose by less than 1 per cent. From May to October in 1963 and in 1962 it went down. From May to October over the last 10 years the increase in the cost of living was, on
  520
  average, lower than it was last year. Therefore, this particular argument does not stand up. The fact is that in the last two months the cost of living has been rising again.
  The Parliamentary Secretary moved on. Here was the Government going on the attack. It was a sad moment for the hon. Gentleman. He said with great emphasis. "Those hon. Members who are opposed to the Government's prices and incomes policy should come and say what is their alternative". Our hopes rose. In walked the Minister of Technology with great majesty to tell us what was the alternative. Here was a man who would tell us what the alternative was. We provided the opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to do so. We urged the hon. Gentleman to give way to his Minister, but he did not do so. So we did not hear the alternative of the main oponent of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
  The Parliamentary Secretary quickly moved on to his last argument, which was what the Ministry of Technology has done to bring down prices. He gave some examples. He said that it had done something very important in terms of getting an agreement about the thread on screws. He gave one or two other examples of the important work of the Ministry of Technology. He missed out the best argument. The greatest thing which the Ministry of Technology has done in supporting the Government's prices and incomes policy is to give a job to the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union to keep him quiet. This has been the most successful role of the Ministry of Technology. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap".] Not very cheap, either—very expensive.
  The fact is that in the first 14 months of the Labour Government's period of office the cost of living has risen by 5·4 per cent.
  Mr. Walter Monslow: No.
  Mr. Walker: All right—a little more perhaps.
  Let us see what arguments have been propounded on this issue. It is a question not only of the past performance, but of the present and future performance. The present performance, we know, is going

  521
  back. We know that this month there have been increases in bus and rail fares, railway freight charges and bread prices, to name but a few. We know that other increases are coming along.
  There has been far too little reference by the Government today to the rising prices coming from the nationalised industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) advanced very cogent arguments on this subject, and I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will answer them. We have had the promise that coal prices and electricity and gas charges will go up. It is announced today in reply to a Question that an increase of 7½ per cent. in the internal air fares of B.E.A. is not to be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. If the Government are so keen on private industry absorbing the rising costs put on by them, they should be just as keen on the nationalised industries doing the same.
  We are particularly concerned about the future. It was suggested this afternoon by the First Secretary that his policy was going well. But what are the prospects of the future? Nobody could be better quoted on this subject than the Chancellor of the Exchequer—quoted in the context of a by-election speech which he made at Hull earlier in the week. One would expect that in a by-election speech, and particularly in the official hand-out of that speech, the right hon. Gentleman would have put the most favourable light on the prospects about rising prices during the coming months of a Labour Government.
  What did the Chancellor say about future prospects? These are his very words:
  "What are the prospects for prices in 1966? My view is that from the spring onwards, there is a real chance that prices will rise more slowly than they did throughout 1965."
  What a prospect. Prices will seemingly rise until the spring at a rate faster than they did last year. Is that what the Chancellor meant? Was he suggesting on Monday that we can expect prices to rise at a lower rate than 4·5 per cent. only after the spring? What does he expect to happen until the spring? Has he in mind imposing extra additional costs in his Budget? What are the
  522
  Government's estimates about the rise in the cost of living that will take place in the coming months?
  We know that rates are going up considerably and that the coal price is going up. We hear every day of numerous other price increases. Will the Chancellor put further increases on top of these? Why does he give the country the warning that after the spring, the cost of living may rise at a rate lower than 4·5 per cent. per annum? This is very different from the talk at the last General Election.
  Even this pledge by the Chancellor was limited, because he went on to say that that would only happen provided that costs remained stable.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): What is wrong with that?
  Mr. Walker: Anybody outside the Treasury would expect that if costs remained stable the cost of living would not go up. Even if they remain stable, however, the cost of living will seemingly go up a little less than 4·5 per cent. per annum.
  The reason why the prices and incomes policy has failed is that the Government's actions have resulted in the substantial wage demands which have had to be met during the past year. The Chancellor added the import surcharge, Income Tax, the tax on petrol, tobacco tax and the motor vehicle tax, and his policies have resulted in an increase in the rates. The interesting comparison is the type of wage increase that is required purely to find oneself in the same position as in the week that the Labour Government came to office. In the last week of the Tory Government, after paying Income Tax and National Insurance stamp, the average industrial wage earner was taking home £16 17s. 0d. a week.
  Simply to be in the same position as in October, 1964, the average industrial worker would require an increase in his wage of 7·4 per cent. purely to keep pace with the Government's rise in the cost of living and the increase in taxation. The fact is that many thousands of wage earners have kept pace with this. They have had increases of 7·4 per cent. and more. There are, however, many thousands of wage earners and

  523
  people on fixed incomes who have not had that increase. They are the people who have suffered during this period.
  There are many spheres in the cost of living where the Government have failed to keep their promises. Last night, television viewers were subjected to one facet of the argument. The Minister of Housing and Local Government modestly said, in the party political programme of the party opposite, that his Department had responsibility for certain matters that affected the cost of living. My word, they do. He said that he had responsibility for mortgages and for rates. Oddly enough, he missed out the responsibility for the price of houses, which was a great issue at the last election.
  We know that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is a skilled politician. He is a great purveyor of propaganda for the party opposite. He has given a series of promises throughout the country about what he will do for those with mortgages and for rates. The remarkable thing is that the promise he made last night, on the eve of poll at Hull, on the subject of rates and mortgages, was identical with his promise at the Nuneaton by-election 12 months before.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government has trundled round the by-elections, from Nuneaton to Hall Green, to Roxburgh and Selkirk, to Hove and to Hull, making the same promises that we will hear any moment now that the Government will tackle their pledge on mortgages and are about to reduce the burden on the ratepayer. Month after month this promise has been made. And so the right hon. Gentleman goes his way. While he is doing this mortgages are going up, and so are the rates to a tremendous extent. If we study the responsibility of that one Minister, we find that the cost of houses under the present Government has gone up by a greater amount than in any of the 10 years since records were first kept.
  We all remember those electioneering programmes in which various Ministers now occupying the benches opposite were horrified at the rise in the cost of houses. As for rates, the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon came to the Despatch Box and said, "Of course, rates have gone up.
  524
  Of course, they went up 14 per cent. last year, and they are liable to go up 10 per cent. this year. But," he said, "it is not the Government, it is the system that has made the rates go up." In its election manifesto, the party opposite did not say that it was a system that it would keep for two years [Interruption.] Not at all. As it so happens, I have the Labour Party manifesto. Let me read it:
  "While the reform of the rate system and investigation of alternative forms of local government finance may take some time to accomplish, we shall seek to give early relief to ratepayers".
  That is what Labour said then. What an early relief it has been—14 per cent. extra last year and probably the same amount extra this year. Local authorities are burdened with higher interest rates, higher wage costs and no end of extra taxes imposed by the Government. That is the story of the rates. Throughout all the time that the Minister responsible for the rates has trundled the country saying, "I am all against the rates", his whole attitude could best be described as "The Rates Progress".
  The fundamental reason for the failure of the Government is that they have introduced all the inflationary monetary and taxation policies which have brought about stagnant production, production which is apparently lower than it was at the beginning of 1965. They brought in all these policies for the purpose of being deflationary, for the purpose of bringing down costs, and the whole thing has been swept away by the complete failure to put into practice their so-called prices and incomes policy.
  They say, what is our alternative? We do not want an alternative which puts up cost of living even more. The fact is that under this Government production has been stagnant, prices have soared, pledges on mortgages, rates and house prices have been broken. There is hardly a sphere of ordinary prices which affect ordinary people which has not been dramatically increased under the Government, in complete contrast to all their election promises. All that we have in reply to this is further propaganda.
  We have had a debate in which neither the Board of Trade, the Department of Economic Affairs, nor the Treasury has been willing to take any part. With the

  525
  exception of an 11-minute visit by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, they have not been near the place. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary of State for Economic Affairs had taken part in the debate, or any of their junior Ministers had done so, it would have at least had the advantage that the Treasury Minister could have opened and told us all that he had done to put up the cost of living and the Minister from the Department of Economic Affairs could have wound up and told us all that he had done unsuccessfully to keep it down.
  Once again, we have a Labour Government; once again, prices are rising. It is because in every sphere that this Government made specific pledges that they would bring down the cost of living, and exactly the opposite has happened, that I certainly join the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and wish that at the earliest opportunity the performance of the Government can be put to the test.
  9.26 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): As I listened to the words of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and also the speech of the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) I could not help remembering that during the 13 years up to October, 1964, when the party opposite was in power, the cost of living rose by 55 per cent. The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale started by saying this afternoon that the cost of living rose more in the first 12 months of this Government's life than at any time in the last 10 years. He did not even get the figures right. For instance, in the 12 months—and I could take many other 12 months—from April, 1961, to April, 1962, living costs rose 6·2 per cent., compared with only 4·8 per cent. in the 12 months of which he was speaking. I think the right hon. Gentleman might at least start by getting his figures right.
  I should have thought that in view of the record of those 13 years a rather heavy obligation rested on the party opposite to tell the country just how they proposed to stop this happening again. I notice that in the foreword to the Conservative Party's new policy statement—I have it here—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."]—I am going to read it—the Leader of the Opposition says that the country is
  526
  "looking for constructive policies—how we do things, rather than what needs to be done."
  We might have expected today that the Opposition would have told us just how and by what practical policies the cost of living could be kept down. They have completely failed, indeed they have not even attempted to tell us how to do that.
  The truth is as even hon. Members opposite in their quieter moments understand that we all face a crucial dilemma which has got to be courageously resolved if this country is to survive. If we do not have the courage to carry through a deliberate policy for controlling and restraining the pressure on prices and incomes to rise then we must choose between two alternatives. Either we must take refuge in periodic bouts of deflation, falling production and rising unemployment—that is the solution which is put forward by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) although he is never candid enough to say so—or, if we try to run a fully employed growing economy without any incomes policy, we shall of course risk being faced with a runaway rise in prices. The House and the country would like to know which of these three possible policies the party opposite thinks ought to be followed. We have not been told today.
  Now I come to the Government, and I know that this will give great pleasure to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The present Government, and I believe all of us on this side of the House, explicitly and deliberately reject the alternatives of either outright deflation, or an uncontrolled runaway rise in prices and money income. We accept the implications of that decision, that it lays the obligation on the Government to attempt to secure by the greatest possible measure of democratic agreement an effective check on the upward pressure of prices and money incomes.
  That in turn immediately implies two things: first, that such a policy, and the taxation measures which support it, has to be applied not merely to salaries and wages, but to prices, rents, profits, dividends, and all incomes capable of control. Secondly, as we understood perfectly well from the beginning, because we are acting here purely by persuasion and not by compulsion, that is bound to be an extremely difficult and arduous task. Indeed, nobody with the slightest

  527
  understanding of this problem would expect major successes in the first few months of the attempt.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: A few months?
  Mr. Jay: I shall come to the timetable, and the hon. and learned Gentleman will understand better if he listens carefully.
  I do not believe that anyone seriously doubts, either, that we at the present time at least have a better chance of success, and have come nearer to success already, than any Government who have attempted this before. The Prices and Incomes Board—I think that some hon. Gentlemen opposite forgot this this afternoon—was set up only last spring, and it was set up, let us remember, not just at the behest of the Government, but with wide agreement and support from every member of N.E.D.C., and from both sides of industry.
  The policy which we are pursuing is a co-operative one which has been repeatedly endorsed by the most representative leaders of industry, both on the side of management and of labour. Even though the Board started operating only in the spring, it has already received 18 references, nine of them on prices, and made nine reports.
  If the Board and the policy embodied in it succeeds, it will be a success—[Laughter.] I never expected hon. Gentlemen opposite to take this subject very seriously, but they might do better than that. As I was saying, if the Board and the policy embodied in it succeed, it will be a success not just for this Government, but for all the more constructive elements over a wide section of industry, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well in their heart of hearts. If it fails, it will be a national failure, and I cannot really believe that many hon. Gentlemen opposite, despite their behaviour sometimes this afternoon, really want to be held responsible for that failure. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must take care not to incur on themselves responsibility by appearing at least to be trying to sabotage this policy.
  Nor can any serious observer really doubt—and I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they really doubt this—that had it not been for the Board's inquiries and reports, and the restraining pressure
  528
  from the Government in all sorts of ways, the rise in prices last year would have been much steeper both in public and private industry.
  Mr. Burden: In replying to a Question that I put to him the First Secretary stated that he would not send the agreement for a 7½ per cent. increase in internal fares in respect of the air companies to the Prices and Incomes Board. The Air Transport Licensing Board, in giving its decision, said that it could not properly decide whether or not the increase was reasonable, because it had not got the facts. Why did not the Minister agree to send it to the Prices and Incomes Board?
  Mr. Jay: The hon. Member does not understand how the policy works. We have never suggested—nor has any other sensible person—that every rise in prices of every kind should be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board, but a number of price increases by the nationalised industries have been so referred, and I have no doubt that a number of others will be referred to it in future. If the hon. Member denies that the operation of this policy has done a great deal to keep prices down, how does he explain the fact that a number of private firms have said that prices would have been higher had they not kept them down at the request of the Government?
  So many figures have been bandied about this afternoon that I should like to put the record straight. No sensible person imagined that a policy instituted by a general agreement in the latter months of 1964 could materially affect our economic life until well into 1965—say, until the spring of last year. The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale recognised this fact this afternoon when he pointed out that the White Paper on Prices and Incomes was published only in April, 1965. In order to be impartial I will take for my starting point the time chosen by him. It is interesting to note that it has been since last spring that the rise in prices has begun to slow down.
  I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about the dates. I have therefore taken as my starting point the date chosen by him, and I have taken as my finishing point the date chosen by the other right hon. Gentleman, that is to say. December—the latest month for which we have

  529
  figures. Between April and December, 1965, the rise in the cost of living was only 1·9 per cent., compared with 3 per cent. between April and December, 1964. That is their choice.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: By taking the dates that he has done—[Interruption.]—oh, yes—he has included in the Conservative figures three months of Socialist Government which included the increase in petrol tax and the import surcharge. That is grossly unfair. If he compares the comparable periods in 1963 and 1962 he will find that the figures were far smaller, and that they went down.
  Mr. Jay: The right hon. Gentleman did not even listen to what I said, perhaps because he has not been here for most of the debate. I chose the periods April to December, 1964, and April to December, 1965, because those were the dates chosen by right hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is getting a little too noisy for me to hear the argument.
  Mr. Jay: Since our policy came into operation, the rise in the cost of living has been substantially less than in the same period in the previous year. Even if we take the whole 12 months of 1965 and compare that period with the 12 months of 1964, we find that the rise slowed down from 4·8 per cent. in 1964 to 4·5 per cent. in 1965.
  Mr. Barber: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, during the first 12 months of this Government's period of office or during the first 13 months or during the first 14 months, which is the longest period for which we have figures, the rise in the cost of living was higher than at any comparable period during the previous 10 years? Yes or no?
  Mr. Callaghan: Why 10?
  Mr. Jay: No, Sir, that is not true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The rgiht hon. Gentleman has simply got the figures wrong. There were no fewer than four 12-month periods, one of which I have already quoted, between 1961 and 1962, when the rise was greater. If one looks even at the individual items, between 1964 and 1965, one will find that the rise in price was much less in the second year. The price of clothes and footwear rose
  530
  less in 1965 than in 1964 and less than at the average rate of the three previous years. The price of household durable goods rose less in 1965 than in 1964 and that of the group "miscellaneous goods" contained in the price index actually rose less than half as fast in 1965 as in the previous year.
  Food prices also rose less—by 3·1 per cent. in 1965 and by 5·1 per cent. in 1964. The chief items which rose faster—I give the right hon. Gentleman this—were certainly tobacco and alcoholic drink, due, I agree, to deliberate Budget decision that it was better to restrain purchasing power this way than by raising the price of prime necessities of life like bread and clothes. But if the party opposite—I say this particularly because the right hon. and learned Member for The Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) is with us—are going to argue now that it is wrong to restrain purchasing power ever by an increase in indirect taxation, they will have to explain to the House why they imposed repeated increases in indirect taxes in their 13 years of power.
  The taxes on wines, beer and spirits went up under their Administration in 1964, as did the price of tobacco, the taxes on petrol, drink and tobacco went up in 1961 and the tobacco tax was raised by Tory Chancellors in 1956, 1960, 1961 and 1964.—[Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not here when his colleagues were talking about rises in indirect taxes—
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd Mr. Selwyn Lloyd (Wirral) indicated assent.
  Mr. Jay: There was a general increase in the regulator on all indirect taxes in addition, including Purchase Tax in July, 1961, so right hon. Gentlemen opposite had better not talk too much about increases in indirect taxes.
  Not merely did the party opposite carry through all these increases in indirect taxation in order to restrain purchasing power—which they now declare to be grossly unfair impositions on the public—but they did much worse than that. Gratuitously and unnecessarily, let us remember, they forced through the 1957 Rent Act and, altogether, by 1964 when we came to power, the housing element in the cost of living since the Rent Act had risen by more than 50 per cent.

  531
  Not content with that, the previous Government introduced the London Government Act which, by dislocating and disrupting a whole number of local government services, has been one of the main causes of the rise in rates in the Greater London area. That is why rates have risen much faster in London than the average for the country as a whole. We warned the party opposite that this would happen and the results have been even worse than we feared.
  Again, to get the record straight—and it is becoming a lot straighter now—let us compare our performance with that of other major countries over the six months from the right hon. Gentleman's date of April, 1965, up to the latest figures available for the rise in the cost of living in other countries. That is fair enough. If we do that we on this side of the House need not be discouraged by our record.
  From April till October of last year the rise in the United Kingdom cost of living was under 1 per cent. In Denmark it was nearly 5 per cent. In Germany and Italy it was 2 per cent. In France and the United States it was about the same as here, while in Sweden and Switzerland it was nearly 4 per cent. Therefore, on the record of the United Nations figures, our policies have already achieved substantial success, as measured against the records of other major industrial countries.
  Mr. George Y. Mackie: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for the full year?
  Mr. Jay: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me a rest. I assure him that in due course he will have all the figures he wants.
  Of course, the difficulties are great. Nobody but a fool would expect it to be easy both to restrain rising prices in a fully employed free society and to achieve it in an equitable manner at the same time. Indeed, I do not believe that the ordinary man really expects that to be possible. But if the Government had not been willing to tax capital gains, to bring back effective control of rents and to control prices as well as incomes I do not believe that we would have had any chance of success.
  532
  I put this question to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Are they willing to do these things? Do they intend to continue with rent control? Do they intend to maintain the taxation of capital gains and equitable taxation of company profits? Do they intend to maintain the Prices and Incomes Board with control over prices as well as salaries and wages? And would they—and I commend this question to the hon. Gentleman opposite who asked about the nationalised industries—abide by their White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, which would compel those industries from time to time to raise their prices?
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not told us today and, to get the answer, I looked once again at the Leader of the Opposition's "Statement of Conservative Aims"—which was prepared, as we know, by a number of secret committees—in an attempt to find the answer. There is no answer in this document. Indeed, the answer is as secret as the committees which prepared the document.
  The only positive proposal in this great new statement of Conservative policy is a plan to put new taxes on our essential foodstuffs which would raise food prices by up to 10 per cent. and send the cost of living soaring upwards. The policy in this document would add at least £400 million a year to the cost of food to the housewife and would destroy any chance of achieving an agreed incomes policy or of keeping our export costs down.
  Since, however, we get no other guidance on incomes and prices policy from the Opposition's official document, we must naturally look at the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). They are both still on the Front Bench, I understand. They give us a lot of practical advice, but they contradict one another.
  The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—he will not deny this—has been telling us for a long time that any sort of incomes policy is quite unworkable, but his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet—and he is not here either; there has been a lot of talk about hon. Members not being on this side of the House, but where is he?—answered the right hon. Member for

  533
  Wolverhampton, South-West on 4th January by saying that although his right hon. Friend's arguments might be true in theory they were completely untrue in practice. On the contrary, said the right hon. Member for Barnet, it is necessary
  " … by effort, leadership and example to achieve restraint upon the growth of incomes as a whole."
  He said that the only alternative would be drastic inflation
  " … and that would not be a solution, but acceptance of defeat."
  This important pronouncement was too much for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West who, in an article headed by The Times
  "Mr. Powell hits back at Maudling Thesis"
  retorted not very politely by describing his right hon. Friend's views as a
  "… superstition pitted and hedged round with absurdities …"
  and as a piece of "mythology." I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am quoting; otherwise I might be out of order and unparliamentary—
  Mr. Powell: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting some of the words, but he is not quoting the context.
  Mr. Jay: I shall be delighted if every hon. Member reads the context for himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "You read it."]
  No wonder, after this, that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) tells us that the Conservative Party has completely lost "effective political initiative" and has "become a meaningless irrelevance." However, I do think that it is, perhaps, rather rough on the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West still sits on the Front Bench opposite.
  However, whatever happens to these holy men, we on this side intend to stick to our policies and carry them through to even greater success. Since these policies began to take effect in the spring of last year, the rise in prices, as I have said, has slowed down. We have now, in addition, gained control of rents—in face, of course, of the opposition of hon. Members opposite. The authority of the Prices and Incomes Board is steadily growing, and we shall legislate soon this Session to give it further powers.
  534
  We also introduced yesterday, and shall carry through into law as early as possible this Session, a major Bill for the protection of the consumer, including protection against unfair price practices, thus implementing the Report of the Molony Committee, to which we have given priority in a heavy legislative programme.
  Frankly, I think that it was natural that after years of recurrent price increases, the price rise had to be slowed down before a major effect could be exercised on incomes. We have now reached this second stage, and for this reason, given co-operation and understanding of the problem by all concerned, there is now much better hope of success than there has been for years past. Who, for instance, would have imagined even a year ago that the T.U.C. by this day would have accepted, by agreement, the task of examining and expressing a collective view on individual wage claims? Yet that has happened.
  And here is another sign which I believe is significant and hopeful. It was precisely in the second half of last year, when the rise in prices was successfully slowed down, that exports began to forge ahead more rapidly. For, of course, one of the basic aims of an incomes policy is to hold our costs down, and so secure the rapid rise in exports that we all know is our greatest national need.
  In the past 15 months the Government have deliberately put the maximum effort and priority, even at the cost of postponing some other aims, into the export drive. As I promised more than a year ago, we have launched a whole series of incentives, stimulants and new export services, and there will be more to come, which the party opposite might have introduced, but did not, over the previous 13 years. Incidentally I have noticed that right hon. Members opposite have shown no desire to debate exports or export policy in recent months.
  Thanks, I believe, in no small degree to our incomes and prices policy, as well as to the new direct export incentives, our exports increased in volume in 1965 by 5 per cent. over 1964. That was the biggest increase in volume for many years, and was very close, in the first year, to the target of 5½ per cent. in volume set out in the National Plan,

  535
  which right hon. Members opposite condemned before they read it. The increase in value of our exports was 7 per cent. in 1965, substantially faster than in 1964, although world trade as a whole was increasing substantially slower. That is the real measure of the success of British industry over the past 12 months.
  As a result of this accelerating success and of the active co-operation of industry in the export drive and in the National Plan, we have now halved the disastrous trade deficit left us by the previous Government and finished the year with two of the highest monthly export totals ever known.
  Mr. Barber: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will comment upon two very important facts which I laid before the House at the beginning of the debate. The first was that during the first six months of the working of the prices and incomes policy average weekly earnings rose by 11 per cent., more than three times the normal. The second was that

  Division No. 17.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Agnew, Commander Sir Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Buxton, Ronald

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Campbell, Gordon

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Forrest, George

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Foster, Sir John

  Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir w.

  Channon, H. P. G.

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

  Astor, John

  Chataway, Christopher

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

  Gammans, Lady

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

  Gardner, Edward

  Balniel, Lord

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cole, Norman

  Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan

  Barlow, Sir John

  Cooke, Robert

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Bell, Ronald

  Cordle, John

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

  Goodhew, Victor

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gower, Raymond

  Bessell, Peter

  Crawley, Aidan

  Grant, Anthony

  Biffen, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Grieve, Percy

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Curran, Charles

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)

  Blaker, Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dance, James

  Gurden, Harold

  Box, Donald

  Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Dean, Paul

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Braine, Bernard

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. w. F.

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Brewis, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Doughty, Charles

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Bryan, Paul

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

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hastings, Stephen

  Buck, Antony

  Farr, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fell, Anthony

  Hay, John

  the latest figures of industrial production show it to be less than it was in January, 1965.
  Mr. Jay: In order that I do not have to make my speech all over again, I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads it in HANSARD tomorrow.
  The plain truth is that as a nation we shall never achieve economic growth and keep prices down at the same time without the most strenuous effort in partnership between all sections of industry and between industry and the Government. That is our policy. It is, I believe, beginning to succeed, and we mean to carry it through. It will certainly not be easy, but I am convinced that it is possible. I invite the country to renew and redouble the constructive effort of the last 15 months and the House to reject this ridiculous censure Motion from a party which has no policy, no unity and no hope.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 287.

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maitland, Sir John

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

  Hendry, Forbes

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Smith, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Marten, Neil

  Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mathew, Robert

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

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

  Maude, Angus

  Stainton, Keith

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Stanley, Hn. Richard

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Mawby, Ray

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stodart, Anthony

  Hooson, H. E.

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

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Hopkins, Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Hordern, Peter

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Hornby, Richard

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Talbot, John E.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylors, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)

  Mitchell, David

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

  Hunt, John (Bromley)

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  More, Jasper

  Teeling, Sir William

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morgan, W. G.

  Temple, John M.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)

  Jennings, J. C.

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)

  Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)

  Murton, Oscar

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Neave, Airey

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tweedsmuir, Lady

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Kirk, Peter

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walder, David (High Peak)

  Lambton, Viscount

  Page, R. Graham (Crosby)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Percival, Ian

  Wall, Patrick

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Peyton, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Weatherill, Bernard

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

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Whitelaw, William

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin

  Wise, A. R.

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Rees-Davies, w. R.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Mackie, George Y. (C'nese & S'land)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Wylie, N. R.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  McMaster, Stanley

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick

  Sharpies, Richard

  Mr. McLaren and Mr. Pym.

  Maddan, w. F. M.

  Shepherd, William

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Albu, Austen

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Dell, Edmund

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

  Dempsey, James

  Alldritt, Walter

  Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Buchanan, Richard

  Dolg, Peter

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Atkinson, Norman

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Driberg, Tom

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.

  Bagler, Gordon A. T.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunn, James A.

  Barnett, Joel

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dunnett, Jack

  Baxter, William

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Beaney, Alan

  Chapman, Donald

  Ennals, David

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Coleman, Donald

  Ensor, David

  Bence, Cyril

  Conlan, Bernard

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank

  Fernyhough, E.

  Binns, John

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)

  Bishop, E s.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Blackburn, F.

  Cronin, John

  Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Crosland, Rt. Hn, Anthony

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Boardman, H.

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Floud, Bernard

  Boston, Terence

  Dalyell, Tam

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Darling, George

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Boyden, James

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Ford, Ben

  Bradley, Tom

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Freeson, Reginald

  538

  539

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  MacColl, James

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

  Garrett, W. E,

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Garrow, Alex

  McGuire, Michael

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ginsburg, David

  McInnes, James

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Gourlay, Harry

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Rowland, Christopher

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Grey, Charles

  McLeavy, Frank

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

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

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Silkin, John (Deptford)

  Griffiths, Will (M'Chester, Exchange)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

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

  Silverman, Julius (Ashton)

  Hale, Leslie

  Manuel, Archie

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mapp, Charles

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Marsh, Richard

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)

  Mason, Roy

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Hannan, William

  Maxwell, Robert

  Small, William

  Harper, Joseph

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Snow, Julian

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mellish, Robert

  Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hattesley, Roy

  Mikardo, Ian

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hazell, Bert

  Millan, Bruce

  Stones, William

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Holman, Percy

  Molloy, William

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Horner, John

  Monslow, Walter

  Swain, Thomas

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Swingler, Stephen

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

  Morris, Charles (Openshaw)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Taverne, Dick

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Murray, Albert

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Howie, W.

  Neal, Harold

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Newens, Stan

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

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

  Thornton, Ernest

  Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Tinn, James

  Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Tomney, Frank

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Ogden, Eric

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

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

  Varley, Eric G.

  Jackson, Colin

  Orbach, Maurice

  Wainwrlght, Edwin

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Orme, Stanley

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Owen, Will

  Wallace, George

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

  Padley, Walter

  Warbey, William

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Watkins, Tudor

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Paget, R. T.

  Weitzman, David

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wellbeloved, James

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

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

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

  Parker, John

  Whitlock, William

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Kelley, Richard

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pentland, Norman

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

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

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Prentice, R. E.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Ledger, Ron

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wills, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Randall, Harry

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Rankin, John

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Redhead, Edward

  Woof, Robert

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Lipton, Marcus

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Loughlin, Charles

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. Lawson.

  McCann, J.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Mr. Merlyn Rees discharged from the Estimates Committee and Mr. Colin Jackson added.—[Mr. Sydney Irving.]
  Mr. Charles R. Morris discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Joel Barnett added.—[Mr. Sydney Irving.]

  WOOLWICH ARSENAL SITE (REDEVELOPMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamling Mr. William Hamling (Woolwich, West) rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave quietly? They, too, will have an Adjournment one day.
  Mr. Hamling: I am grateful to have the privilege of again raising on the Adjournment the issue of the redevelopment of the former Woolwich R.O.F. site. On the last occasion, I asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary several questions, to which I received replies, and I will not tonight cover that same ground. The questions I want to ask tonight are concerned with the pace, nature and character of the development.
  I promise not to be long, because I understand that my hon. Friend has a long speech to make and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) would like to intervene in the debate.
  One of the important questions in which the citizens of my borough are interested is how far in this new community shall we be able to fit the new citizens into the existing boroughs. It is most important that as soon as they arrive they shall become an integral part of the Borough of Greenwich. Another point on which we should like some assurance or information is the present state of the plan. We would like to know something about starting dates, when some of the land will become available and how soon we can start building. We are also interested in the form of new development, who will be there, how many, and whether the development will simply take the form of housing or, as we hope, it will be a mixed development with opportunity for the people who live there to work close at hand.
  One of the problems which has exercised the minds of the citizens of my borough for a long time is the difficulty of transport in south-east London. Already, trains and buses are overcrowded and one of the anxieties of the people there is that this will add a vast
  542
  new population to the existing population, making present overcrowded transport unbearable and quite impossible.
  We are also interested in the style of development. We would not like to see housing development which is simply of one kind. We would like it to be mixed and to provide some scope for industrialised building and we would like, under that heading, all the existing boroughs to work, in conjunction with the greater London Council and the Minister of Public Building and Works, in developing new forms of industrialised building. We want to see houses as well as flats and maisonettes; we want to see provision made for families, for old people's dwellings and for single people because let it not be supposed that only elderly people need small living accommodation.
  We want there to be an opportunity for all sections of the community to come and live there and have a happy life. We hope that the form of buildings will combine both industrialised building and traditional building, and that we shall have colour, variety and good taste. There must also be proper provision for schools. We think very highly of education in London and we want good facilities for education, community centres, hospitals and welfare facilities of every kind. Above all, we would like to see a situation in which the people are being told what is happening as soon as possible.
  My hon. Friend has long experience of local government and social questions. He knows very well how anxious people become when they are not told the facts. It is good government to tell people the facts as soon as they are known in as much detail as they are known. Accordingly, it is along these lines that I trust my hon. Friend will address his remarks tonight.
  10.19 p.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) for allowing me time to make a very brief intervention. There are two points which I wish to bring to the notice of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
  First, can my hon. Friend give us some idea of the position concerning the River Thames flood barrier which will be alongside this development? Secondly,

  543
  I wish to draw attention to the concern felt in my constituency about the area of the sewerage works. If we include the reserve land and the tree barrier land plus the extension of the sewerage works, one-third of the total acreage fo the development, the whole of this reserve land is within my constituency. We are concerned with the odour which is sometimes associated with this type of development and wish to be assured that this will be cleared entirely from the site before the development is completed.
  I wish to express very serious concern at the sterilisation of almost 50 per cent. of the area within my constituency. We believe that the land being reserved—100 acres of reserve land and 100 to 130 acres of land for the tree barrier—should be used for non-housing purposes. My view is that there should be no extension of a sewerage works in close proximity to an important development like this.
  I welcome in general this great and imaginative scheme. There are other points which could be made, but we cannot deal with them at this time.
  10.21 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): I should deal straight away with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) who properly expressed anxieties on two aspects—one concerning the sewerage problem on this site and the other the problem of possible flooding. He will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, replied to a Question on this matter on Tuesday last. I ask my hon. Friend to look at that because it answers some of the Questions which he raised. Those dealing with this tremendous plan are not unaware of the point which he made.
  On my hon. Friend's point about sewerage, which is a vital one, I understand that the Greater London Council is considering representations which his borough, the London Borough of Bexley, has made. I hope that as a result it will be possible for the two authorities to reach agreement. There is no disagreement on the problems involved. I hope that there will not be any disagreement
  544
  on the way in which they should be resolved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) deserves the gratitude of the House for enabling us once again to discuss this great project, which is of such vital interest to many thousands of Londoners. I hope to touch on a number of the points which he has made in his speech. But he will appreciate that, since the planning of this scheme is still in progress and the draft master plan is currently the subject of consideration by the committees of the local authorities, I could only give general indications on a number of points.
  The scale of this development is hard to grasp. So often housing authorities in inner London have been trying to cope with their problems by using to the fullest extent small sites of an acre or two. Here we have an area twice the size of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens and with a river frontage three miles long, which in itself presents a wonderful opportunity for the planners and designers. On the other hand, apart from this river frontage and the view to the south across the hills of Bostall and Abbey Woods, the site itself has few natural advantages since it is low lying and much of it is marshy.
  To make the most of this unique opportunity in London's planning history, we need the greatest measure of cooperation and imagination from all concerned. The primary responsibility is that of the Greater London Council. But it is doing this in close collaboration with the two boroughs of Bexley and Greenwich in whose areas this land is situated and the Inner London Education Authority. Both London Borough Councils are represented on a special submittee of the Greater London Council's General Purposes Committee and there is a parallel liaison group of officers of all the local authorities.
  We in Whitehall are also ensuring that the different Government Departments concerned can collaborate in the planning. There is a special liaison group of officers of the Departments concerned which meets from time to time with officers of the local authorities and of the public transport undertakings, British Railways and London Transport. The special subcommittee and the two officers' liaison

  545
  groups are working to reinforce the normal central and local government machinery and processes of consultation with others concerned. The aim is to ensure full and timely consultation and co-ordination of effort and to give impetus and direction to the whole operation, but without detracting from the statutory and delegated powers of the councils and their committees. In this way every effort is being made to proceed with speed in settling a master plan which will have the greatest possible degree of agreement among the public authorities and other interests concerned.
  When I spoke in the Adjournment debate —aised by my hon. Friend last April, I said that the Greater London Council's officers and those of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence were already in negotiation about the transfer of land from Government ownership to the Greater London Council.
  I am now able to tell the House that most satisfactory progress has been made in planning for the relocation of Government uses from the land concerned. As a result, my right hon. Friend is now able to release to the Greater London Council about 500 acres at the eastern end of the site during the present year; and a scheme for releasing the remainder of the 1,020 acres is being worked out in consultation with the Greater London Council with a view to it all being released within the next five years. Taken together with adjacent undeveloped land which the Greater London Council already owns, there will thus be 1,300 acres for development.
  But the release of land in itself is not enough; we must make the earliest possible start on building the houses. Here again, there is good progress to report. The Greater London Council has plans for beginning the first stage of the development, which can be carried out without prejudice to the implementation of the comprehensive plan now being prepared. The Greater London Council hopes to begin the first 1,000 houses by the end of this year.
  I understand that progress with the preparation of the master plan is approaching a stage where it can be published in draft form—fairly soon. I agree with my hon. Friend that the more publicity we give to this, the better. I
  546
  cannot anticipate the details of the draft plan, but I think, from my discussions with the council, that its key features are likely to be variety and balance. No one wants to see a great development of this kind which is completely uniform in type of dwelling or in type of construction. I feel sure that with a development of this kind, which will house some 60,000 people, there is scope for a variety of forms of housing enterprise. There will, of course, be council housing. But we do not want to see nothing but council housing on this site. I am sure that there will be scope for the appropriate use of housing associations and provision for owner-occupation.
  Equally, I am sure that there will be variety in the type of accommodation provided as between houses and flats, high rise and low rise and in the number of bedrooms per dwelling. The sort of points which my hon. Friend has made about the need to provide for the one-bedroom household will, I am sure, be borne in mind by the Greater London Council as housing authority.
  This development provides a wonderful opportunity for substantial use of industrialised building. We must have an immense increase in industrialised building if we are to achieve our housing targets. Our national target is to reach 500,000 houses a year in five years' time and over the country as a whole to build one in five dwellings by industrialised methods. To reach that target will mean an immense increase over the present output of industrialised building; and there is the capacity to achieve this. I do not, of course, envisage, nor I am sure does the G.L.C., that every dwelling built at Woolwich will be built by industrialised methods. Traditional building will also be used for some of the development. Variety and other considerations come into the picture here, too.
  It has been suggested that staff and buildings of the Royal Ordnance factory might be used for an industrialised housing factory to serve the Woolwich development, and indeed new building in south-east London generally. This, it was suggested, could attempt designs not tied to existing systems and capable of extensive variation of finish. The factory would be on a large scale and operate by direct labour under a consortium of

  547
  local authorities. A preliminary discussion of this project was held at a meeting of officials of the Greenwich Borough Council, the G.L.C., the Government Departments concerned and the National Building Agency.
  This is a proposition for a factory on an altogether different scale from anything we have envisaged so far. Moreover, there is no shortage of productive capacity in the country as a whole and it is difficult to see where a factory of this magnitude would find its market.
  The officers of the Greenwich Borough Council, who were present at the meeting, will be reporting to their authority on the discussions. If the borough would like further discussions on the proposal I shall be happy to arrange for these between the borough and experts in the Departments concerned and the National Building Agency.
  The G.L.C., also, is urgently considering the best way of introducing industrialised building into this site. This might possibly be by a value-cost form of a contract under which the council would finance the construction and operation of a factory—to produce components for 1,500–2,000 dwellings a year—through a joint operation with a firm of contractors.
  This idea for a factory to produce specifically for the site is a very different proposition from the major proposal I have mentioned. It may well be the right answer, but it needs to be looked at against a background of the production facilities in this part of the country. This the Ministry officials are doing as a matter of urgency in concert with the National Building Agency and the G.L.C. itself.
  So far, I have discussed this scheme in terms of housing. But, immense though this aspect is, much more than this is involved. I am sure that the master plan that the G.L.C. is preparing will be a balanced one and will make the most of the opportunities which the three miles of riverside present, both as an amenity and to provide views for those who will live on the site.
  To plan an area of this size gives an opportunity to introduce the very latest techniques of segregation of pedestrians from vehicles on Buchanan lines and to create traffic-free oases in which people
  548
  can walk and live in quiet and freedom from the noise, fumes and dirt of the motor vehicle and yet, at the same time, be able to enjoy its usefulness. A site of this kind will have its open spaces which can be planned in relation to the riverside and the water amenities which the site affords. Landscaping consultants have been appointed to work with the G.L.C. Parks Department. An early start is to be made with tree planting. A whole range of educational services will be needed and are being planned in close consultation between the Inner London Education Authority and Bexley Borough Council.
  There will, of course, be shopping facilities for those who live on the site, but I am sure that Greater London Council will, in collaboration with the two borough councils concerned, be anxious to see that the new development's central area, while being substantial and lively, will complement rather than rival the shopping, employment and other facilities at Woolwich, Erith and Bexleyheath.
  The employment and transport needs of the new community are, of course, two of the most difficult problems to be solved. I can assure my hon. Friend that all concerned in this great development are very much aware of these problems. Experience in other parts of London is being taken into account, but the area generally has its own particular problems. Every opportunity will be taken to minimise the need for people to travel to central London to work. Further detailed work is being done to establish clearly what will be needed in provision of employment, both locally and in the neighbouring district, and what transport facilities will be required for those who travel to work. The G.L.C. is pursuing this, in consultation with the boroughs, British Railways and London Transport, the Board of Trade, Ministry of Labour and the Location of Offices Bureau, and my own Department. The relocation from inner London of firms tied to London and which have been planned out will undoubtedly play a part in these solutions.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned social and community services. Among these is the plan for the medical care for this area. The medical planning for a new development of this kind presents a

  549
  unique opportunity for research into the problems of general practice. I am glad to say that research on this is being undertaken by the General Practice Research Unit at Guy's Hospital Medical School in full consultation with the three councils. A full report on their proposals should be available later this year.
  Much as I am interested in every aspect of this new development, the medical services are of special interest to me because of my long association with hospital management in south-east London. I can assure the House that while this is not my Departmental responsibility but that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I shall be following with the greatest personal interest what is proposed in the medical field.
  This whole development at Woolwich presents innumerable problems, not the least serious being the interlinked problems of transport and employment. But I feel sure that these problems can be overcome by the closest possible collaboration between all concerned. Machinery has
  550
  already been set up, as I explained, for securing this collaboration between the local authorities themselves and between them and the Government Departments and the public transport undertakings.
  I can give the House the assurance that I shall be keeping the arrangements for consultation under constant review and that anything that the Government can properly do to ensure the smooth working out of this scheme will be done.
  I said in another debate that this was perhaps the greatest chance London is offered to build a new town within London itself. It would be the gravest crime if we did not plan this new town in the best possible way, bearing in mind that it will be a site for our children of tomorrow, not today, a site which I hope people will look on and say that, whatever we did or did not do, this was our finest achievement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sexual Offenders (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Sexual Offenders (Psychiatric Treatment)
  Crimes with Violence
  Crimes with Violence
  Obscene Telephone Calls
  Obscene Telephone Calls
  Walton Prison (Sanitary Arrangements)
  Walton Prison (Sanitary Arrangements)
  Police Patrol Cars
  Police Patrol Cars
  Speed Limits (Enforcement)
  Speed Limits (Enforcement)
  Football Grounds, Metropolitan Area (Ground Control)
  Football Grounds, Metropolitan Area (Ground Control)
  Marriages
  Marriages
  Marriage-Mending Agencies (Grants)
  Marriage-Mending Agencies (Grants)
  Restaurants (Licences)
  Restaurants (Licences)
  School Crossing Patrol Officers (Greater London)
  School Crossing Patrol Officers (Greater London)
  Immigration Officers
  Immigration Officers
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Court of Criminal Appeal (Earl Eden Hanslow)
  Court of Criminal Appeal (Earl Eden Hanslow)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Schoolboys' and Schoolgirls' Exhibition (Offences against Young People)
  Schoolboys' and Schoolgirls' Exhibition (Offences against Young People)
  Commonwealth Immigration
  Commonwealth Immigration
  Borstal Inmates (Deaths)
  Borstal Inmates (Deaths)
  Immigrants from Asia, Africa and West Indies
  Immigrants from Asia, Africa and West Indies
  Motor Cars (Thefts)
  Motor Cars (Thefts)
  Government of Ireland Acts
  Government of Ireland Acts
  Durham Gaol (Prisoners)
  Durham Gaol (Prisoners)
  New Criminal Offences
  New Criminal Offences
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Sunday Observance
  Sunday Observance
  Frying Pans
  Frying Pans
  Betting and Gaming Act
  Betting and Gaming Act
  Football Matches (Disorderly Conduct)
  Football Matches (Disorderly Conduct)
  Complaints Against Police Force
  Complaints Against Police Force
  Magistrates (Inquisitorial System)
  Magistrates (Inquisitorial System)
  Law and Order (Maintenance)
  Law and Order (Maintenance)
  Unlicensed Vehicles (Kent)
  Unlicensed Vehicles (Kent)
  Police (Personal Radio Sets)
  Police (Personal Radio Sets)
  Prisoners (Deaths)
  Prisoners (Deaths)
  Prosecutions (Committals and Discharges)
  Prosecutions (Committals and Discharges)
  Murder
  Murder
  Petrol Filling Stations (Licensing Conditions)
  Petrol Filling Stations (Licensing Conditions)
  Animals on the Highway (Accidents)
  Animals on the Highway (Accidents)
  Electric Blankets
  Electric Blankets
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Pirate Radio Ship "Galaxy" (Incident)
  Pirate Radio Ship "Galaxy" (Incident)
  Betting Offices
  Betting Offices
  Immigration (Studies)
  Immigration (Studies)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
SOUTH PACIFIC
  Christmas Island and Phoenix Islands
  Christmas Island and Phoenix Islands
GIBRALTAR
  Constitutional and Economic Position
  Constitutional and Economic Position
  Development Plan
  Development Plan
  Frontier Restrictions
  Frontier Restrictions
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  Colonial Office (Staff)
  Colonial Office (Staff)
CARIBBEAN TERRITORIES
  Royal Visit
  Royal Visit
  Eastern Caribbean Islands (Association)
  Eastern Caribbean Islands (Association)
NEW HEBRIDES
  Lenakel Hospital
  Lenakel Hospital
  Agricultural Station, Santo
  Agricultural Station, Santo
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  B.E.A. Internal Services (Fare Increases)
  B.E.A. Internal Services (Fare Increases)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Companies Bill
  Companies Bill
  Pitch Fibre Pipes Ltd., West Hartlepool
  Pitch Fibre Pipes Ltd., West Hartlepool
  Industrial Development (Merseyside)
  Industrial Development (Merseyside)
  St. Martin Preserving Company Limited
  St. Martin Preserving Company Limited
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Investment Proposals (Administrative Staff)
  Investment Proposals (Administrative Staff)
  Advance Factory, Houghton-le-Spring
  Advance Factory, Houghton-le-Spring
  Industrial Development, Houghton-le-Spring
  Industrial Development, Houghton-le-Spring
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Hotel and Catering Industry
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
  Petrol Trade (Solus System)
  Petrol Trade (Solus System)
  Restaurants, Aberdeen (Application for Grant)
  Restaurants, Aberdeen (Application for Grant)
  Aberdeen, Norway and Belgium (Car-Ferry or Hovercraft Service)
  Aberdeen, Norway and Belgium (Car-Ferry or Hovercraft Service)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary and Secondary Education (Armitage and Handsacre)
  Primary and Secondary Education (Armitage and Handsacre)
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Sarisbury County Secondary Modern School
  Sarisbury County Secondary Modern School
  Wales (Agricultural College)
  Wales (Agricultural College)
  Schools (Lavatory Arrangements)
  Schools (Lavatory Arrangements)
  Disused Territorial Army Drill Halls
  Disused Territorial Army Drill Halls
  Amateur Athletic Association (Grants)
  Amateur Athletic Association (Grants)
  Bournemouth Municipal College of Technology
  Bournemouth Municipal College of Technology
  Orchestras and Art Galleries (Financial Assistance)
  Orchestras and Art Galleries (Financial Assistance)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Information and Directory Services (Misuse)
  Information and Directory Services (Misuse)
POST OFFICE
  Letters from Rhodesia (Surcharge)
  Letters from Rhodesia (Surcharge)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Private Industry (Government Contracts and Loans)
  Private Industry (Government Contracts and Loans)
  Letters from Rhodesia (Postal Surcharges)
  Letters from Rhodesia (Postal Surcharges)
  West Germany (Purchase of British Goods)
  West Germany (Purchase of British Goods)
TECHNOLOGY
  Government Establishments (Control)
  Government Establishments (Control)
  Computers and Automatic Machines
  Computers and Automatic Machines
HOSPITALS
  Geriatric Beds, Newcastle
  Geriatric Beds, Newcastle
  Crumpsall Hospital (Pay Beds)
  Crumpsall Hospital (Pay Beds)
  Student Nurses (Overtime Payment)
  Student Nurses (Overtime Payment)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Niacinamide Tablets
  Niacinamide Tablets
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
SCOTLAND
  Caravan Parks
  Caravan Parks
  Milk (Pool Prices)
  Milk (Pool Prices)
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
  NATIONAL PLAN
  NATIONAL PLAN
  INVESTMENT INCENTIVES
  INVESTMENT INCENTIVES
  MINISTRY OF POWER
  MINISTRY OF POWER
  AFRICA (DROUGHT RELIEF)
  AFRICA (DROUGHT RELIEF)
  GAS SUPPLY, WEST MIDLANDS
  GAS SUPPLY, WEST MIDLANDS
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  N.F.U. (Questionnaire)
  N.F.U. (Questionnaire)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  E.L.D.O. Council Meeting
  E.L.D.O. Council Meeting
  Space Programme
  Space Programme
  Equatorial Launching Site
  Equatorial Launching Site
  Skylark Rocket
  Skylark Rocket
ZAMBIA
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Rhodesia (Military Measures)
  Rhodesia (Military Measures)
  Space Developments (Expenditure)
  Space Developments (Expenditure)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rates
  Rates
  Local Authority Members (Dispensations)
  Local Authority Members (Dispensations)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Vouchers)
  Commonwealth Immigrants (Vouchers)
  Average Weekly Earnings
  Average Weekly Earnings
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Electricity Authority (Compensation Payments)
  Electricity Authority (Compensation Payments)
  National Coal Board (Compensation Payments)
  National Coal Board (Compensation Payments)
ROADS
  Street Lighting, Broughton
  Street Lighting, Broughton
  Streatham Place (Road Improvement)
  Streatham Place (Road Improvement)
RAILWAYS
  Compensation Payments
  Compensation Payments
WALES
  Welsh Water Committee
  Welsh Water Committee
  PASSPORTS (MINORS)
  PASSPORTS (MINORS)
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD CAMPBELL OF ESKAN
Sir John Middleton Campbell, having been created Baron Campbell of Eskan, of Camis Eskan in the County of Dunbarton, for life—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES FOR LONDON
3.10 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in his name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the plans for new electricity generating stations, and their associated transmission networks, required to supply the growing needs of the Greater London Area.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY MINISTRY OF POWER (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, the Central Electricity Generating Board have estimated that, allowing for the transmission lines into London already existing or planned, they will require three or four large new power stations in the London area in order to keep pace with the growing demand for electricity in the period up to the early 1980s. Finding sites for these power stations and routeing the necessary transmission lines will present very great difficulty. The Generating Board and the Greater London Council are in touch to see how best the Board's difficulties can be overcome, and my right honourable friend keeps in close
168
contact with the Board on this whole question.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. I wonder whether he can say by what date it will be necessary for the Central Electricity Generating Board to have these sites in order that London may be supplied with the necessary power?
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, there are certain sites which are under discussion with the Greater London Council, one of which is within the ownership of the Central Electricity Generating Authority, but I could not give an exact date when the new station will definitely be required to come into production.

HOUSING OF IMMIGRANTS
3.13 p.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken note of the pamphlet Immigration from the Commonwealth issued by the Lambeth Borough Council last November, which reports at the outset that several years ago the Council had represented to the Minister of Housing that "there is no hope of the Council being able adequately to house either present or future immigrants", and concludes with the statement that "unless massive assistance is forthcoming at national level the problem remains insoluble"; whether they agree that a similar situation exists in many other areas; and whether they foresee the possibility of sufficiently "massive assistance" being provided to all of them.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, the London Borough Council of Lambeth, in common with other local authorities in Greater London and other big cities, face difficult housing problems; but Her Majesty's Government do not accept that these are due to the presence of immigrants from the Commonwealth, or that it would be right to give special treatment to immigrants in housing matters. What is

169
needed is a determined attack on the housing shortage, wherever it is found and whatever the factors that create it. Her Majesty's Government have announced a number of measures designed for this purpose, including particularly the approval of larger housing programmes for the local authorities most concerned and the introduction of legislation to increase housing subsidies.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that, I fear, unduly optimistic Answer? May I ask whether he realises the extent to which any plan or prophecy in respect of these particular social evils must be impaired by the regrettable absence of statistics as to the actual numbers and location of immigrants, and also by the fact that the number of dependants from overseas who may yet join them is wholly unpredictable?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, as regards the progress so far, the Government have not done so badly. In 1965 382,000 houses were completed, and that is more than in the preceding year and more than in any year under the Tory Administration—in fact, it is a record since the war. Regarding the particular point about immigrants, I agree that full figures are not always available, indeed, the pamphlet to which the noble Lord referred contains what I think is obviously an exaggeration of the number of immigrants. But I do not think that on any showing, this affects the real nature of the problem, which is to get more houses and to deal with immigrants according to need, apart from any question of colour or immigration.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that 382,00 houses were built in 1965 as a consequence of the policies of the present Government?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, it was suggested that the present Government were failing to carry out a proper housing programme. The answer to that is that they are, in fact, carrying out a larger housing programme and completing more houses than in any previous year, including the thirteen years about which we often hear.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, that seems to be a slightly different matter.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, say that the completion of this number of houses was due to the fact that a very large proportion of them had already been begun, and that the houses begun this year are fewer in number?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot yet give the number of houses begun this year. All I can say is that we are doing fine up to date, and although I agree that it is a bit early in the year, and that one swallow does not always make a spring, we have started off very nicely. I hope that we shall go on to do even better. We mean to get the numbers up above that figure. As the noble Baroness is well aware, we are aiming at 500,000 houses immediately—when I say "immediately", I mean in a few years and beyond that.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that when the present Government took over there were more than 400,000 houses already under construction which had been handed to them by the Tory Government?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, not without notice. Surely one must take the housing programme as something which goes on from Government to Government, and when you get an energetic Government in office the result is that the houses which were only partly completed under a Tory Government get completed, and get completed to a number which at the end of the day is a record for any previous year. There is no getting around that one.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, surely if the Minister agrees that they take over from Government to Government, they should at least hand the credit to the previous Government who started the houses.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, when I say that the housing programme continues, I trust that the noble Lord does not expect us to be so politically prejudiced as to pull down all the half-completed houses. All I would say is that we have done remarkably well, and the best proof of it is that a record number of houses have been completed; and we hope to beat the record. If, of course, political issues go wrong, and some other Government comes in, no doubt we shall

171
slip back to the smaller figures of earlier years.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is it really doing remarkably well to finish only 380,000 houses out 434,000 under construction the year before?
LORD MITCHISON: Until one knows the position about houses partly completed it is impossible, with housing statistics, to say. I do not know whether this figure includes houses which had been projected and not begun; whether it includes houses where the usual services were available and no more, or houses where the building had begun six inches all round the house. It is quite impossible, and the test that has always been accepted and was pressed on us when the Party opposite thought it suited them is the number of completed houses in the year. On that test we have beaten all records, and if the Tory Administrations were so marvellous at beginning houses, surely they might have completed a few more in previous years.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, if your Lordships will permit me to return to the terms of the original Question, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not agree that there is the strongest possible case for considerable special assistance to boroughs such as Lambeth, quite irrespective of the country of origin of the inhabitants, on the basis of simple human need?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, certainly there is a case for assisting boroughs; and they have always been assisted. Lambeth is, in fact, not the worst off of the London boroughs, though I agree that it has its difficulties. I have figures here, but I do not think that the House wishes to be troubled with them now.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, if I may return to the subject of my original Question, may I ask, quite irrespective of which Party deserves credit for the present housing programme, whether the noble Lord, on the strength of what is being done and what he expects to be done, envisages in the foreseeable future the termination of a state of affairs in which tens, or scores, or even hundreds, of thousands of immigrants are living under early Victorian slum conditions?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, that is what we are trying to do, and I am very relieved to hear from the noble Lord that at this time of the year—and I hope that he will not take this amiss—he and other noble Lords are so much concerned with the proper financing of the housing programme that they are willing to suffer a few extra taxes for the purpose.
SALMON AND MIGRATORY TROUT (PROHIBITION OF DRIFT- NET FISHING) (EXTENSION) ORDER 1965.
3.20 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-Net Fishing) (Extension) Order 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on December 2, 1965, be approved. This Order is a simple one. It extends for a further year the operation of the Order which at present prohibits fishing for salmon and migratory trout by drift-net in an area of sea off the coast of Scotland. Noble Lords will remember that the Order which was originally made in 1962 was extended for a period of one year, when it expired on February 15, 1965. The effect of the Order now before us is to extend the prohibition for one further year, to February 15, 1967. The Order has no other effect.
Our purpose in making this extension for one year is to give us time to consider fully the Final Report of the Hunter Committee on Salmon and Trout Fisheries, which was published in the summer of last year. Noble Lords who have read this Report will, I think, agree that it would be very difficult, if not wrong, to come to any conclusions about the drift-netting issue separately from decisions on the other recommendations made in the Report. We have been looking at these carefully; but the Government, in the first instance, have asked for the views on the recommendations of all those organisations who have interests in the salmon and trout fisheries. Comments have now been received from many of these organisations, but some have not yet been able to let us have their fully considered views.

173
In these circumstances, we feel that there is no reasonable alternative to continuing the ban on drift-netting for a further year. We appreciate that the Hunter Committee have, in their Final Report, endorsed the views which they expressed in their Interim Report, that unregulated drift-net fishing for salmon could not be allowed, and that they were unable to suggest any workable system of regulation. But the Committee have also made other far-reaching recommendations touching on all other methods of salmon fishing in the sea. For these reasons, we have introduced this new Order simply to hold the position for a further year. I should like to assure your Lordships that we shall not allow any unnecessary delay in arriving at decisions upon the Report. Meantime, I hope that the House will agree that this Extension Order should be made.
Moved, That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-Net Fishing) (Extension) Order 1965 be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in all our rivers and estuaries for a long time methods of catching salmon by nets and the time during which they should be netted have been strictly controlled in the interests of conserving the stock. It was of course the practice, which suddenly began a few years ago, of drift-netting on a large scale in the open seas, which brought a great threat to the survival of the salmon species. We agree that the Government are doing right in extending this Order for another year. It may be that they will then have to reconsider it, not only in relation to the Hunter Report, but also in relation to a possible international agreement, which we are all hoping to get, to protect the future survival of the whole species of salmon in the North Atlantic.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I from the Back Benches, as one who has taken some interest in this matter for a number of years, say that, although we do not always agree with everything the Government say or do, I do not find one word to dispute in what the Minister has said?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if I may add one or two words, I think that her Majesty's Government are absolutely
174
right to extend this Order for another year, but I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that they are keeping an open mind on the subject and will consider it again in the light of the Hunter Report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3. —(Lord Hughes).
On Question, Bill read 3, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
3.26 p.m.
LORD TODD LORD TODD rose to call attention to the problems arising out of the provision of technical assistance to developing countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel that it is only proper in opening this debate, to indicate briefly why I feel it is necessary to draw the attention of your Lordships to the problems of technical assistance to developing countries. We all know, of course, that the developed countries in the world—notably those in Europe and North America—have devoted, partly directly and partly through United Nations Agencies, very considerable sums since the last war to the assistance of underdeveloped countries. We in the United Kingdom, for example, have been doing this for a long time —indeed, ever since the passing of the Colonial Development Act in 1929; and

175
the amounts we have been spending in this way have increased steadily. Today, we are spending something like £190 million per annum, of which about 10 per cent. is multilateral aid and the rest is bilateral aid, the main channel for this being the Ministry of Overseas Development, whose very existence, I take it, is a measure of the importance the Government attaches to these operations.
In a White Paper published some months ago, Cmnd. 2736, entitled Overseas Development: The Work of the New Ministry, there are set out the aims that we have in this field. These are:
"…to do what lies in our power to help the developing countries to provide their people with the material opportunities of using their talents, of living a full and happy life and steadily improving their lot."
I have no doubt that these are the aims of all countries that give aid to the underdeveloped countries. They are brave words. But what is the actual situation? We are now about half-way through the United Nations Development Decade, and instead of pushing forwards, a substantial number of underdeveloped countries are going backwards. The rate of economic growth in the underdeveloped countries as a whole, measuring this by the gross domestic product per capita, rose substantially in the early 'fifties, but began to decline again after 1955, and the decline has been particularly marked since 1960.
The really alarming thing (and your Lordships will find the figures in the White Paper to which I have referred) is that in all the four main areas concerned—that is, Africa, the Near and Far East, and Latin America—the growth in agricultural output has in recent years actually fallen below the rate at which the population is increasing. This means, presumably, that there are no easy ways left by which food production in these areas can be increased, using only their present agricultural practices; and certainly the gulf between the developed and underdeveloped countries is steadily widening, despite all the efforts we have made. And the position, I think, is likely to get a good deal worse unlesss something is done very quickly.
If we take the present population trends as a guide, it is to be expected that the
176
population of Africa will have doubled by the year 2,000—which it must be remembered is only 34 years away; that of Latin America will have trebled, and that of the Near and Far East will have risen by a factor of about two and half. If even the present totally inadequate diets of the inhabitants of these areas are to be maintained, food production will have to rise at the same rates; that is to say, 2 per cent., 3¼ per cent. and 2¾ per cent. per annum. With present agricultural practices in these areas, increases of that magnitude are just out of the question. For most of the immediately usable land is already under some form of cultivation, and the increase in population is likely to lead to conurbations which may even reduce the land available. The result of that, I fear, would be misery and starvation, with all that it means in the dangers of disease, social upheaval and war.
I want to make it clear that in this matter I am not being led away by the fascination of exponential curves of population growth. I know that if you take present growth rates and simply extrapolate them, you come up with a finding that in a few hundred years there will be so many human beings on this planet that nobody will be able to sit down. Clearly, this will not happen. Even if we had plenty of food and took no voluntary steps to control the population, biological forces would do so long before we reached such a position. I firmly believe, however, that if we are to contain the world population, both in developed and underdeveloped countries, within limits which permit an acceptable standard of living and avoid misery and starvation, we must take action to control it. Your Lordships will notice that I have said in both developed and underdeveloped countries, because we have to remember that population is rising in the developed areas of the world too, although not at such a rapid rate.
I should also like to point out that, although in the context of my remarks concerning underdeveloped countries I may seem to be coupling the need for population control simply with food supplies, there are other reasons, entirely apart from food, which must make us take this question of population control seriously, because the biological forces that are likely to operate in the face of

177
the rise in population, even with ample food resources, would create among human beings conditions which I do not think that any of us would wish to tolerate. Population control, of course, is possible. It is possible now, with the newer contraceptive methods—and I include the use of the intra-uterine devices which are now available, and which have successfully been introduced in South Korea and Taiwan. Part of our programme overseas should, and in my opinion must, be the promotion by every means of population control in the developing countries. For if they do not adopt it, then only disaster lies ahead for them.
Nevertheless, education leading to the widespread implementation of population control will take time, and so far as the predicted population increases which I have already quoted are concerned, we have to remember that most of the people who will be responsible for these increases have already been born. And this means that, unless there is some very rapid action, nothing that we may do will make much difference to the population increase which is predictable for the next 20 to 25 years. So the problem that I enunciated at the beginning remains.
All concerned with the problems of underdeveloped countries are well aware of the situation I have outlined. The primary problem is food, and the right kind of food. It is not elaborate industrialisation on sophisticated Western patterns. What is more, with the aid of scientific and technological knowledge which we now have, this problem can be solved. Only when it has been solved can the development of complex advanced economies really begin in any of the countries with which we are concerned. Its solution, in my view, will come in the first place by the application of conventional agriculture; by the growth of vegetable and animal foodstuffs on little more land than we know is available now, and to a substantial extent by the development of fisheries. Even if they could pay for it, developing countries cannot be fed indefinitely by food sent to them from the developed areas of the world, especially since the population of these areas is continuing to grow. These developing countries must in the main produce the food they
178
need themselves. The reclamation of deserts and the like by irrigation or other methods is essentially an expensive and a long-term procedure, and although I do not by any means suggest that it should be ignored. I think only short-term methods will get us out of the mess we are in now.
Equally, I believe that unconventional foods which would be manufactured by industrial methods—for example, the production of protein from petroleum by micro-organisms—are again long-term projects, and we have to remember that unorthodox foods such as those produced by them face pretty formidable problems of consumer resistance. Man is excessively conservative in his food habits. There are lots of examples of this. Recently one has seen it in the difficulties encountered even in the introduction of the high protein preparation "Incaparina" in Central America, despite its easily demonstrable effect on local children, and the unacceptability of fish meal, despite its high nutritional value. These things will come, but their time is not yet.
Fortunately, however, we know that the application of available scientific and technological knowledge could treble agricultural output; we have the evidence before our eyes in the performance of the Western world in this century. Although to achieve the whole of that rise would be difficult and would need the development of the best varieties of plant and animal species for particular areas—a matter which takes time—and even bearing in mind that tropical conditions are very different from those in temperate regions, I believe that agricultural production could at least be doubled within the time scale available by the proper and massive use of fertilisers and pesticides and by easily attainable improvements in cultivation methods—even the substitution of steel for wooden hoes would make an appreciable difference. I shall not attempt to elaborate on these improvements, but we should need to call on private industry to help in the crash campaign which is needed, for, although in time each country ought to produce its own artificial fertilisers itself, in the first place it would be necessary for the underdeveloped countries to import them in very large amounts, and initially

179
pesticides would be largely purveyed by the Western chemical industry, either by export or by local manufacture.
But if this is to be done we have a formidable job of education on our hands. On the one hand, we must educate the farmers away from purely subsistence farming and have them sufficiently literate to accept the use of fertilisers, et cetera, and put the knowledge given them into practice. And, on the other hand, we have to generate the technical manpower which is necessary to sustain the technological effort involved. This means that the education of very large numbers of technicians for the technology involved in the kind of agricultural improvement I have been talking about is nothing very glamorous, nor is it very advanced. It needs carpenters and mechanics rather than B.Sc.s and Ph.D.s, and it is for this reason that I believe we need to have more emphasis than we now have on technical schools and colleges in the developing countries.
On all counts, my Lords, I believe we have to concentrate first and foremost on the question of agricultural development, and that development will bring in its train all kinds of intermediate technology—the production of plants for water power, solar energy plants, simple tractors and the like, and obviously it will have to involve the development of simple road systems. As a programme on these lines gets under way the production of more consumer goods becomes necessary, and probably initially they will be produced as a result of foreign investment.
To a very considerable extent, of course, the kind of thing I am talking about can be seen if one looks at the development of Mexico in recent years, which is now at what I believe is called "the point of economic take-off". In emphasising that we can so very much do with existing knowledge, I do not underestimate in any way the need for research. There are many areas where research is necessary: the utilisation of natural resources, the control or elimination of diseases or vectors of diseases such as trypanosomiasis and bilharzia, large-scale desalination of water for agricultural purposes, and so on. In these fields we can do a great deal by providing personnel and we can do, and indeed are
180
doing, a good deal by the kind of work which is going on in this country already, in places like the Tropical Products Research Institute, but it still remains true that a considerable amount can be done straight away by applying simply what we know already.
In this connection, the excellent report of the United Nations Advisory Committee on the Application of Science and Technology to Development, to which my noble friend Lord Bessborough is drawing attention in his Motion, recommends a number of research projects which would be of real value to developing countries and also emphasises a number of points which I have been making this afternoon. The report makes a number of excellent proposals, and I should like to think that they are going to be pursued with vigour, but this is just where I am worried. I am not so sure about the degree of vigour with which they will be pursued. One of the troubles is that nearly all the points I have mentioned and the proposals which may be found in the report are already to be found buried somewhere in the numerous programmes of United Nations Agencies, and yet the plain facts are that all the assistance given to developing countries has not resulted in the improvements we wanted. I myself incline to the view that the impact of many of these programmes has been weakened by political considerations, as regards their scale, their location and, in many instances, the quality of their staffing. In general the effort has been spread much too thinly so that hardly any of the projects ever get off the ground. I realise the difficulty of concentrating efforts, but I really do wonder whether there would not be something to be gained by mounting a particular effort in one region and perhaps through that geting the experience which would enable one to repeat the project very rapidly in other places.
All these matters about which I have been speaking come under the heading of technical assistance, and when we look at our own bilateral expenditure on overseas aid it is a little disappointing to find that only 15 per cent., or £27 million, out of the total is devoted to technical assistance, and of that less than half goes to agriculture. Is this really enough, in view of the situation we are

181
facing? We have our own economic difficulties, I know, and it may be we are unable at present greatly to increase the amount of money we spend; but surely in that case some re-examination of the present distribution of our aid is called for. In addition, the Ministry might be asked whether greater concentration of effort might not also help.
Again I have stressed that education, and particularly technical education, is vital, and I feel that some further expansion of Government effort in these directions is called for. I know, of course, that the Government are already involved in a good many educational projects. I know that they are, for example, pursuing the study of modern techniques in education in Africa. An example of that is the Centre for Educational Television Overseas, which is being carried on partly with the help of charitable foundations, such as the Nuffield Foundation and others. The charitable foundations, of course, are deeply interested in the underdeveloped countries. As a managing trustee of the Nuffield Foundation I can vouch for that Foundation's interest in the matter, but of course support, which will continue to be gladly given by these foundations, does not absolve the Government from accepting the prime responsibility in this matter of education.
One suggestion I might make in connection with education is that we have seen, particularly in the case of certain medical schools, an interesting and, I believe, successful collaboration developed between universities in this country and in Africa. I should like to see this extended a little. I wonder whether perhaps the staffs of some of our technical colleges might not be enlarged to the point at which a member of the staff from the appropriate department in such colleges could always be in underdeveloped countries on secondment for a period of perhaps two or three years, helping to develop the technical schools and doing there the type of thing which he is doing at home. This would mean that one would not interfere with the programme of teaching here at home in the technical colleges but would send out men who would do a very good job, say in Africa, and would then return to the original college to carry on with their career;
182
because in this matter, as in many others, my Lords, I believe you will get very much better recruits for overseas work if you provide them with a home base and a home career structure.
We are, relatively speaking, a small country, and the amount of money we can provide may seem ridiculously small in relation to the immensity of the problems that confront us, particularly—shall we say?—in Africa, where naturally enough we feel perhaps a special responsibility for the new African States. But many of these States are, like ourselves, members of the Commonwealth, and I should like to remind your Lordships that the Colombo Plan in Asia, perhaps the most successful of all the co-operative efforts to date in the field of technical assistance, was due to Commonwealth initiative. What I should like to ask for is a Colombo Plan for Africa, a plan in which all the Commonwealth countries, including those in Africa, would band together as partners in a major effort to speed development in that continent. With the pool of scientific knowledge and expertise which is available through the scientific, agricultural and medical organisations of the Commonwealth countries, large and small, we have the means, if we organise ourselves properly, to make a major contribution to the development of Africa and the welfare of its peoples.
My Lords, I have already spoken perhaps long enough, but to conclude I should like to return to what is, after all, my basic thesis, and it is a very simple one. We should take note of the appalling situation as regards food in the underdeveloped areas, and in the matter of technical assistance we should concentrate our primary effort on the problem it presents. I read recently a fascinating article in the December, 1965, number of the American journal International Science and Technology in which the world's food problem is set out in a very direct and challenging way, and I should like to quote the final paragraph:
"Here are the options: In a nation with a primarily grain-based diet and a population growth rate of 2¾ per cent. it will take only 5 years without significant increase in total production to drop a 2,000-calorie diet to one of 1,850 calories. On the other hand, to increase the grain-based diet by 10 per cent. and provide enough feed grains to add just 12 grams"—

183
that is, a little bit less than half an ounce—
"of animal protein per day will require a production increase of almost 20 per cent. over the same five years. The first route is easy but it leads to catastrophe. The second is hard but its end is hope."
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH had given Notice of a Motion to call attention to the Second Report of the United Nations Advisory Committee on the Application of Science and Technology to Development; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and also to the Government, for having agreed that my Motion relating to the United Nations Committee's Report should be taken on the same day as the noble Lord's. I agree very much with what the noble Lord has said in his penetrating speech, and if I differ from him at all it is more on matters of emphasis than anything else.
I agree it is certainly alarming if the growth in agricultural production in the main areas concerned has in recent years fallen below the rate at which the population is increasing. I realise, of course, that the figures on which the noble Lord bases his remarks apply only to the poorer countries. For in so far as the world as a whole is concerned, according to the calculations of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, between 1952–53 and 1962–63, that decade, food production rose by about 31 per cent.; that is to say, about 2¾ per cent. per annum; whereas the United Nations' estimate of population growth in the world for the period 1960 to 2000 is only 1·9 per cent. per annum. Therefore, if you take the world as a whole, the position perhaps might not be so pessimistic as the noble Lord suggests. However, unless the world distribution of foodstuffs to the poorer countries can be increase in living standards, and what I culation, be extremely serious. We must take into account, too, of course, the increase in living standards, and what I might describe as the non-correspondence of the geographical areas of growth of food production and of population.
I agree with the noble Lord that there seem to be no ways left by which food
184
production in these countries can be increased using present agricultural practices, and it is distressing indeed that the gulf between the developed and the underdeveloped countries seems to be steadily widening, despite all our efforts. As Sir Alec Douglas-Home said in a remarkable speech in New York only about a week ago, technology is apt to confer on him who has rather than on him who has not.
We must remember, however, that while it is true that the rate of economic growth in the underdeveloped countries rose substantially in the early 1950s, it began to decline again after 1955. But, of course, the terms of trade have also altered adversely, and these countries are getting less for their exports. I agree that the situation is a very serious one. In all these matters concerning technical aid, it seems to me most important that our policy should be to help those countries who help themselves. It is easy enough for us to say, and I have no doubt we should say it in regard to the population explosion, that newer contraceptive methods should or, indeed, must, be used, and that every possible means should be taken to promote population control. But we cannot, of course, dictate to the countries concerned in these matters. They are independent countries, and they must themselves decide the best action to take.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Todd, agrees that the research projects recommended in the United Nations Report should be of real value to developing countries, and that it makes a number of excellent proposals which he considers should be pursued with vigour. In this connection, I think we would all like to pay tribute to Sir Norman Wright, the present Secretary of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, who is in fact the United Kingdom member of this Committee, and also his American colleague, Professor Carroll Wilson, who, with Dr. Thacker, of India, and others, played such an important part in drafting the Report.
I should like to refer to the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which was adopted on December 20, 1965. I do not know, but I think possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, may have been there on that occasion; I know she was a delegate to the General

185
Assembly. This Resolution was passed, as I say, just before Christmas, and in that Resolution the General Assembly generally commends the view of the Committee that science and technology can make an outstanding contribution to the economic and social development of these countries. In expressing its appreciation of the very comprehensive response made by the Committee, the Assembly asked it to examine the possibility of establishing a programme of international co-operation in science and technology, and to explore further suitable solutions.
The Assembly also approved the Committee's plans for the next phase of its work, and they were grateful for the Committee's efforts to draw the attention of world opinion to its work, and I hope that any noble Baroness or noble Lord who may at any time have been on our delegation to the United Nations will assist us in drawing attention to these problems. The Assembly considered that the Economic and Social Council itself should be the appropriate body to initiate and guide the programme, through its links with organisations within the United Nations family, the specialised Agencies, nongovernmental organisations, together with the International Atomic Agency. Earlier last year, at the meeting of the Economic and Social Council, all delegates praised the Report, referring to it as objective, workmanlike, realistic—I underline the word "realistic"—and a valuable guide to action, and as one of the most outstanding accomplishments by any subsidiary body of the Council in recent years. At the same meeting, that great American Mr. Adlai Stevenson, in the last speech which he made at the United Nations, the very last, said that the Report was clear, precise, professional, and high testimony to the quality of work that can be done in our international community.
In view of this general endorsement of the Committee's proposals, your Lordships may like to know very briefly what they are. Generally speaking, the Committee calls for a concerted attack, pitting, as they say, the tools of modern science and technology against selected high priority problems; and I think the merit of the Report is that for the first time a well-qualified international body and, indeed, the Assembly itself, agrees what these priorities are. The eight most urgent fields recommended for early
186
action are, as you might expect from what the noble Lord has said, the provision of adequate foodstuffs, including, of course, water; the improvement of health; a more complete understanding of population problems; the most effective exploration and utilisation of natural resources of developing countries; industrialisation; better housing and urban planning; improvements in transportation and, finally, raising the levels of education.
I cannot, in a debate such as this, go into the detailed action proposed in each case, but I should like to say something, first of all, about the tools to be used in this concerted attack, and then something about a few of the specific objectives. The tools to be used would include electronic computers, combined with weather satellites in orbits designed to benefit storm-prone tropical countries; underwater television to track schools of fish; transport vehicles able to operate where roads are poor or non-existent, and atomic radiation to reduce food losses and seek out additional water supplies. Solar energy devices could also be employed. In this connection, I would urge the Government to look at the work of the Industrial Research Laboratory at Lagos in Nigeria. Then there is the use of nuclear power to supplement conventional fuels. Other tools would include mass communications and also educational techniques.
Regarding the increase in water resources needed in agricultural development, I should like to emphasise the possibilities offered by radio-active tracers and the co-operative use of electronic computers to help in processing hydrological data. It seems likely, too—and this is most important—that desalination processes may ultimately become cheap enough to provide water for irrigation. One American estimate says that in certain circumstances, and coupled with the use of nuclear power, the cost of desalinated water might be brought as low as 22 cents per 1,000 gallons, about one-third of present costs. I believe there have been some optimistic estimates in this country, too. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will be speaking on this matter this afternoon, for it is an extremely important one. I suspect that I shall probably be in general agreement with the proposal

187
which he intends to make, with the aim that British industry should remain well to the fore in the manufacture of desalination plants.
Incidentally, I was hoping to offer the noble Earl the Leader of the House, some desalinated water to-day. Unfortunately, the nearest potable or drinkable desalinated water comes from Guernsey, and the sample has not arrived. However, I would emphasise that in speaking of such water I am thinking more of its use for agricultural purposes and irrigation than for human consumption. But even for drinking purposes, I think that if the noble Earl were stranded in the desert and unable to find even a brackish water hole, he would in those circumstances find such water as agreeable as the best class of vintage port in New College, or perhaps those even more superb vintages such as the noble Lord, Lord Todd, knows at Christ College, and even at Trinity College, my own University.
Certain desalted water is quite drinkable. Obviously its use is highly thought of in certain circumstances. One of the more advanced recommendations included in the United Nations Report concerns the improvement in weather forecasting through the wider use of satellites—that is something which the United Nations urges and which may perhaps be of interest to your Lordships; they make some proposals which have perhaps not been widely publicised before—and electronic computers in a bid to help reduce storms and flood damage to crops. At present, forecasts based on satellite observation deal mainly with the temperate regions in which the satellite-owning countries are located; and the Committee expresses the hope that such countries will consider adapting their observations and computations to the tropical areas in which most of the developing countries are situated.
My Lords, we must become masters of our environment if we are to help the impoverished two-thirds of the world population. In this connection there is a most interesting passage on pages 17 and 18 of the Report on weather modification and control. The Committee believes that if the world's food supplies are to be increased sufficiently to provide even a minimum satisfactory diet for the world's population by the turn of the century, such control will have to be developed
188
in further directions, of which the weather might well be the most important in view of its effects on plant growth and animal survival. I should also mention the possible rôle of weather control in the case of typhoons and other climatic hazards. When we think of the terrible losses last year, running into millions, as a result of Hurricane Betsy, we cannot afford to ignore these possibilities.
The United Nations Committee does, however, agree with the National Science Foundation in America that any attempted modification of the weather, consisting as it does of tampering with atmospheric interactions, may produce unsuspected, irreversible or even harmful effects upon the environment, and that this danger can be minimised only by understanding the phenomena themselves and their reactions to the artificially induced effects. But the Committee agrees broadly with the Foundation's three main goals: that is to say, first, to attract new talents to weather modification research; secondly, to broaden the attack on weather modification research by supporting theoretical and field research, and thirdly, to shorten the time gap between development and theory and the start of field research so that new techniques may be tested as soon as a sound theoretical basis is established. But careful assessment must be made of the balance between possible risks and possible benefits.
I know that in regard to food supplies the noble Lord, Lord Todd, with his great knowledge as a chemist and of the world—he is widely travelled—agrees that protein supplies could be dramatically increased through greater use of fisheries, and I believe that world-wide surveys of fishery resources should be made as a first step, with the devices such as I have already mentioned. In so far as fishing is concerned, we must think more in terms of farming than random hunting, and take into account, for example, the fisheries research which has been conducted in Malaysia.
Incidentally, although I have to disappoint the noble Earl in regard to desalted water, if he would care to taste the fish flour concentrates which are being hailed as a tremendous breakthrough in the search for a cheap, abundant and acceptable protein, I have

189
arranged, through the courtesy of the American Embassy, for some of these to be made available in the Restaurant Department. But, of course, the difficulty with these protein concentrates—I should like to sit down with the noble Earl and see what he thinks of them—as the noble Lord, Lord Todd, says, is that there is considerable consumer resistance; and although, for example, margarine has taken on in India, it may be some time before these concentrates are considered to be generally acceptable. It is difficult to change people's food habits, and I fear that some older people might rather starve than take them. However, much could be done by introducing them to the younger generation at an early age, and I hope some thought will be given to this matter.
Then, of course, meat supplies could certainly be expanded by better control of livestock diseases. Food losses could also be minimised through better storage and preservation techniques. Control of the tsetse fly and other disease-carrying insects would also open large areas to further food production. In all these, the United Nations Committee urges additional training for scientists and technicians in the countries concerned, especially in Africa where the supply of qualified manpower is less than in India. Speaking of Africa, I would endorse what Lord Todd said about the possibility of a Colombo Plan for Africa, which would be inspired in the first place by the Commonwealth and in which other countries might join. I wonder whether the Commonwealth Secretariat, with which we were dealing two days ago, might not have a rôle to play in this and also in the pooling of our scientific and technical resources.
The methods by which health in these countries can be improved are well known —at all events, the noble Lord, Lord Todd, knows them well. They include the need for pure, community water supplies, the lessening of protein malnutrition and the control of certain insect-borne diseases. The World Health Organisation recently estimated that 500 million people in the world suffer from water-borne diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Todd, also referred to the problem of achieving a more complete understanding of the population problems, but, as I have said, we cannot enforce a wider
190
use of these new devices; we can only advise on these matters. Then in regard to natural resources the Report, while noting the importance of energy in economic development, recommends further investigation of the possible uses of solar and geothermal sources—that is to say, underground heat and steam—where conventional fuels are missing.
The sections on industrialisation, housing and urban planning are also well worth studying. But I am sure noble Lords would agree that in most of the countries concerned increased agricultural production is what is most needed at this time. However, I would not underestimate the possibilities of using what Dr. Schumacher describes as "intermediate technology" in the development of small-scale industries, as opposed to industries requiring high-cost capital equipment and little or no skilled labour. Sir John Cockcroft gave an extremely interesting lecture on this subject last night at the Overseas Development Institute. I recommend your Lordships to obtain a copy when the lecture is published. It is very down-to-earth. He concentrates on the simple things that can be done, such as their making their own small tractors, or even bicycles, and he lists a number of the things they could do.
On education, the Committee place the highest priority on measures designed to raise education levels throughout the developing countries, and I was glad that Lord Todd mentioned the work of the Centre for Educational Television Overseas. I know that he is one of the managing trustees of the Nuffield Foundation. I happen to be a member of the Centre's Advisory Committee, and I can vouch for the excellence of their work. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the work of these charitable foundations should not be taken to absolve Governments from promoting educational projects of this kind to the maximum possible extent. I was disturbed to hear recently—I address this to the noble Earl, as I believe he is interested in the subject—that the Centre for Educational Television Overseas was likely to be seriously short of funds, and that if further money could not be raised the Centre would have to close in April next year. I sincerely hope that the

191
Government will not allow this to happen.
We should also remember that cheap, simplified television sets, receiving their signals from communications satellites, could change the whole political and cultural pattern of the world. This was a point made by Arthur Clarke when he was guest speaker at a recent UNESCO meeting in Paris. I was interested to see that just after Christmas the Communications Satellite Corporation invited firms throughout the world to propose design studies for a multipurpose satellite with at least twenty times the communication capacity of Early Bird. Is this an intimation of the first global educational television system which might be used primarily for the teaching of English throughout the world? I would also agree generally with the noble Lord, Lord Todd, about enlarging the staffs of a number of our technical colleges so that closer links may be established between certain universities in this country and the new universities, especially in Africa. This obviously presents many difficulties, but we must see what can be done.
Finally, I should like to refer to the figures quoted by Lord Todd regarding our own bilateral expenditure on technical assistance which, as he rightly said, and as is clear from Table I of the White Paper, amounts to only about 15 per cent. or £27 million out of a total bilateral aid of £172 million under this heading. With the noble Lord, I would ask whether this is really enough in view of the situation we are facing. I know that we have our own economic difficulties, but the Labour Manifesto definitely stated—and I quote—that
"Labour will increase the share of our national income devoted to essential aid programmes."
And in paragraphs 3 and 92 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 2736) it is stated that the Government intend to give the highest priority to technical assistance. Despite this, I find that in the National Plan aid to developing countries is to be restrained. Your Lordships will see this from the check list on page 17 and the other references mentioned there. This seems to me to be in contradiction to what was said in the Manifesto and in the White Paper and might well be considered to be a
192
broken pledge—one, I fear, in a long series of broken pledges.
I am sorry the Government find themselves in this position, and I sympathise with them. But, in my view, this White Paper is really rather feeble and has no definite figures or plans for the future. Surely, what is needed is not yet another Ministry, but more aid. In fact, the new Ministry has increased overhead costs while restricting aid. Like the Ministry of Technology, this again looks to me like a costly piece of political window-dressing.
It is not only on this side of the House that we are disturbed, for I find that Peter Williams, writing in the Fabian Society Bulletin, Venture, says that there is great disappointment in Socialist circles about this. In his article, Peter Williams says that on developing countries the tone of the National Plan is utterly negative, and there is no echo of the declaration of the aid White Paper that the basis of the aid programme is a moral one, and no recognition that countries such as Britain have any sort of obligation to increase their help to developing countries. I certainly commend that Fabian article to noble Lords opposite, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, or the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will be able to give some reply on this point. Mr. Williams has done excellent work with the Overseas Development Institute, of which the director is Mr. William Clark. I think that we should all like to pay a tribute to the work which he and his colleagues have done in analysing the problems for us.
I have said enough to give, an indication of the wide range of research and aid which I believe to be necessary and which the United Nations itself considers desirable. I should be glad to know whether the Government intend to press ahead on the lines of some of the recommendations. I was glad to read recently of the Government's plans, announced on January 18, for alleviating the famine which faces India this year. At the same time, I should like to draw attention to the four-point programme proposed a fortnight earlier by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place to help India overcome its present food shortage. He stated that Britain could contribute to the foreign exchange cost of additional shipping

193
needed to rush food shipments to India. Secondly, it could expand the capacity of Indian ports by providing additional floating elevators. Thirdly, it could make arrangements to supply pesticides and fertilisers; and, fourthly, to supply vitamin tablets for the famine-hit areas. I hope that the Government will give full consideration to these proposals.
May I say that the only permanent solution to this problem, and to the many other problems facing the developing countries, lies in securing the greatly increased application of science and technology within—and I repeat "within"—the developing countries themselves. It is for that reason that I have drawn attention to the Report which forms the subject of my Motion.
4.21 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for the authoritative and constructive way in which they have called our attention this afternoon to what is one of the most basic challenges facing mankind to-day. I think that if we look at the scene as a whole, and at what other people are doing, we have no need to be ashamed of what Britain as a nation and the British people are doing to help close the gap between the material standard of life of the developed countries, and the vast majority of those living in the developing countries.
We have to-day—and I am rather sorry about what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said about the new Ministry—some most devoted people in Government service working on these problems, led, and given every encouragement, by the present Minister. We need not be ashamed of the British effort, but I agree that we must not be complacent, either. The gap is wide; it ought to be closing, but in fact it is now growing wider. If complacency has not been shaken by what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I would recommend that those tending to be complacent should read a factual article by Mr. George D. Woods, headed, "The
194
Development Decade in the Balance", just published in the Foreign Affairs Quarterly. Mr. Woods points out—and this supports what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Todd—that the faltering economic growth of the poorest developing countries means that the per capita income is currently rising by only 1 per cent. or less.
In those countries, therefore, with a per capita income of 100 dollars a year —and that includes countries with 990 million people—the income level by the year 2,000 will have risen by only 170 dollars. On the other side of the gap, however, in the United States, for example, with an average present per capita income of 3,000 dollars a year, at their current growth rate there will be an increase of 1,500 dollars a year by the end of the present century. In other words, a gap which is now wide will be by the end of the century 1,300 dollars a year wider, and with that kind of gap I ask the noble Lord, Lord Todd: What can be the prospect for world peace? What, indeed, can be the prospect for individual peace of mind?
Let me put on record something of what we are doing to meet this challenge. I accept the emphasis which the noble Lord, Lord Todd, placed upon the problem of food production. In the developing countries as a whole, as I have already indicated, productivity has faltered in recent years, and total production is practically static with a population ever increasing. I agree with him that the immediate task is to try to secure the application of known means of increasing production, and to this end we need more effective education and training. Lord Todd said he was disappointed that the present proportion of our aid effort devoted to this kind of training and technical assistance generally was too low; and the noble Earl had something to say about this, also.
The noble Lord gave a figure of £27 million as representing the amount which we were spending. In fact, this amount, under the heading which he gave, will increase during the current year to over £30 million, and it is fair to add to that figure our contribution to the United Nations Development Programme, which is another £4 million. Moreover, the further sum of £11½ million a year which we contribute to multilateral aid will

195
include expenditure on projects which inevitably involve instruction and the giving of technical know-how to local workers.
So that in a total aid programme this year of £210 million, the true proportion devoted to technical assistance is rather more than the percentage quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Todd. But I hope with him that, as our resources increase, and as we gain more flexibility through the completion of old commitments, we can improve still more on these figures. We want to see greater support, for example, to the multilateral programme of the United Nations and the Specialised Agencies, and this intention was declared by the British Representative at the first meeting of the Governing Council of the United Nations Development Programme in New York a few days ago.
Moreover, whilst it is true that within the developing countries as a whole food production is lagging lamentably behind needs, in the over-fed countries there is often an embarrassing surplus. It ought to be noted in this context, as we are talking about our effort, that we shall have contributed this year more than £1 million to the World Food Programme for financing the transfer of part of these surpluses to those countries which are in need. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Todd, that this is really only first-aid treatment for what is a serious wound.
I have given some detailed financial figures, and I propose to say something more on finance in reply to the criticism made by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in the latter part of his speech. But let me say here that it is not only a matter of sums of money, but of human skills and personal service. As the nature of our overseas responsibilities has changed, we can no longer offer professional people a lifetime career in the service of developing countries. The help now wanted involves assignments on a comparatively short-term basis, and Lord Todd has reminded us of what was proposed in last year's White Paper to make good this demand for skilled overseas service.
Through the initiative of the Ministry of Overseas Development, additional posts are being created in Government Departments, universities, training colleges and other suitable national institutions
196
which should make available, when necessary, at least 400 professional and technical staff for periods of service overseas. In this, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Todd, that the Minister of Overseas Development has the co-operation of the Department of Education and Science, to ensure that technical colleges and colleges of further education can make an increased contribution within this programme.
In agriculture, animal health and forestry, there are specific actions that we are taking. Lord Todd asked especially about the possibility of making available teaching staff for overseas universities. I am glad to say that, in fact, this is being done. Glasgow University gives assistance to the Veterinary Faculty in East Africa, and there is a similar association between the University of Edinburgh and the Veterinary Faculty at Ibadan, Nigeria. The Ministry of Overseas Development has made possible the appointment recently of four additional senior lecturers in veterinary medicine at Edinburgh University. The idea here is that which he was expressing: that not only will Edinburgh be able to accept more overseas students in this Faculty, but the increased establishment will enable them to lend staff for service in overseas universities. In another field, the Imperial College has found it possible to make available professors to the Delhi Institute of Technology. I understand that at the present time some eight professors are serving there.
Our technical assistance to the Commonwealth covers a particularly wide field, and under the Overseas Aid Scheme and other similar programmes we provide not only advisers, experts and teachers, but also we sustain operational and executive staff, many of whom are in the administrative, legal and other key posts of the Civil Service of the Commonwealth Governments they serve. Of course, the emphasis on the Commonwealth here results from our close links with those countries arising from past history and from a similarity in administrative and legal practice and methods. I have no doubt that my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies will want to stress later the importance of the technical assistance effort to our remaining colonial territories. To them, of course, we have a special obligation; though, I would add, this should not be

197
taken to mean that we underestimate the effort which we should also try to make elsewhere in the world—in the Latin Americas, for example.
A further important measure by the Ministry of Overseas Development towards increasing the volume of human skills available overseas is the creation of a corps of specialists, including experts in the development of natural resources, agricultural economists and statisticians. This corps will be used to enable younger men with appropriate qualifications to devote a period of service to the problems of developing countries. The intention is to build up this corps to about 100 members over the next two or three years. I should not like the House to believe that our total effort in this aspect of aid can be expressed only in terms of hundreds of people. Under our bilateral programmes alone, there were in 1965 12,000 people from this country serving the Governments of developing countries under arrangements wholly or partly financed by the British Government.
My Lords, if we add to these figures the numbers of British people overseas under other auspices, engaged in technical assistance work, mainly in the field of education, the total rises to over 17,000 people. In addition, we have some 800 skilled British people serving overseas to-day on assignments under United Nations Agencies. In all, we can claim that in overseas service there are a greater total number from Britain than from any other country in the world. Very properly, I think, this must be counted as part of our contribution to world development. To sustain this effort we now recruit over 2,000 people a year directly through the Ministry of Overseas Development, and over 3,000 if other bodies associated with the Ministry are counted as well.
These are substantial claims on British resources of skill and manpower, but if any look upon it wholly as a net drain from this country I think they should refer to the Report presented by the Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Willis Jackson—a Committee which has been studying our manpower resources for science and technology, and which comments on the value to us of the experience gained from periods of service spent overseas.
198
If I had time, I should like to add to this list (which is not one, I think, of which we need be ashamed) an account of the great numbers of overseas people who have come here for industrial training. One example may suffice. In the Indian steel industry to-day there are over 400 engineers who have received specialist training in this country.
In all this work there has been the willing co-operation of many organisations throughout the country. Maybe, because I have rather closer personal knowledge of it, I could give the example of the British Co-operative Movement. In West, East and Central Africa, in India, Pakistan and South-East Asia, there are now small farmers and peasant producers who get a fair price for their products through co-operative marketing organisations. I have seen many peasant communities who have been able to throw off the grip of the moneylenders because, by the provision of co-operative credit societies, they can now buy their seeds and fertilisers without getting into debt with the moneylenders. Our great contribution has been in training and sharing experience. Since 1948, the Cooperative College at Loughborough has offered a special overseas course, and this year 40 students from 28 countries are attending.
With assistance from the O.D.M., the Plunkett Foundation next month is arranging a training course in Iran. Last year, a 12-week course in agricultural marketing was held, with the co-operation of Nottingham University. I hope that my noble friend Lord Peddie, who is Chairman of the Ministry's Co-operative Advisory Committee, will be able to tell us of a similar course to be held this year at Newcastle University. I should also mention that next month the Cooperative Movement, together with OXFAM, will launch a special appeal designed to raise funds to start seven consumer co-operative societies in Bechuanaland.
May I turn for a moment to health problems? At the Commonwealth Medical Conference held at Edinburgh last October, itself a landmark in technical assistance, we were able to offer, in spite of domestic shortages, a significant increase in the assistance we will give to post-graduate training in Britain for doctors from developing countries. A

199
new scheme of Commonwealth medical awards has been planned to improve the numbers and qualifications of teachers of medicine overseas, matched by an increased capacity to second British medical teachers to overseas institutions. In an effort to improve the supply of general duty doctors in service overseas, a new scheme, commonly known as the Young Doctors Scheme, has been announced under which recently qualified medical men will be offered a further period of specialist training at the expense of the O.D.M. in return for an undertaking to serve a period abroad. The Ministry will be submitting evidence to the Royal Commission on Medical Education, which sits under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Todd, with a view to improving the country's capacity to meet overseas medical needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Todd, referred to what he called the excellent report of the United Nations Advisory Committee; and, of course, the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, dealt fully with this document. Let me say at once that the Government welcome this report, and we take legitimate pride in the fact that Sir Norman Wright, to whom tribute has already been paid, with which I should like to be associated, was invited to be a member of the Committee. Much of the material in the report was prepared by the Department of Technical Cooperation at Sir Norman's request. Not only did we co-operate to the fullest extent in the preparation of the report, but we have consistently supported its recommendations in the various bodies to which it has been referred at the United Nations. I have noted the reservations made by Lord Todd about the vigour with which the recommendations are being pursued, but I can fairly claim that we, Britain, have backed the Committee in its request for the resources which it needs in its continuing task.
The noble Earl gave us an interesting promise about some specially attractive protein food, and no doubt we can pursue our researches into that at some later date. To date, so far as this matter is concerned, the Government have specialised in giving support to the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, who has asked for a greater international effort and an expansion of
200
F.A.O.'s programme for the development of the supply of protein foods from world fisheries.
A second priority recommended by the Committee was a greater attention to tropical meteorology. We are making our contribution here in one very special way. The Anti-Locust Research Centre, maintained in London by the Ministry of Overseas Development, provides an international Desert Locust Information Service, covering the movements of this pest in the whole range of its activity from Pakistan to Morocco.
This Service is provided, in co-operation with the F.A.O., with financial support from the United Nations Development Programme and from some 40 countries directly concerned with the control of this locust. As a result of research, the relationship between weather and locust migration is now sufficiently established to enable weather maps to be used to help in the prediction of swarms' movements. Such charts are now prepared daily at the Centre on the basis of data received through the Telecommunications Centre of the British Meteorological Office. Amongst the data so used are the observations of the Tirosweather satellites, which often provide essential supplementary information for areas where ground meteorological stations are few or absent. On the basis of this work, cabled warnings of locust invasion, the great majority of which have proved to be reliable, are sent out to the countries concerned.
But as the noble Earl said, food losses do not arise only in the fields. Foodstuffs in store in developing countries are particularly at risk, and losses can be as high as 40 per cent. A special unit has been built up in Britain by the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Tropical Stored Products Centre, to carry out research at home and overseas and to advise developing countries on the protection of their food in store. Fifteen specialists in the past year have visited as many countries to investigate local problems and advise local Governments on methods of protection. One of the interesting developments of which I have been told has been an inflatable plastic warehouse devised by the Centre and brought to the development stage with the help of the National Research and

201
Development Corporation. Field trials are now proceeding in six overseas countries.
The Advisory Committee rightly point to the fact that the tsetse fly still dominates some 4 million square miles of the African Continent, and is a most formidable obstacle to the development of potentially productive land. British scientists have been in the forefront of research designed to make these areas habitable to men and cattle, and much success has been achieved, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Todd, will agree, so far as the control of human trypanosomiasis is concerned. The same degree of permanent success has not yet been gained in relation to cattle, and in the current year, both overseas and at home, the Ministry of Overseas Development is devoting over £100,000 to continuing investigation of these problems. A particular British contribution has been to bring the tsetse fly itself within range of the most complicated and costly scientific equipment available. In conjunction with the University of Bristol, the Ministry has established a special research laboratory there which breeds tsetse flies in a controlled environment, and it was a British scientist who evolved the technique of freezing the trypanosome and flying it here from its native haunts. For an important part of the research in this field we no longer need take the electron microscope to Africa.
Another vector-borne disease to which reference has been made is bilharzia, which is identified by the Advisory Committee as an enemy to human productivity in the tropics. Again, British scientists have contributed outstanding work on this disease. Two points of attack are dominant. One is to diminish the population of water snails which act as an intermediate host for the organism causing this disease. The other is to find effective new drugs to cure it in the human patient.
A promising new drug, which I am told is now in production in Britain, is now under trial in many parts of the world, and British teams are conducting field trials in Tanzania.
In the processing of tropical products for their economic use, we have a unique institution, the Tropical Products Institute of the Ministry of Overseas Development, which has done notable work in
202
recent years on improving the machinery needed for the early stages of processing tropical products, and has found new uses for by-products which have previously been regarded as waste. For example, noble Lords may be interested, as I was, by a technique of using waste groundnut shells for the manufacture of board for tropical building, and the use of rice husks to lighten concrete blocks for the same purpose.
The Tropical Division of the Building Research Station tackle other problems of design and construction indicated by the Advisory Committee as worthy of priority consideration. Our Road Research Laboratory has also specialised in problems of economical road construction overseas and, by its investigations in many developing countries, has placed at the disposal of their Governments an inventory of the most suitable road-making materials available and the minimum standard they need aim at in improving their communications.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, asked about the possibility of desalinisation. In this, as I think he knows, the Ministries will be assisted by Sir John Cockcroft, who has made a preliminary survey to aid identification of the more promising lines of progress. I think we can claim here more solid achievement than any other country, and not less than £1½ million has been devoted, in collaboration with industry, to the continuing research and development of desalinisation in this country. I hope my noble friend will be able to add more to the work being done in that field.
I was especially interested by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, about the possibility of a Colombo Plan for Africa as a whole; and on this the noble Earl also expressed a good deal of interest. I can say that the suggestion he made, and the possibilities he has opened up, will be carefully considered. One of the difficulties, so far as the African Continent is concerned, is that we do not as yet have the possibility of any adequate resources in manpower that will enable transfers to be made from one African country to another, as was envisaged within the countries forming part of the original Colombo Plan. But certainly I promise him that the proposal he has put forward, especially in

203
conjunction with matters now being considered in relation to the famine relief programme in Africa, will be considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Todd, stated his firm belief that if we are to get a balance between the volume of food and the number of people, we must not only increase the volume of food, but restrict the number of people. I think the noble Lord will agree that the movement of world opinion is towards that view, but I think we should get our emphasis and our motives right. If we are setting out on a mission to improve the quality of living, we must not appear to be denying the value of human life. On this matter, I think the practice and stated policy of our Government is probably nearer the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. When approached by countries who know their own problems and social conditions, we make freely available our medical knowledge on birth control methods. But we do not regard it as our responsibility to press upon these peoples practices of this kind unless a request is made.
Then there was the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, about pre-Election promises about sums which he said had been promised should be used on overseas aid. My Lords, I do not really think this is the occasion for debating pre-Election promises. On another occasion I should be glad to debate this.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, it was not only a pre-Election promise; it was a promise in the White Paper published in August last year.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord referred to promises which had been made in the Manifesto for the Election. So far as that is concerned I will content myself by using only one more figure, the figure of £700 million—a figure which is universally recognised now as the deficit left to this Government by the Administration of which the noble Earl was a member. When we have fulfilled our pledge to put right the damage done by them to our balance of payments, we can move on to fulfilling completely other pledges. Meanwhile we are spending more this year than last year on overseas aid, and we shall spend more next year than this year.
204
I recognise that I have not answered all the questions which were raised, but the real value of this debate will be, I think, the stimulus to new thinking, I hope over a wide area, which the two noble Lords will have started. For it is not only changes in agricultural methods which are required if we are to face this problem. There are also changes necessary in social attitudes and standards of values. I recall that before Christmas I heard a bitter complaint in your Lordships' House that we were not spending enough on university education. Last week I listened to a really moving plea from a delegation from South Arabia for more money for development in their poor country. I had to explain our financial difficulties, but they said to me, "You are spending £250 million a year in your country on university education alone—£5 million a week. Yet you hesitate to make available to us £100,000 for primary education in our poor country." My Lords, it was difficult to answer a protest of that kind. We have still a long way to go before we get a full understanding between the minds of those in the developing countries, and those in developed countries; between the minds of those who have and the minds of those who need. I say again that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for the help they have given towards a fuller understanding of this problem by putting down the Motions for debate this afternoon.
4.54 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the Motions of the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, provide the first occasion for a debate when the Leader of the House will speak from the Government Box as Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am sure that we all wish him success and happiness in his tenure of that great office, although I cannot wish him a very long tenure.
My Lords, there is one political aspect of technical assistance and aid upon which I feel that I must touch. It is one that we must face. It is axiomatic, on the one hand, that technical assistance and aid must go where it benefits most, and, on the other, that aid can be provided only in accordance with our resources and as paid for by the taxing

205
of our own people. The present position is that technical assistance and aid is obligated by us to Commonwealth countries, some of which have broken off relations with this country, and some of which are threatening to leave the Commonwealth. About them I would make two observations. First we hope and pray that the difficulties within the Commonwealth, and the threats which I have cited, are of a temporary and passing nature, and that the unity of the Commonwealth will be fully restored in due course. The second point I would make is that we do not condition our aid to the political policies of the countries to which we give assistance.
Having said that, I think it is right to add that those countries should be warned that Brawn cannot go on giving aid indefinitely if these threats about breaking off diplomatic relations and leaving the Commonwealth continue—or, indeed, are implemented. Let me repeat that I hope that this will not happen—I pray that it will not. I would not ask for any change of policy about continuing our aid to these countries at the present time, but we should warn them that the patience of the taxpayers of this country, like our purse, is not entirely limitless. In my view, it would be intolerable for any Government of this country to propose that the citizens should continue indefinitely to be taxed in order to provide aid for those who revile our policies, abuse us as a nation, withdraw their representation and, in fact—not to put a fine point on it—"kick us in the teeth." As I have said, I hope that such a situation will not arise, but I believe it is right, both for the sake of the taxpayers of the country and for the sake of those who would not be able to continue receiving aid indefinitely, that that point should be made, and that such a warning would not be inappropriate. I speak for myself, but I believe that I also speak for some others.
There is only one other subject upon which I wish to speak. It is of tremendous importance in relation to providing technical assistance and aid to developing countries; it offers tremendous hope for economic and agricultural development in faraway countries, and it has been touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I refer to the conversion of sea water to fresh water. This is not new. The first
206
conversion plant was made in 1884 by a firm called G. & J. Weir who are still, I am glad to say, leading technicians in that field.
World attention is now being given in an ever-increasing degree to this conversion process. In October there was an international symposium at Washington at which Britain had representatives. New processes are arriving and old processes are being improved. Costs are coming down and, related to the production of atomic power, conversion offers real hope for curing the world's shortage of water, from which our own country will not be isolated in the not too distant future. We are going to have to face considerable water shortages in the coming years, as our domestic demand increases by 4 per cent. per annum. However, at the moment, we are not debating water supplies in Britain. What I am saying is that this process offers tremendous hope for the underdeveloped countries.
I am no technician, but I have listened and tried to learn from the experts. Much has been achieved here and in the United States. I am told that to-day throughout the world about 50 million gallons of water is converted every day from salt to fresh. One is proud to know that 60 per cent. of that conversion is carried out by British-made plants, and the firm, Weir-Westgarth (and let me hasten to say that I have no interest to declare), have no fewer than 21 plants in operation in nearly as many countries. Conversion costs are, of course, high, but all the time they are coming down. In some arid places, like the Persian Gulf, 10s. per 1,000 gallons, compared with half-a-crown in this country, may seem expensive, but it is not expensive compared with water at £170 a ton by ship. I remember Sir Waley Cohen's dictum on values:
"A commodity is worth what it will fetch on the open market."
And on the open market, water at 10s. per 1,000 gallons is sometimes a very economic proposition.
Let us not be timid about price. The United States are getting some conversions at the equivalent of 3s. 4d. per 1,000 gallons. Certainly the United States realise the prospects for their domestic use and in the export of technique and plant. In the United States we have very big rivals challenging our present lead.

207
It is interesting to note that President Johnson recently signed a 185-milliondollar Desalinisation Research Bill, and called upon industry and science to develop by 1970 plans for plant of 100 million gallons per day. He called for several plants of 10 million gallons a day by 1968, to serve the smaller cities and towns in the United States. I should like to give your Lordships his words. The President said that desalination is not
"a far out and far distant goal."
He considered the Research Bill to be the most historic of major legislation,
"not for what it provides but for what it promises";
and he added:
"Our success could well change the position of man all around the world."
The United States are spending 70 million dollars a year on this line of research. In the United Kingdom, we are allocating £500,000 for three years to the Atomic Energy Authority. When, last summer, in a debate in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Snow, speaking for the Government, was asked whether we could not do more, he replied that he thought that £500,000 for three years seemed enough for the first phase, but that future needs would have high priority. That is all right. But I would put this thought to the Government: are we not now leaving the first phase and coming to the second phase? Has not the time come for the Government and industry to combine in one big, but pretty sure, step forward, the success of which might well shape the form of technical aid of immense value to underdeveloped countries throughout the world?
I am told that plans have already been prepared, and, I believe, submitted to Her Majesty's Government, for commencing a 10-million-gallon a day plant attached to a reactor of the Dungeness type. In fact, this could be the first of a battery of six, each with an output of from 10 to 12 million gallons a day, giving a total of between 60 and 72 million gallons daily. At the present rate of domestic consumption that would provide water for about 800,000 people, and it is roughly the same as the Thames Conservancy Board get daily from tapping the Berkshire Downs. By building
208
the first unit of 10 million gallons a day, the teething troubles would be worked out and a complete battery of six could be built, and we should then have a prototype for world export.
The capital cost of the first unit, I am told, would probably be around £10 million and the cost of a complete battery of six, with a 72-million-gallon daily capacity, would be around £66 million. That is a formidable sum, but is it not small when compared with the monies we are spending on other projects? If my memory serves me correctly, we are responsible for about one-half of the £270 million for the Concord project, and we are spending many millions a year on space research. These are admirable projects, but I wonder whether they will contribute as much to world happiness, and as materially to British exports, as expenditure on one conversion plant such as I have described, as a pattern for further plants throughout the world. I suggest that if we turn down this possibility, while proceeding with these other projects, we have not got our priorities quite right. This is a worthwhile venture, if we are big and bold, as Her Majesty's Government claim to be.
Too often, it seems to me, "the Noes have it", when we wonder whether we can embark upon new scientific ventures. The "Ayes" seem so often to be shouted down by the professional and expert "Noes". When the Wright Brothers flew in 1905, which of the experts, many of whom decried man's conquest of the air, thought that only 60 years later we should fly around the world in jets in a matter of hours? And some of the Admirals and Generals, in those early days of flying before World War I, decried the possibility of air power as a factor in modern warfare. My Lords, the "Noes" have had it too often. Here is a case where I hope that the Government and the Secretaries of State for the Colonies and for Commonwealth Relations and the Minister of Overseas Development will go with the "Ayes" and reject entirely the mentality of the "Noes".
5.10 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WORCESTER: My Lords, in a recent Review a missionary from India writes that the price of a quarter pound slab of chocolate at home

209
would pay for food for a family for a day; the price of a "hair-do", which one may reckon at 15s., would provide 70 children with a meat meal, and a joy-trip to Paris would pay a child's boarding school fees for five years. In simple terms, this easy-to-understand statement explains the nature of the concern which we are considering in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
We all know the causes which impede the struggle for emergence of countries in the less developed areas of the world —for example, Asia, Africa and Latin America. Many of these countries are without the basic necessities to develop industrial, agricultural and technological enterprises, without which they are quite unable either to raise the standard of living for the masses of their own people or to compete in the world of economics and political balance of power. Very often in your Lordships' House when we are considering vital social problems it is asked: What is the Church doing? What contribution is the Church making? These are questions which, it seems to me, it is perfectly legitimate to ask and, therefore, I propose to say a few words on this subject.
It is, I think, well known that through the British Council of Churches a not insignificant contribution has been made, and is being made, to the Freedom from Hunger Campaign. Here let me say that the Churches have no desire whatever—and it would be foolish to do so—to try and work in isolation. This problem is so great that we see it as a total effort in which the Government, voluntary agencies and Christian missions should tackle the job together. Within this framework many Christian organisations to-day are involved in projects which vary widely in scope, and which I think fall into four main groups. The first is education and training; the second is research; the third is involved with pilot and demonstration projects, and the fourth with development projects.
If I may be allowed, I should like to mention one or two of these projects which are actually being developed at the present time. The first is a farm scheme in Uganda. Gayaza is one of the leading boarding schools in Uganda, with 175 children, and a secondary school of 210 girls. There in Uganda, where traditionally the women grow the crops
210
for food while the men look after the crops grown for cash, 90 acres of bush have been cleared, and the girls have a daily period of work on the farm, where they are learning modern methods of horticulture and agriculture. The Church Missionary Society is now planning for a trained extension officer to keep in touch with the girls when they go home, and so through them to apply what they have learned at school to the needs of their own local communities.
The second project to which I should like to draw attention is in Southern Rhodesia. This is a scheme which has been worked out by the London Missionary Society, aimed at conquering hunger by the right use of land and water in Matabeleland in Southern Rhodesia. Briefly, the scheme is as follows. In this community each tenant will have eight acres of arable land and a quarter acre for vegetables. He will have seven head of cattle, a bull will be bought to improve stock, and the women will be trained in poultry production. Two dams are to be built, one for watering cattle and the other for irrigation. The whole project is estimated to cost over £2,000.
The third scheme is one that is actually going forward now in East Pakistan. This is the establishment of an agricultural and village improvement centre sponsored by the Baptist Church. The centre is under the supervision of an agricultural missionary; and I imagine that the definition of an agricultural missionary is one who, while he carries the Bible under one arm, carries the most up-to-date book on farm methods under the other. His wife is a trained nurse.
I have given a brief outline of these schemes, but, as I do not wish to detain your Lordships, I will merely mention several others without giving a long explanation of what is involved. The Church of Scotland in their South Arabian Mission plan to conquer hunger among children by teaching mothers how to use food properly. The Christian Council of Madagascar have developed 3,000 acres as a farm school. In Korea the Church are aiming at settling a hundred families on the land, and have already found after three years that they can become self-supporting. In Eastern Nigeria, the Christian Council run literacy classes and thrift societies and are

211
helping with projects as diverse as the building of roads, dams, fish ponds, bridges and agricultural development. In Sarawak, the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel is running an agricultural school; and here the missionary in charge and his assistant both have agricultural degrees. A very similar scheme is being run by the Young Men's Christian Association of India and Ceylon near Bangalore. Christian aid through the British Council of Churches is also being given in places as widely apart as Chile, East Africa, and the Middle East. The Roman Catholic Church, as we know, also have many similar projects.
I trust that this brief summary will show that the Church is involved very much in the problem of providing technical assistance to developing countries; and if I may presume to add this, it also gives a much truer idea of what is involved by Christian mission than is the one which is usually held. For the Church is concerned with persons, because persons matter, and is thus involved in the wellbeing of man, body, mind and spirit.
I should also like to mention here the valuable contribution being made by the Young Farmers' Clubs of this country. Many of our young people are much criticised to-day, but young farmers are giving us a spendid example. In my own county branch, where I have the honour to be the president, we are supporting this national scheme of helping young farmers in the West Indies, and indeed, we sent out some of our young farmers to help them in their work.
I have confined my speech to saying what the Church is doing, which I hope may be of some interest and a contribution to this debate. But on the wider subject of the whole question of the application of science and technology to development, I should like to say that I believe there is a close parallel between theology and science. A theology which concerns itself only with the problem of discovering the truth about the nature and character of the Creator and is not concerned with the creation, may well be an interesting intellectual exercise for the specialist, but it does little to help ordinary people with their problems and perplexities to realise that the Creator is very much involved with his creation.
212
The examples that I have presumed to give show, I think, that the Church to-day in its theology is working out the theology of involvement. Belief, if it is to mean anything, must be expressed not only in terms of a creed, but in terms of daily bread.
So with science, which has as its aim, I take it, the discovery of truth. But this in the abstract has little significance unless it is seen to apply to the solving of the social and political needs of mankind. In the underdeveloped countries, I suppose the basic need, when you analyse it, is the need for power. They need the knowledge and equipment which will enable them, first, to generate their own power, and, secondly, thus to be able to solve, to a large extent, their own economic problems. Our scientists have made, and are making, a great contribution in the provision of technical assistance, but I believe that for the future safety and sanity of mankind this should now be made our first and most important priority.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention one aspect of these very important matters we have been discussing. Before doing so, may I express my apologies to your Lordships, and particularly to the two noble Lords who introduced these Motions, in that I am afraid that a long-standing engagement will make it impossible for me to remain until the end of this debate.
I was immensely grateful, as I am sure all your Lordships were, to the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for bringing this matter before us. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl for calling attention to this interesting Report by the Advisory Committee of the United Nations, because if he had not done so I am sure that I should never have seen it; and I have found it a most fascinating and interesting document. However, it has puzzled me in one respect. This is a Report of the Advisory Committee on the Application of Science and Technology to Development, and at a fairly early stage in the Report the Committee record in very definite terms the considered view that, in present circumstances, the wider and more intensive

213
application of existing knowledge provides the best prospect of securing rapid advancement. That appears in paragraph 12 of the Report. Yet after paragraph 13 the Committee abandon that line and deal in an interesting way with all sorts of matters in which further knowledge may be sought through research—and the noble Earl outlined some of these in his speech. I am a little concerned lest what I regard as the fundamental task, the application of these discoveries to development, may be submerged in the search for new methods and new processes.
There is a rather illuminating passage which caught my eye, only because I am particularly interested in transport and in ports. In paragraph 110 there is a passage dealing with ports, and the Committee, after taking note of the fact that the rapid turn-round of shipping is a vital problem, say that they had difficulty in deciding how far the solution to this problem may lie in advances in the fields of science and technology, and how far it is primarily a problem of organisation and management. It seems to me, my Lords, that the application of science and technology to development is all the time a problem of organisation and management. It is not enough to discover new processes by which benefits can be brought to the developing countries. Somehow these new processes must he stimulated in the countries where this development is to take place. As I see it, that is a problem basically of organisation and management, or even, one might say, a problem of administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Todd, said—and I am sure we all agree with him deeply—that one of the first problems is that of improving food production. The scientists and the technologists can produce new strains of grain and new methods of cultivation, but they are of no use at all until they are applied; and the application of these methods is not a problem for the technologist but one for the administrator and for the manager. Here, it seems to me, we come up against a real difficulty, because the developing countries, often having newly-won political freedom, are particularly sensitive to any suggestion that they are to be taught the ordinary things of life. They are prepared to accept scientists
214
and technologists, because they regard them as experts; but they find it much more difficult to accept managers, and still less, perhaps, advisers in administration. Yet I do not see how the enormous advantages that science and technology can bring to the developing countries can be properly exploited unless we can find a solution to this problem. Moreover, it must be a solution that suits the countries themselves.
In this connection, I was a little frightened by some of the things said by the noble Earl, because he was speaking about highly sophisticated means of applying these new ideas, means which I should have thought were very difficult to implement in a country just emerging from a primitive state. I understand that not long ago, in a television interview (I did not hear it myself, but I was told of it), President Nyerere was asked why he was flirting (if that is the word) with the Chinese, and his answer, I think, was most significant. It was:
"The Chinese are making technological advances in circumstances much more like mine than are the circumstances in America or in England or, for that matter, in Russia".
What we must do, if we are really to help the developing countries, is to find means by which, in their own surroundings, they can make these new technical advances work.
There is, I think, a real difficulty about sending people out to these places. Not only is there the difficulty of the reception which they might receive, but there is also the difficulty that we in this country, perhaps, have not so many people trained in those arts as to be able to spare them. There is the added difficulty that a man who knows something about the management and organisation of these matters may find it difficult going out to a strange country, to adjust his ideas to the new conditions. If I may offer a suggestion—one that I know is recognised in some quarters—it would he that the way to help in this field is to make sure that the opportunities we have in this country for training our own young managers are also open to people coming from the developing countries. If they can get the benefit of training here, they can then, with the background they already have of their own country, go back and try to apply to their own circumstances what they have learned here.

215
Somehow, my Lords, I feel—and this is really all I had intended to say—that we must find some means of translating the schemes which the scientists and the technologists develop, and the ideas which they put forward, into real, practical terms. Perhaps I may illustrate my point, because I think there is some difficulty in the use of words. To a scientist the word "application" may mean merely converting science into a technology. To me, "application" means the practical application of these things to the facts of life. As an example, let us take a simple case in the field of agriculture. The scientists may discover, and the technologists may develop, a new method of cultivating some crop; but, somehow, that must be got over to the cultivator, and somebody has to decide in what area of the country it is suitable for this crop to be developed. He has then so to organise the life of the people that the farmers in that particular area get the help they need, and to see that the help is not dissipated among farmers in an area where they do not need it, and where it would be inappropriate. All these are things which have to be done before the technological advances which can, and are, being made can be applied usefully to the territories about which we are thinking.
If I may, in a sentence, sum up what I feel, it is this. The scientist and the technologist, between them, can advise what to do, but it is somebody who is not nearly so highly qualified, yet who has a deep knowledge of the country itself, and some training in the organisation of resources and men, who has to decide how to do it.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I think we are all deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Todd, for the extremely able way in which he has presented this Motion. It is a pretty depressing afternoon. Little has been said from any side which is very encouraging. I am not going to be any more encouraging. I think the situation in certain facets is even worse than that put by the noble Lord, Lord Todd. First of all, this subject represents the most remarkable development in international relations which has taken place since the war, something that previously has never
216
happened to this extent. It is a subject which the Economic and Social Council have been examining studiously since the United Nations was formed, and a lot of things have been done, but frankly the results are still wholly inadequate. Not only that, but I believe people are losing faith in this subject. Mr. George Woods, when he came here recently, said: "Aid is on the defensive".
May I look at one or two reasons why this should be so? In the first place, I think there is a measure of illusion, or there was a measure of illusion, as to the sort of speed which could be achieved. We forget too easily the 200 years in which industrial development took place in this country, since the days of James Watt or Arkwright—and in agriculture, too. We put too much faith in this concept of a breakthrough in science. We have had one recently in gas, in two senses. The breakthrough we have had is a breakthrough scientifically, and that it should have teething troubles is perhaps natural enough. But science should not be regarded as a Fairy Godmother to take Cinderella to the ball. What we want to do is to apply what is known, and the gap between what is known and what is applied is a very wide gap indeed. It is wide in this country, and it is far wider in many countries.
Here I think there is another problem which worries people. I believe we are in a state of schizophrenia as to whether it is a moral problem or an economic problem. The Ministry of Overseas Development sits nicely on the fence and says it is both: that is, it says it is basically a moral problem, but then goes on to say it is to our long-term economic advantage. I really do not think we can claim it is morally desirable that we should seek our long-term economic advantage. That is the sort of thing that possibly justifies the epithet "Perfidious Albion". Whatever economists may say about adding up the figures, I believe this is a sheer economic necessity; and whatever economists may say, if India, for instance, were to double her wealth, of course it would benefit every trading country in the world, of which we are one.
Your Lordships may remember what Lord Bruce of Melbourne used to say so frequently, and you will find it in a very impressive lecture by Dr. Horowitz

217
recently, in which he speaks of effective demand. This would transform world trade. In that sense we should, I think, regard this assistance as in the true self-interest of the world. If you like, it is a moral obligation for each country to maintain its own economy in good order. What is more important, I believe, is that if you put in a moral connotation, it necessarily demands a response of gratitude, and gratitude between nations is very difficult; no nation likes to be obligated, and obligation may even arouse resentment. I suggest, therefore, that we should regard it as certainly a mutually beneficial arrangement.
There is the other problem which comes before us and which makes many people think this is a labour of Sisyphus. That is the problem of population. It becomes quite frightening when the United Nations relates the population to square metres on the face of the globe. It postulates an utterly impossible position. There is no value simply in increasing the population of the world. What we are seeking to ensure is that those who are there should have a worthwhile life. The Ministry of Overseas Development refer to it—I think there is a small reference at the end in the last paragraph—but pretty shortly. I believe, on pure economic grounds—and this is a solemn thought—that perhaps half the resources devoted to aid should be applied to limiting population. I am not at all sure that on economic grounds this would not, over a reasonable period, be the most profitable and useful way for the world to use this money. In any case, let us be quite frank: any increase in population makes the need for intensive agriculture infinitely more important. If this does not happen there is only one place where people can live, and that is in increased conurbations. There is not very much which can give consolation in this regard. We can say there has been a growth of 4 per cent. in most developed and underdeveloped countries, but it was at the beginning negatived by population.
I think it is important that what is involved here should be understood, and I feel we are greatly indebted to the Overseas Development Institute for presenting, almost for the first time, a more or less complete picture. We should give them every encouragement to go on
218
with this work and make it clearer. I think personal experience helps people to understand this. Voluntary Service Overseas, I am glad to say, is extending, and I am sure that that is a tremendously valuable contribution. It is interesting that not only do we have the Peace Corps in America and some organisation from Russia, but I understand that Canada and Japan are also producing similar organisations of one kind or another.
If we look at the future, I think no one is prepared to say how the enigma of economic development can be resolved. Why is it that some countries go ahead and others do not? Japan has practically no natural resources, yet is now among the six big, powerful, free-world countries. Indonesia has any amount of resources and it has not succeeded in going ahead. Israel is another country which has gone ahead—perhaps faster than any other. It is true she has had great help from America, but she has been constantly in a state of war, she has no natural raw materials, and the problem of immigration into this country is absolutely nothing to what it is in Israel. The fundamental fact we have to face was well expressed by Mr. Escott Reid in an essay on the World Bank. He said:
"An underdeveloped country cannot be saved by outsiders. It must save itself. To save itself it must be proud, it must retain its self-respect."
I am certain there is no way of getting round that, and, frankly, many countries have not reached the stage yet when they have appreciated this problem, though I think there are many which find the task of nation-building an extremely exciting occupation.
This leads me on to two points which have already been mentioned and which I would underline. The first is the importance of education and training. I do not mean simply reading and writing, but raising the general level of intelligence. I should hope for some better exchange of teachers. I did not get the figures the noble Lord gave, but I think the number of teachers going overseas is nothing like what it could be. The second point is the use of our university organisations in schemes. In America they associate the university with some particular project. I believe that this is a matter which could receive wider consideration, because its educational value

219
would be broadening on both sides, and would be of great mutual effect.
There is one thing one must emphasise: that the environment to meet development must be peaceful. Law and order, in this sense, must come before liberty. If I may recall to your Lordships the words of Danton,
"Aprés le pain, la liberté est le premier besoin du peuple."—"After bread comes liberty."
I am certain that until the basic essentials of life are provided, liberty will remain an empty shadow. I say that because I believe that it is possible to misinterpret what I am saying; but I think it is proper that we should recognise the important rôle we are playing towards developing and maintaining stability in certain parts of the world.
In a way, I am sorry that the Government were not able to tell us something more. The noble Lord opposite made an admirable speech in which he told us that they were doing a great many things. I give them full credit for what is being clone. I noticed his reference to locusts. He told us that he could forecast locusts meteorologically, but he did not tell us he could kill the hoppers before they started flying, which seems to me to be a far more useful thing. I do not wish to cavil at the splendid work which is being done, yet it is obvious that what we are doing is still not enough; that what is being done by the world is still not enough. The nature of the requirement on a world basis is still far beyond being recognised.
Naturally we who have avenues not open to all have a rôle to play. Whatever may be the future of the Commonwealth, as an association or club, I have no doubt that, so far as anyone can see into the future, bilateral relations will continue. May I, in this respect, recall what Mr. George Woods, in a rather charming compliment, said of us in this country. He said:
"A great deal of the routine of the World Bank Group is simply carrying on—with you and others—some of the great works of construction which you started in the exciting days of Empire."
This is, of course, true. We started some of this work a hundred years ago. Then there were the 1929 Act and—a particularly brave Act—the 1940 Act, which we passed in the middle of the war, by
220
which we undertook a long and considerable period of development. In many ways, we have done some of this development unconsciously in the many highly unsuccessful investments overseas which were carried out early this century.
We are, of course, deeply concerned at the present time with our economy; and rightly so. But we ought to remember, in this tremendous drive for modernising our industry, that by so doing we are increasing the gap between the developed and the undeveloped countries. The bigger the gap, the more we can do. But more serious, I think, is the restriction which is now being imposed on investments overseas. This restriction comes at a time when a similar restriction is being imposed by the United States of America. I would ask the Government: what is likely to be the result? I know that not all of this investment goes to undeveloped countries; but some of it does, directly or indirectly, and there is no distinction in the area of investment. I find it hard to believe that this will not have a cumulative effect in the sort of slowing-down of development to which the noble Lord, Lord Todd, referred. I know of, and one can read, the Government Plan. Of course, our home problems necessarily push these wider problems out of the way. But I would make a plea: that in this complex field we can find a common ground for national purpose, and decide that this is something in regard to which we can make a worthwhile contribution.
5.45 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, like the rest of your Lordships I listened with great pleasure to the noble Earl just now, but I do not think he would expect me to agree with him when he says that this is not a moral problem. I know that this debate is on technical assistance and its problems, and not on the broader subject of world proverty and how to overcome it. Even so, a purpose of technical assistance, perhaps the main purpose, is the removal of poverty; and it is a bleak thought that this debate on technical assistance, so far from being an academic discussion, is set this very night in a context of starvation in some areas of the world and of poverty in most.
At the same time, I think we must be careful not to exaggerate. An

221
impression is sometimes given that the West has been affluent for centuries and, like the priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan, has passed by on the other side when faced by the poverty of the less fortunate countries. That, of course, is not so. Many of your Lordships, whose memories go back to the 1920s and beyond, will realise how recently this country has emerged from comparative poverty into comparative affluence. Hence, it is not surprising if we are at times a little halting in the discharge of our responsibilities to people elsewhere.
The new nations, however, are not particularly interested in our history. Instead, they look at us and note our affluence and see comparable conditions. We must try to meet their needs for two reasons: it is right and it is expedient. It is right because starvation and poverty are evils in themselves. It is expedient because our present disparities of wealth are prejudicial to peace and order and can create the conditions of war. This does not mean to say that we should assume the rôle of Santa Claus, even if we were in a position to do so. Apart from emergency action in the case of famine and flood, the way to help is, I think, by assisting a nation to raise its own standards by its own efforts. It is at precisely this point that technical assistance is of paramount importance.
If we are to succeed, then, what are the points that should engage our attention? First, the need to establish family planning centres. I do so agree with what the noble Earl said a few moments ago. We cannot fight this issue. Modern medicine assures the survival of more and more babies, many of whom live a life of under-nourishment and some of whom die from lack of food. The population problem cannot be ignored, as it is evident that the modestly successful efforts to increase the wealth of underdeveloped countries is being offset by more and more mouths to feed. The work so far done has achieved little more than to preserve the previous standard of poverty.
I know that there is a great work of education to be done, as has already been said in this debate. We cannot tell other countries to do as we want in this matter. We must see what we can do to educate them. Perhaps we do not always
222
realise what different standards exist. Only a week or two ago, when a young clergyman from overseas came to work temporarily in my diocese, I said to him, "Are you married?" and expected the answer, "No", because he was a young man—and a deacon, not even a priest. But he said, "Yes". I said, "Any children?" He said, "Ten". One realises that one can look at life in rather a different way; but there is a great deal of education to be done, even on my part towards him.
On the agricultural front, the nature and character of new techniques required are well known. Even though improvements are constantly being made, advance is frustrated by the deeply ingrained conservatism of peasant farmers and villagers. This was the bitter experience of revolutionary Russia. The habits of generations of country people had to be changed. The only way of doing this, apart from the sort of ruthless expropriation that occurred in the Soviet Union, is by sympathetic, personal contact. In the Philippines, for example, written propaganda is useless as so many people cannot read. So what happens is that hundreds of students are trained every winter to go out into the villages in their summer vacations to persuade the peasants to make simple changes in their way of life. There can be no short cut even when dealing with the most elementary changes. For instance, peasants have to be persuaded to use dung as manure and not as fuel. At the same time, they have to be persuaded to plant trees, to raise the water level, to make areas more fertile, and to increase the fuel supply. No amount of technical assistance of a more sophisticated character is profitable or possible without preliminary persuasion and teaching.
Another obstacle to advance is the system of land tenure which makes farms too small unless they are co-operatively run. Amalgamations which are essential will probably mean that some people will have to leave the land for other work. They will have to be drawn off into industries—not necessarily into towns as there is an urgent need for cottage industries to be introduced into rural areas. It is not spectacular work. National prestige often directs capital resources into expensive dams or atomic energy power

223
stations. An intermediate economics needs to be developed using quite simple industrial plant capable of village use, together with co-operative marketing of the product. The recent sad events in Nigeria make us realise that we must come to grips with the social and community structures in the developing countries. Modern industry cannot he grafted on to tribal or primitive forms of society without radically modifying and possibly destroying them. But this is a price which has to be paid.
Associated with this is the need for education, as has already been pointed out, because a balanced community structure demands an educated and technically trained population. At present in most of the developing countries less than half the 6-to-12 age group are at primary school. The secondary school statistics are worse and there are few countries in which more than one per cent. are in any institution for advanced studies. There is need not only to increase these numbers but also to devise curricula which are not slavish copies of our own. The need is for academic tools and attitudes of mind which will help the students to work out answers to their own national and industrial problems.
This is going to be a costly business because schools have to be provided and teachers recruited and maintained for a long period before results are noticeable. In 1965 there were about 2,400 teachers at work in developing countries who were financed by the British Government. To increase this number means going short at home at a time when we need more teachers. It also requires experience abroad to be registered as an asset when returning to England, and not as a liability as it now tends to be. It is also necessary to include such service overseas as pensionable. What applies to teachers applies equally to other technical experts, whether in government, social services, industry or commerce. They should get satisfactory jobs when they return to Britain and pensionable service. If we could establish among educated, trained and experienced people in England the idea that a period of service abroad in a needy part of the world is a normal and necessary part of professional life, we should go a long way to meet the needs. The experience of V.S.O. has been most
224
encouraging, and I am sure the time has now come for it to be developed on a national scale. We might be surprised by the response.
Another problem arises from what I feel is the unsatisfactory provision in Great Britain—though I am hesitant to say this after what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said earlier to-day—in training people from overseas in particular technical skills. If I may give an example, when I was in Jordan two years ago a Jordanian in a lucrative position bought an expensive British car. Unfortunately, when a major fault developed there was nobody to put it right. The Germans are wiser. They welcome apprentices from Jordan. They have a thorough grounding in the intricacies of German cars. They return to Jordan not only with expert knowledge, but even as propagandists.
I can tell your Lordships a similar story about a piece of complicated factory machinery worth thousands of pounds. The British model could be serviced only by somebody going out from England, so what happened was that the order was transferred to Sweden because Sweden, like Germany, makes provision for training technicians from the Middle East and then sends them back. When on my return from Jordan I asked why similar arrangements were not made in Britain, I was told that some people on both sides of industry were inclined to drag their feet. I do not know whether this is so, but I can well believe that my informant may have been exaggerating. I hope that when the noble Earl replies for the Government later in the debate he will enlighten me. Is this country doing what it might do to give to men and women from the developing countries the technical skills which can be taught here but which, as yet, cannot be taught in their own countries?
This brings me to my last point. Bilateral schemes for technical assistance bristle with difficulties. Developing countries tend to be suspicious and to question motives. This is in part inevitable because clearly British, American, German or Russian aid cannot be dissociated from the characteristic political outlooks and social attitudes of the countries concerned, to say nothing of the implication of improved bilateral trade and finance. In an ideal world we would offer technical assistance to all who wanted it,

225
with no strings attached. But this is an imperfect world and Britain, like any other country, will want to be satisfied that arrangements for technical assistance will be beneficial to recipients and donors alike. This is where the Churches and voluntary Organisations can help, and this is where we want Government support. Our aim should be to encourage people to go to the developing countries in a spirit of service.
What needs to be done is beyond question. Research and inquiry have produced answers to most of the questions raised. The tough problem is that of getting the solutions practised. It is only in part a financial matter. The personal aspect is as important, because there must be the right personal relationship if we are to communicate good ideas and methods for changing people's attitudes and habits. There is a great task to be accomplished. It is my belief that, if approached in the right way, there will be a considerable response from sources which are as yet untapped. I believe that the Government and the rest of us must do what we can to tap them.
6.0 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, once upon a time there was a great flood, and a monkey and a fish were being swept along in it. The monkey, which was highly developed, agile and intelligent, had little difficulty in finding a tree, hanging on to it and climbing up it. When he had got there, being a humanitarian monkey he looked round for the fish, and, seeing it struggling in the water below, leaned down and scooped it out. The monkey was a little dismayed to find that the fish was not particularly grateful for this kindly act. This is a small fable, for which I am indebted to Professor Foster of the University of California. It is a fable which he uses, I understand, in the part that he plays in training American Peace Corps volunteers, and I think it illustrates the point made by the right reverend Prelate who has just sat down, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that in looking at the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, have drawn our attention this afternoon we are not dealing with purely technical matters.
226
This is not a matter for which the skills of technicians and scientists alone are required. It is a matter in which the attitudes, values, thoughts, beliefs and behaviour of ordinary individual people are very much involved. It is a matter in which accurate knowledge and understanding of their environment, cultures, customs, traditions, psychology and so on are also needed. What I think has happened is that in this whole problem of development aid we have been a little bit mesmerised by some of the more spectacular types of technical assistance which we have been engaged in rendering to the developing countries.
It is quite true that where we are concerned with the transfer of advanced technology, these personal factors and environmental factors do not loom particularly large. It is quite possible to transplant all the techniques, know-how and skills from Sheffield to India when you are setting up a steel plant. It is quite possible to develop a mining industry, or to set up hydro-electric stations, or to build up a network of radio communications in a developing country by training a comparatively small number of skilled people, building the plant for them to work, and showing them how to set about it. This approach applies to all the advanced technologies. I am not for a moment decrying their value and their importance in the development field, but I would suggest that this transfer of advanced technology has strict limitations.
It makes demands on two things which the developing countries do not have. It makes demands on their very precious and scarce capital—and foreign capital at that—and it makes demands on their skilled manpower, which is also in very short supply. Therefore, I would entirely agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, that although advanced technology is perhaps largely a matter for the highly skilled and highly qualified scientists and technicians, for the most part the matter is more one of organisation and management.
Although I was fascinated by what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, had to say about such matters as weather modification and satellites and so on, I would want to see how all this looked as regards cost in manpower and finance before I felt I could support much of it as a

227
practicable proposition. Of course, research must go on, and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was saying about that. These things may help in many ways, and we cannot afford to neglect research and development on these lines as well. But I think this points to the fact that we must recognise that all these efforts, all this money, all this training of manpower, have so far, after nearly twenty years, led to such meagre results. Looking at the prospects ahead which are so bleak we ought, perhaps, to turn our minds to other possibilities.
I think that another possibility is one which has been mentioned by many noble Lords already this evening, and it is the possibility of concentrating more effort and attention on what has been called intermediate technology. I believe that this has been defined by Dr. Schumacher, who I believe coined the phrase, as that technology which brings a man into a job or into action with machinery or capital equipment not amounting to more than £100 in value. Technicians working in steel plants or hydro-electric plants are, of course, handling capital equipment of the order of £10,000, but intermediate technology is of a much lower order of capital than that. This is one of the topics which Sir John Cockcroft was talking about last night, in the lecture to which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, referred earlier, and for some of what I have to say I am indebted to him.
The possibilities of intermediate technology have been having a certain amount of attention of late, and your Lordships may have seen an article in the Observer and in other journals towards the end of last summer. I should be interested if, when he comes to reply, the noble Earl the Leader of the House could tell us a little about the way in which the Government look at this; whether they are, for instance, represented on the working group set up to go into this matter more fully; whether they support it or are prepared to support it in future, and, generally speaking, their attitude towards it.
The various projects and items which come under this heading are those which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, mentioned in his speech, when he spoke about
228
such units under Government sponsorship as the Tropical Section attached to the Building Research Station, the Tropical Projects Institute, the Tropical Products Centre, and so on. The noble Lord mentioned some of the items with which those centres are concerned at the moment: the making of building material out of surplus groundnuts and so on, making usable and productive material out of tropical waste products. This is the kind of technology which I think is of increasing importance and value.
In this connection, I should like to take up the point which the noble Lord, Lord Todd, made right at the beginning —namely, that the one field which must be tackled, and in which the problems must be solved, if other more complicated problems are to be solved subsequently, is that of agriculture. It is the application of intermediate technology to agriculture on which I should like to spend a few moments now. There is a unit in this country under the Ministry of Overseas Development which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not mention, and on which I should now like to touch. I mentioned it before in your Lordships' House when we had a debate in the summer of 1964 on the Development Decade. It is a unit which is attached to the National Institute for Agricultural Engineering in Bedfordshire, and it has a tiny staff of five (easily smaller than the units which the noble Lord mentioned) and an annual budget of, I think, about £28,000, which is a minute figure set against the problems and scale of things which we have been talking about this evening.
This tiny unit, which is concerned with research and development on agricultural engineering for use in the tropical countries, has four projects in hand at the moment. One is a single wheel tractor—the simplest kind of tractor which can he designed to take an engine—which is intended to replace a pair of oxen. This has had trials in Africa, Asia and Latin America, all of which have been quite promising. This is one item.
The second item is a rice-thresher powered by a small 150 c.c. petrol engine, which has undergone trials and which is in fact now produced in thousands in Malaya. The third of their projects is an animal-drawn tool-bar for use behind draught animals, which can be fitted with up to eight different and variable tools

229
for use in various agricultural processes. Of these, 350 are in use in the Gambia. Finally, and at an earlier stage of development, there is a piece of hand-operated machinery for transplanting rice. This is under trial in Burma and Ceylon.
These are not spectacular pieces of equipment. They are all small, and they are all certainly under £100 in value. What I think is surprising and remarkable about all this is that that tiny unit of five people has been able to conduct the research, the design, the development and the trials in these places all over the world; to organise the manufacture, first at home and then locally overseas; to set up the servicing organisation and to adapt the machines with local modifications to make them usable in different parts of the world. My Lords, if four men and one woman based in Bedfordshire can do this with four pieces of equipment, surely we ought now to try to expand this sort of operation. Here is somebody working in that kind of technology which can be immediately applied in a practicable form in countries which have an abundant supply of the sort of manpower that can use it; which requires the minimum amount of capital outlay in order to purchase and manufacture the equipment, and as to which, in all cases, trials in service have already been undertaken or are now being undertaken. It seems to me that, whatever we might do about desalination or water supplies, we ought not to neglect these simple projects which I have just set before your Lordships.
These centres, like the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering and the Tropical Products Storage Centre, and other centres which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, mentioned earlier in his speech, have become too much Cinderellas of the Ministry of Overseas Development. Once intermediate technology has found a solution to a problem, surely ways and means must be found for applying it on a wide scale. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, suggested to us, at that point it becomes a matter, not for the technician or the scientist, but for the manufacturer, the organiser and the administrator.
My Lords, I am not sure how this can best be done. It is probably something which ought to be done in a number of ways simultaneously. I should have
230
thought that these projects were now ready for commercial exploitation. It is interesting that the Chinese, whom one would expect to take up something of this sort with alacrity, have in fact done so in Malaya, but this is the only country where these things are being employed and mobilised as effectively as I think they should be. It may well be that if we do not do something about it soon the Japanese will "cotton on" to the advantage of the rice-transplanter, which has enormous benefits in the countries for which it has been designed.
The staff of civil servants themselves, together with the agricultural extension officers in the Gambia, have been responsible for the development of the use of their animal-drawn tool-bar in the Gambia; but if it can be done there, surely there are other places, much larger than the Gambia, where, if there is a will, it can be done just as effectively. I should have thought that the first really large agricultural engineering firm in this country that had the vision to see the possibilities in this field and had the guts and the drive to stick to the initial difficulties, which will be enormous, would get a very rich reward for their vision and their determination, which they would well deserve. In the meantime, and alongside that possibility of commercial development, is there any indication from the Ministry of Overseas Development that they are seized of the very much greater importance of the application of intermediate technology, as opposed to the application of more advanced technologies, which I think have been driven almost to their limits already, and with which the United Nations report is concerned? We spend an enormous amount of money and we train a tremendous amount of skilled manpower in order to transfer these advanced technologies to other countries; but, my Lords, as we have heard already this afternoon, the return for this effort is negligible and is most disappointing indeed.
As the office staff of the new Ministry of Overseas Development spread out of Stag Place (and, I understand, even into Gorringe's), do they envisage any corresponding increase in the staffs of the tropical sections of these research establishments? This, I believe, is where the main possibility of progress lies. Surely it is possible now to increase this

231
tiny staff of five at the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering; and surely it is possible to increase the tiny staff of 20 or 30 at the Tropical Products Storage Centre? If that is not possible, is there not a possibility—or could not all these three be done together—of seconding some volunteers to the officers from these units when they are at work in the field overseas? Surely that would be one way—not necessarily the best way, but one way—of extending the effectiveness of the work of the agents from these centres when they visit the field overseas, by attaching to them volunteers who can see what the particular problem is in applying a particular piece of machinery in a particular place. They can work with the expert for few months and then be left behind while the expert moves off somewhere else or comes home, and see the project through.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to say— and I think he is entitled to say it—that the effort of this country in development aid and technical assistance is a good one. I do not deny that for a moment, but it is not really relevant to our debate. The Motion before us sets out various very urgent and dire problems, and the only issue is: Is this problem being solved or is it not? Nobody's effort is adequate or sufficient until we can see that these problems are in fact being solved and that a solution is in sight.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, because I should not like him to go away with the thought that I was being a little complacent. I went out of my way to say that, although there is nothing to be ashamed of, there is nothing to be complacent about, either.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. Nevertheless, one had hoped, when the Party opposite came into power, that, with all that they profess and attempt to practise about the brotherhood of man, with their great admiration for the United Nations and their concern—a very proper concern—for the needy, even more zeal and imagination than they have in fact promised and more still than they have in fact practised would have been shown by them. I may be wrong on this, and
232
if I am nobody will be able to convince me of that better than the noble Earl the Leader of the House. But it seems to me rather that the compassion for the needy and for the old folk which we heard, and saw, expressed so well on television last night by two right honourable members of the Party opposite, is not applied with quite the same intensity and skill, nor with the same solicitude and the same nice sense of timing, to the needy of, say, Calcutta as to the needy of, let us say, Hull.
6.20 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am sure that the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Todd, for introducing this subject for discussion by your Lordships. In spite of the differing points of view which have been expressed, I think there has been recognition by every speaker—and, I imagine, by every Member of the House—of the need for extended aid to developing countries. I do not intend to add to the great mass of statistics noble Lords have quoted demonstrating the volume of aid which this country, and, indeed, other countries, have extended. My noble friend Lord Beswick indicated quite clearly that, according to his statement, the purpose of aid is to raise living standards. That is the purpose. But noble Lords have made reference to the moral issue; and the White Paper says quite clearly that the basis of the aid is moral. It goes on to indicate that the objectives are economic.
It is my view, based upon considerable experience in many countries which have received and are receiving aid, that it is necessary to emphasise the economic aspect and to pay a little less attention to the moral aspect. I recognise the moral obligations, but too great an emphasis on the moral aspect—particularly the indication to the recipients that aid is given for moral reasons—tends to convey the atmosphere of charity. I can assure the House that there are two things to avoid in all forms of aid. One is the suggestion of charity; the other is the suggestion of political entanglements. I believe that the present Government undoubtedly have pursued a policy of aid free from all the strings of political entanglement.
It is only by emphasising the economic aspect that we can truly make aid

233
effective—because it is time we realised that aid to developing countries is as much in our interests as in the interests of the receiving nations. In the long run, this country is dependent upon the improvement of conditions abroad. In order to sustain and develop our own economy, we need an expanding demand, a demand that ranges well beyond the confines of Britain. Therefore, as other noble Lords have said, when one compares the £50 average income per head per annum of the developing countries, with the £500 per head per annum average income of the industrial countries, one has an indication of the enormous possibilities for the future that lie in developing the capacity to raise the general standard of life in the developing countries.
Therefore, the more we look upon aid as an economic instrument calculated to be of as much benefit to us as to the recipients, the more realistic we shall make this aid. In years past, generations ago, this country poured out wealth into countries abroad in the form of investments; but based on the idea of extraction from those areas. To-day, there is recognition by all sensible people, industrialists and politicians, that those days are over, and that it is necessary to bring about development of the economy and stimulation of the demand, with the result, as I have already said, that we shall benefit.
My Lords, this brings me to the next point with regard to aid. I believe that aid should be directed towards stimulating and developing the capacity of the recipients to produce. Mere gifts of food and clothing and the like may be justified over a short period; but every effort should be directed towards training and towards stimulating the initiative of the people in those communities. That is of paramount importance. That is why I believe that the efforts of this Government—and, indeed, of the preceding Government—to encourage the development of co-operatives overseas have made a considerable contribution, not only to raising living standards, but also to stimulating this sense of responsibility and initiative.
As Chairman of the Advisory Committee to which my noble friend made reference, I have seen what has been accomplished in many parts of the world
234
by the encouragement of agricultural cooperatives, of marketing co-operatives, of fishery co-operatives—all of which have given these people the capacity to do something for themselves. To often, in the past, aid has been distributed like bounty, and in many cases it has done more harm than good. I was pleased to hear the statement made by my noble friend Lord Beswick (and also to see in the White Paper) that it is intended to recruit 100 specialists to go overseas as advisers. I recognise the importance of that work. I would also emphasise the fact that the quality of those specialists and advisers needs to be much higher to-day than it was a decade ago. They need also to be selected with care. Too often, in the past, we have had people anxious to take on the job as advisers for a short period because they had a picture of waving palms, serpentine rivers and a delightful way of life; and too often they were disillusioned when they got on to the job. Therefore, the need is to have dedicated people, people who know, or should know, that they are undertaking a very difficult job.
It is also necessary for industrialists themselves to recognise that this is important work which can help in raising the general standard of industrial and commercial education of their own staff. I have had some experience in trying to recruit people to go overseas as advisers. All sorts of problems arose: the problem of pensions, which I see is dealt with in the White Paper; the problem of seniority when they return; the problem of promotion. All these things are of tremendous importance. One often finds, particularly in agricultural marketing, that the people who are best able to do this job are working for very small concerns, possibly a very small agricultural co-operative. In such a case it is difficult for an employer to say to a man, "Yes, you can go away, and when you return in two years we will bid goodbye to the person we put in your place." Therefore the question of recruiting the right type of person is very important.
A few weeks ago I was interested to listen to a person who had himself been one of the advisers abroad, and he gave me a description of the attributes required. I will pass them on, for the benefit of my noble friend. He said that what was needed was the tact of an

235
Ambassador, the persistence of a tax inspector, the eloquence of a politician, the experience of a manager, the stamina of a marathon runner, the engaging smile of a film star—and the thick skin of a rhinoceros. In addition, of course (though the speaker did not bother to mention this) the adviser must know something about the subject in which he was supposed to be expert. I have read somewhere that at the United Nations the cost of an adviser they send abroad works out at £7,000 a year, plus 25 per cent. of that amount for providing support services. That gives some idea of the amount spent individually by the United Nations, and I can see that in our case the cost is not likely to amount to anything like that. But I hope that the greatest care and attention will be devoted to this problem of recruiting.
That brings me to my next point. While I applaud the action of recruiting 100 specialist advisers, I believe that a greater emphasis should be brought to bear on providing facilities in this country for study and training. That has its strong commercial appeal, as well as any other appeal. Again I may speak from my own experience. I have seen cases where recruiting people from abroad to study agricultural markets and the like has been an enormous success. With the assistance of the universities, particularly Nottingham University (and I hope that Newcastle University will be helping in the same way next year) people have come from different parts of the world not only to study for a period at a university, but also to go into the commercial sphere and see something of what is going on in Britain. It is often found that as a result of that process, these people return home having developed a strong attachment to this country, which does a great deal of good for it, quite independently of the economic aspect. Therefore I strongly urge action on those lines.
I could quote many cases. I remember two people who came from the Far East a few years ago. The Co-operative Movement took them under its wing. They had opportunities to see not only the commercial activities of the Cooperative Movement but also commercial activities in other parts of the business world. These people returned home and
236
made a special contribution to the economic development of their own community. But, over and above that, they developed a warm regard for Britain which is worth a great deal.
I come now to my final point, the question of aid itself. We have heard a lot of talk about the volume of aid, but it is not the volume that matters: it is the nature of the aid. For reasons which I have already stated, I am a great believer in the need to step up economic aid, though I know that in this connection there has been a great deal of waste, particularly on the part of, shall I say, non-British agencies. I remember the case of an exceedingly backward and impoverished community where, as in most communities of that kind, there is one asset: labour; plenty of it; too much of it. To this community, from the United States, came aid to build roads. Massive bulldozers were provided, with huge earth-moving equipment. No one in the community could operate this equipment, and Americans were brought in to do it. The natives watched these huge appliances being used to tear up the earth to make a road. That did not make for any good will towards the Americans who, out of the goodness of their hearts, had provided the equipment.
I was a little disturbed by the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough (I hope that I did not misunderstand him), who emphasised the highly sophisticated technology that could be made available to nations.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I interpolate a word—and I do so also in view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I referred to interim technology and semiskilled industries, and, indeed, the kind of proposals which Sir John Cockcroft made in his lecture last night. Because I knew that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was to speak on this subject, my speech may have appeared to be slightly over-weighted towards satellites and weather control. I did not intend that to be the case, however. It was for the convenience of your Lordships that I did not go into very great detail.
LORD PEDDIE: I thank the noble Earl for that clarification. I will merely go on to say that a great deal of care and thought needs to be exercised over

237
the nature of the aid. Many things which are useful in a highly developed and sophisticated economy are of little use in a lesser developed economy. Therefore it is necessary to think not merely in terms of how much we shall spend this year and how much we spent last year. Of course, that is important, but even more important is the necessity for a careful and detailed study of the sort of things which are wanted and which will enable the people concerned to use to the full the assets which they possess. As I said a few moments ago, the major asset is human hands. Gradually, by that process, and particularly by the employment of the co-operative mechanism, it is possible to do a great deal.
I would close by again paying tribute to those noble Lords responsible for initiating this debate. I believe that its subject matter is of tremendous importance to this country. It might have been born out of moral concepts, and stimulated by charitable considerations, but I believe that its effect will be sustained in the future by a clearer recognition on our part, and on the part of every industrial nation, that our continuing development will be determined, at least in some measure, by the capacity for development and the rate of development of those countries which to-day we consider to be less developed.
6.38 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships, and especially to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Todd, for my absence from the Chamber during the first part of the debate. I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, in the first part of his speech. As the head of a large organisation, with factories in several of those developing countries which are in receipt of bilateral and multilateral aid, I have a deep interest in the subject of this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Todd, emphasised the need in those countries for large numbers of technicians to work on agricultural development. It is also essential to produce many more technicians and technologists for the engineering industry, some parts of which will support agricultural activities.
In some of the developing countries where my organisation operates we find
238
it reasonably simple to recruit unskilled labour locally for our operations, and some of this labour may in time be converted to semi-skilled labour. We find it difficult, and in some areas impossible, to recruit skilled labour and apprentices who may be trained to become skilled men. Equally, we find it difficult, or impossible, to recruit indigenous graduate engineers or graduates willing to be trained as engineers. These things are not true in India; and significant progress has been made, particularly among the Chinese in Singapore and in Malaysia. But in the countries I have especially in mind—Nigeria, Tanzania, Rhodesia and Kenya, —the images (to use the P.R.O.'s useful word) of industry and technology are wrong. And I believe that one of the major problems of education in these countries is to give these images a new look.
It is a binary problem. On the one hand, the potential technicians have to be brought to believe that life is better for a skilled man than for an unskilled man. It is not difficult to make the teachers believe this, but I thin that they need help in putting it over. Here the industrial units in their country can and should help, by sensibly planned scholarship schemes, by showing adolescents their industrial operations, by giving them vacation work when they are old enough, and by talking to them in their classrooms about the more highly developed engineering which is done elsewhere. All this happens to some extent, but a much bigger and more closely co-ordinated effort is needed.
The other and, I fear, still more difficult part of the binary problem is to improve the industrial and technological images in the minds of the potential professional class, so that industry and technology generally can compete with the law and the Government service for the more talented people leaving the schools, universities and technical colleges. Every country needs its top talent to be reasonably distributed throughout the professions, new and old, and it would be idle to pretend that in any of the developing countries any reasonable balance has yet been achieved. Technology—industrial technology particularly—is very much at a discount.
I hope that it will be possible as the universities, the technical colleges and the

239
colleges of technology develop, to create in the minds of young people an understanding of the vital roles of industry and technology in the development of their country's economy. They must be told of the intellectual and professional satisfaction to be gained from skill in applied science and of the pleasure to be gained from creating things, so that industry can take its place with the legal and administrative professions in the esteem of their young minds.
As the images of industry and technology are still somewhat distorted in this country, and as not all our own educators are able to put industry before their pupils in a particularly attractive guise, what I am asking for is peculiarly difficult. It is, however, if these countries are ever going to run their own affairs efficiently, of such basic importance that I put the proper presentation of the rôle and rewards of industry and technology—and, of course, I include the agricultural industry under this heading —at the top of the list of problems to be solved in the educational development of the underdeveloped countries. A professional life as a technologist or as a manager in industry must be presented as parallel in status with a professional life in law, in government administration or medicine, so that the young talent will be distributed more evenly between the professions competing for it.
Here again I believe that industry can help. The co-operation between industrial units and the educational authorities, to which I have referred, can be extended beyond the schools to the technical colleges and the universities, possibly to the extent of developing an appropriate form of sandwich education. In countries where the local engineering operations are not highly developed, the logical development of the sandwich educational system, which I believe is imperative for the potential graduate in technology in the territories I am familiar with, will be difficult. The pattern we have here could not yet be transplanted, but I certainly do not despair of an appropriate sandwich pattern being devised. It is tremendously important that it should be, because it is the potential graduates' dislike of the practical element in engineering that is so serious a handicap to their recruitment to technology.
240
But when aid or companies' funds are applied to the training and education of individuals of developing countries, there should surely be some further restriction on their emigrating to earn their living here. Certainly there should not be, as paragraph 49 of the White Paper (Cmnd. 2736) says there almost certainly is, a net flow of qualified people from developing to developed countries. This is surely a matter for urgent attention. In that document's comprehensive review of the activities of the Ministry of Overseas Development, it is stated that:
"the first and most fundamental requirement for good management (of aid) is clarity of objectives".
I hope that this will never be forgotten, and when the objectives are decided upon all efforts must be directed unswervingly at the chosen target.
Despite the shortages of professional manpower—and I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, how many people we are succeeding in making available—I believe that as much as possible of the aid should be in kind and as little as possible in cash. And when it is in cash, I think that the spending should be carefully supervised, much as the Commonwealth Development Corporation supervises the projects it invests in. In underdeveloped countries there are frequently individuals whose notions of the distribution of available funds are inadequate, and neither we nor the intended beneficaries can afford the inefficient application of available resources. This seems to me more important than ever if development loans are in future to be free of interest.
Not unnaturally, I read with particular interest in the White Paper on the work of the Ministry of Overseas Development the section on the private sector. It seems to deplore, as I do, the decline in the rate of British investment in developing countries. The White Paper went on to say that the Government do not expect the effect of their measures for reducing the total flow of such investment from this country to be very great. But, like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I fear that they may, and I hope that after further study of the problem the Government will conclude that the flow should be stimulated.

241
I strongly suggest that one of the most effective ways of helping developing countries to develop is by encouraging modern industries to go to them. There are many British subsidiaries in various parts of the world aiding the local economy, assisting in overall development, and at the same time helping our balance of payments and earning some modest recompense—now more modest than ever —as well. A British subsidiary in a developing country can be a tremendous power for good. Local people can be trained in it; local people can become executives of it; local people, when we can find them, can become directors of it. All these things help these people to develop the idea of responsibility and I suppose that, in the context of this debate, the idea of responsibility is one of the most important ideas of all to develop.
6.48 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I apologise for intervening in this debate without putting my name down, but I wish to comment briefly on a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that the British taxpayer was going to get fed up if these attacks on Britain were going to continue and he was asked to pay for aid. This bears very much on my own experience at the United Nations, where I was a delegate for three months on the Third Committee, which is not a political Committee but the Committee for Human Rights and Social Welfare. I thought that this Committee was outside the sphere of political abuse, but not a bit. Day in and day out we were attacked on colonisation and neo-colonialism. I was completely unprepared for this and I felt very angry. I felt that many of these attacks made by the delegates from developing countries really took their minds off their own problem and the ineffective measures they were taking in their own countries. But though I found these attacks often unfair and sometimes maddening, in the end, on reflection. I believe that we should react as our own long-suffering, experienced and wise civil servants at the United Nations react. They ignore a great many of these attacks, answering back in strength just once in a while, and sometimes with humour.
I believe we must not on any account cut down or stop our aid, or threaten that because we are attacked in this way
242
we are not going to help these countries. In fact, my Lords, we have to adopt an almost religious attitude of understanding and forgiveness. Any other attitude would spell disaster in the world, where there is not so much a gap as a chasm between the affluent and the developing and poverty-stricken countries.
In the next ten years we British are going to be attacked more and more on colonialism; and other great affluent countries, even though they may not have colonies, are going to be attacked just because they are rich. But I think we can afford to take a great deal of verbal abuse. After all, we are paying for some of our sins in the past, and if we are thinking of the future of our children nothing should deter us from giving more aid to these poor and developing countries. I believe that we, in the affluent countries, will have to alter and adjust our own economies in the future to go on doing this.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lady, but let her get the record straight. I was not advocating any cutting down of the aid, but I was warning that the British public would not for an indefinite time ahead be willing to be taxed for those who were really kicking them in the teeth.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I think I understand the noble Lord, but it really comes to the same thing. It is a slight warning, but I think we can just ignore most of these attacks.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Turn the other cheek permanently? It is difficult.
6.52 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am sure that we all, including the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, who provoked my noble friend Lady Gaitskell into motion, will be glad that she did intervene, particularly after her spendid service at the United Nations, to which she referred so modestly.
We are all deeply indebted, as has been said by more than one speaker, to the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for initiating this

243
debate and for their impressive contributions. We on this side of the House appreciated all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and almost all that was said by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I exempt his brief, but not offensive, deviation into Party polemics, which I felt had been imposed upon him from outside rather than flowed from his constructive brain. At any rate, they set the debate off on a fine note, and it has been well maintained. I am only sorry that I did not hear the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, and that I missed the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon; and I heard only part of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I assure the two earlier speakers that I will study all they have said. I will try to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, but if, through missing the earlier part of his remarks, I have him wrong, no doubt he will put me right immediately.
This debate—and this does not make it any easier for the last speaker—has moved at a variety of levels. Deep philosophical questions have alternated with broad points of technology; the whole question of how much we can supply by way of aid, and how much we should supply; the question of who should receive it; the question of what form it should take—which was dealt with by my noble friend Lord Peddie, by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, who said that more should be done in kind rather than in cash, and by other speakers; and the question of what conditions, if any, should be attached. All these points have been covered by various speakers. I will not try to reply to them dogmatically, although I hope that the general attitude of the Government will emerge. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for wishing me good fortune in my office. I ask his forgiveness—which I am sure will be readily given—and that of the House if I dwell at rather greater length than would otherwise be the case on our particular responsibility for the Colonies, because I think that would be expected from me on this occasion. I will, however, reply to the general debate as I proceed.
For many years we, as a country, have recognised that aid for our dependent territories, for whom we bear the prime
244
responsibility, must remain a first charge on the resources that we can devote to overseas aid. This issue has never been a Party matter. It is a basic belief on which, so far as I know, all Parties have agreed, and continue to agree. This has been shown in many debates in the past. One finds evidence of it in the well-known speech made by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, I suppose the most famous of all Colonial Secretaries. It will be recalled that he became Colonial Secretary in 1895, when he could certainly have occupied any position, other than that of Prime Minister, in Lord Salisbury's Government, and might have become Prime Minister later. But he chose the Colonies. He said, in words which, even with our reduced number of Colonies, surely apply to-day:
"I regard many of our Colonies as being in the condition of undeveloped estates, and estates which can never be developed without imperial assistance…. I shall be prepared to consider very carefully myself, and then, if I am satisfied, to confidently submit to the House any case which may occur in which, by the judicious investment of British money, those estates which belong to the British Crown may be developed for the benefit of their population and for the benefit of the greater population which is outside."
That was said by Joseph Chamberlain in 1895, and it has been the common attitude of Colonial Secretaries ever since, including my distinguished predecessor and great friend Mr. Anthony Greenwood, who I am glad to think has now taken over the Ministry of Overseas Development. It is clear that this remains our policy from the White Paper which was issued last year by the Ministry of Overseas Development, and to which more than one reference has been made this afternoon. It was stressed in that Report that by far the greater part of the aid from time to time derives from our responsibility for the economic development of our dependent territories, and after their independence on our joint decision with their Governments to continue that help in a different form.
From 1964 to 1965 Commonwealth countries and territories received about 87 per cent. of our bilateral financial aid. Some may say that this is a mistake, but certainly that is not the point of view of the Government, and I should think that, in general, this kind of allocation is accepted by the House. May I just point

245
out why it is that our Colonies, even when their number is reduced by their emergence into independence, will still require a special measure of help? The first problem arises from the fact that the Colonies, and particularly those that will not achieve independence, so far as we can see, in the near future, are small. Only two of the 32 dependent territories that remain to us have a population of more than one million. Over 20 out of the 32 which remain have populations of under 100,000, and this small size throws up some special problems, and will continue to do so. First of all, they have considerable difficulty in providing from their local resources all the range of skilled endeavour needed for the task of administration, and therefore there is likely to be a continuing need for the provision of special skills and technical ability from outside these territories. This is a need which we shall remain ready to fill. It applies to other countries, but it applies in a special sense to these very small countries which are our dependencies.
Secondly, if I may use the jargon of some economists, the small territories tend to suffer what is sometimes called "the dis-economy of small scale". That unpleasant word implies that any given service of government costs relatively more in a small community than it does in a larger one, which means that more aid, proportionately, is necessary. Thirdly, a small territory tends to be highly specialised in one or two types of economic activities. Since their local markets are small they depend heavily on exports, and are thus greatly at the mercy of fluctuations in the world demand for their products. For example, some of the small Windward Islands depend heavily on their ability to produce and sell bananas, and in Mauritius the economy is completely dominated by sugar. One could give other examples, but these factors, between them, place a special responsibility upon us. In short, the problems of the countries that will remain our Colonies are not complex merely because of their size, although the factor of size certainly plays a large part. In most cases they will need continued aid from us, both economic and in technical expertise, and we shall continue to do all in our power to meet this need.
I think it is worth saying, on my first appearance at the Box in my present
246
office, so that there shall be no misunderstanding in the future, that we realise to the full our responsibility for our dependent territories. May I come a little closer to the subjects that have been mentioned? I could give a great many examples, dealing with the world generally, although, as I have explained, most of our aid is in fact given within the Commonwealth. I could give many examples of our help with education, but I do not feel that it would be right to use the time this evening for that purpose when so many speeches should be replied to. However, I should like to mention just one development which is causing a great deal of interest. The Minister of Overseas Development, in association with the University of Sussex, is establishing a new Institute of Development Studies. This Institute will organise courses of advanced study in the problems of overseas development in all its aspects, economic, social sciences and administration, and I think we can draw a great deal of encouragement from that; and all the more so because the governing body will be under the chairmanship of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex, whom we hope shortly to welcome into this House as Lord Fulton, though we all know him as an old friend under the name of Sir John Fulton.
On the subject of education, I feel that I should refer to the concern voiced by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, about the future of the Centre for Educational Television Overseas. I think I ought to be able to reassure him about this. The Government entirely agree with him, and with others interested, on the importance of this service, and we have recognised the value of the initiative taken by the Nuffield Foundation. The Government's contribution has been doubled this year, from £20,000 to £40,000, and discussions are now reaching finality on a further increase next year. I am authorised to say that we shall not allow the centre to falter or fail for lack of funds. Assuming that that has been passed by the Treasury, it seems a rather rare and encouraging statement to be able to make about any project. I only hope that we shall prove to be as good as our word. I could say a great deal about technical training and education. I should not pass over without a mention the Council for Technical Education and Training in Overseas

247
Countries and our support for the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee, but I think I had better confine myself mainly to topics actually raised by speakers.
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, speaks, of course, as a great expert, one who can challenge comparison with anyone in this House, or outside it, and I certainly welcome, on behalf of the Government, what he said about the need for a recognition in the developing countries of the importance of industrial technology. I entirely agree with him that we have to do far more than has been done hitherto to raise the esteem in which the technological professions are held. If the noble Lord has further ideas beyond those expressed to-night, which of course will be studied, he knows that we are ready to listen to him. Indeed, on a great many subjects we draw very widely on his good nature, and I can assure him that in the sphere of ideas (I am not talking now about money) he is pushing at an entirely open door. I would point out that in the last year for which complete figures are available, 1964–65, over a thousand new students came to this country to attend courses financed by the Government; and private industry is also supplementing that effort in a big way. But, as I say, if the noble Lord has further suggestions to make, we can benefit from them greatly.
I must say one word about the services which could be rendered on a still larger scale by youth, particularly bearing in mind what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. Help is being given in various ways to find an outlet for the enthusiasm of youth. The scheme, "Study and Serve", under which the Ministry of Overseas Development finance further study by British students at universities in the developing countries, on the condition that at the conclusion of the course the young people undertake at least a year's service in the country, is still comparatively small, but I hope it will be extended.
On a much larger scale, our young people are working overseas under the auspices of the volunteer movement in all its different forms. The emphasis in this programme has now shifted from the school-leaver to the graduate, since the graduate has qualifications and experience
248
greatly needed by the developing country. Our target for 1966 is 1,300 graduates and 500 cadets. The right reverend Prelate may not consider this target large enough, but it represents an increase of about 20 per cent. on our present effort, and it will bring our total expenditure to nearly £500,000.
The right reverend Prelate raised various other aspects of this same problem of giving effect to the energies and idealism of youth in the overseas services. He argued, if I understood him correctly, that a period of overseas service might come to be regarded as a normal feature of a career in the teaching profession. The emphasis has certainly moved in that direction. Last year a little less than one-quarter of the British people serving abroad in technical assistance were teachers in higher or secondary education, but almost one-half of the new appointments made were in this category. So now about half of those being appointed are teachers. There are still many vacancies waiting to be filled, however, and any further encouragement to overseas service which your Lordships can give will be regarded as a great help. The right reverend Prelate asked me whether this work could be made pensionable. I understand that where State teachers are concerned, that point is already covered: their superannuation position is maintained. So at any rate quite a lot is being done along the lines the noble Lord would welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made a speech with so many constructive ideas, if I may say so, that he will forgive me if I do not deal, to-night at any rate, with quite a number of them, though I hope that if he feels that some points should be dealt with, by correspondence or otherwise, he will let me know afterwards. He introduced into the discussion the interesting concept of intermediate technology. Certainly in the Ministry of Overseas Development, for which I am primarily speaking to-night, that idea is viewed with a great deal of sympathy, though it is not regarded as an answer to all problems. A formula of that kind is a good servant but a bad master. But I am assured that the Ministry of Overseas Development, through its economic planning staff, is now in a position to give more effective advice on such questions of industrial growth as size of

249
market and unit cost of production, and the economic survey missions which the Ministry sends to help developing countries are very alert to the possibilities in this field. That is what I am authorised to say, and it is obviously a rather guarded statement. But I hope the noble Lord will draw a measure of encouragement from the fact that we are well aware that this is one of the live issues of the day which cannot be neglected by a self-respecting Ministry.
I must point out that while we realise that the simpler technologies can often make the biggest early impact, we must not neglect the more advanced fields. The Ministry of Overseas Development, together with the Ministry of Technology and the National Research and Development Corporation, are studying the application of some of the more sophisticated technologies, and in this connection they have been assisted by Sir John Cockcroft, who has been brought into the discussions in more than one capacity to-day—once, I am told, riot quite accurately. But at any rate we are anxious to pay tribute to him; and he has made a preliminary survey of the field with a view to identifying the more promising lines of progress.
That brings me to a point made by more than one noble Lord, perhaps most emphatically by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye—the question of desalination. In this matter I agree that we in this country appear to have a particular contribution to make. Although we have not yet had requests from developing countries for particular assistance in this direction, we believe that the production of fresh water from the sea by desalination may well revolutionise the attack on some obstacles to development.
There is certainly an atmosphere of encouragement among our authorities. Here we can claim (and the noble Lord himself said this, in other words) a more solid achievement than any other country, since most of the world's land-based distillation plants have been designed and built by British industry. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who is a thorough master of all these subjects, pointed out that the Atomic Energy Authority has been given central responsibility for research and development on desalina-
250
tion, and a programme of work costing £1½ million, in collaboration with industry, has been approved. I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that this programme is being kept under review. If it seems that a larger programme can be justified, certainly there is no initial obstacle. While this is the only commitment that I can enter into, I think one can fairly say that his ideas appear to be reasonably close to those of the authorities.
I should return to one or two broader issues. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, will not mind my joining for a moment with him in controversy—we have had very little this afternoon. He used the phrase, "a broken pledge". I think he said that we had broken a pledge. He may have wrapped it up, but those words seem to have found their way into his remarks. No one likes being accused of breaking a pledge, particularly when he has not broken one; therefore I must repudiate, rather strenuously, this idea that some pledge has been broken. The National Plan certainly does not reject the idea that we have a moral responsibility. It is concerned more with economics than morals, as might perhaps be expected from a national plan. But if it is read carefully, the phrase which the noble Earl paraphrased does not sum up its message at all adequately. It makes it clear that the restraint imposed by our balance-of-payments difficulties will affect the rate of growth of our aid programme, but it also makes it plain that the programme is still increasing.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am glad to have that assurance from the noble Earl. It looked very much as though the words used in the White Paper and the words used in the National Plan were a contradiction: "aid to developing countries will be restrained". I grant that it added, "and the effectiveness of each pound of aid increased". That is good. But it looks as though the first phrase, "aid to developing countries will be restrained", is a contradiction of the statement that "technical assistance will be increased and given higher priority", which appeared in the Labour Manifesto and in the White Paper last August.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: If the noble Earl reads the whole passage, I

251
think he will see there is no possible conflict. The National Plan came out not long after—I think two months after—the White Paper. The same Government authorised both, and, having sat in the Cabinet when both were passed, I can assure him that there was no intended departure. I do not think anybody who reads it will think it differs from the White Paper.
I was struck by something which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about Hull and Calcutta. I took him to mean that in cases where votes are concerned we are more generous than in cases where they are not. In the field of penal reform I have myself been heard to say in this House, possibly from the other side, that penal reform is last in the queue because there are no votes in it. Therefore it is a concept, if I may put it that way, which I understand. The real question is, how much aid can we literally manage to give? At first sight, it may look as if the giving of 1 per cent. of the national income—and we have not yet reached that figure—is a very small amount; and certainly it would be a relatively small contribution within this country, if the people of Calcutta were living here at the same standard of life. Some Members of the House will remember the attempt to extract payments from Germany after the First World War. Trying to make a payment from one country to another is completely different from paying it inside your own country. It becomes very difficult to make a payment of £100 million, even though the national income may be thousands of millions. This is an economic point, if we may deal with economics for a moment. Therefore, I do not think it is quite fair for the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—and I am sure he was not trying to be unfair—to overlook the difference between making payments abroad and making them here.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it was not that concept, but the first concept the noble Lord mentioned, which I was trying to cover—the one with which the noble Earl says he is familiar.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: At any rate, I should say a word about the way in which this aid has increased. As a matter of fact, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, made this very plain, but perhaps there is no harm in saying it again.
252
The aid to developing countries has been rising in recent years at the rate of about 10 per cent. and we expect that in this financial year it will be 15 per cent. higher than in the last financial year. The proportion going to technical aid will in fact be higher this year. So when we talk about restraining aid, we do not mean checking the increase, or reducing it. We mean that while the economic problems exist—and I am bound to say, in one brief and, I hope, inoffensive sentence, that we inherited them—restraint in this sense must be employed. That is a very different thing from cutting aid, which would mean reducing it.
I am bound to say that I find rather fantastic Lord Bessborough's description of the performance of the Ministry of Overseas Development as "feeble". To illustrate the submission that the opposite is the general impression, perhaps he will allow me to say that everyone assumed that Mrs. Castle had done a wonderful job in this Ministry. I think every newspaper hailed her performance in regard to aid from the Department of Overseas Development when she was recently translated, and if the performance was really as feeble as all that, it is rather strange that the newspapers generally should have hailed her work as Minister. There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the creation of a new Ministry has increased overhead costs while restricting aid. In fact, economy and efficiency have been promoted by concentrating a great many dispersed activities. So far as anything in politics is ever allowed to be a fact, I think it must be put forward as a fact, that there has not been an increase in overheads through the creation of this Ministry.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, the point I wanted to make—I do not like to detain the House any longer—is that in the White Paper there is little, if anything, about the future—what the future plans should be, how much we should spend in the future, and what the projects should be. That is why I referred to it as a little feeble. I might even have said "a little wishy-washy." There are no positive projects and plans in the White Paper; it is a good review of the past, and the tables are useful. That was the point I wanted to make.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Well, my Lords, I am glad the noble Earl has made that clear. But in fact the future, and the amount we can spend, is bound to remain uncertain. Since he has returned to the suggestion that the White Paper is feeble, that the promises are feeble, I can only say that it would not do this country any good to hold out the kind of prospects which I am afraid that he and his colleagues held out in a number of Fields, and which certainly in some cases cannot be realised.
Leaving aside this little exchange arising out of that one weak (and, may I say feeble?) spot in the noble Earl's speech —not wishy-washy, just feeble—I come to what can fairly be called the moral part of this argument, although I think we all agree, including the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that you cannot separate altogether morals and economics. He argued that we ought to lay more stress on the economic considerations.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: What I really was saying was that if it is in your economic interest to do something, you cannot simply identify it with a moral object. I think these things should be separated.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as I have said, to my misfortune I did not hear the noble Earl's precise argument at the time, so it would not be proper to pursue him in regard to words which no doubt he used most carefully. But the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, raised, and I think quite properly in this House, this question which is often discussed wherever men and women are gathered together; namely, whether we should give aid to countries which behave in a most awkward fashion towards us, at any rate for the time being. I think that is an issue which must be faced.
Perhaps the noble Lord had in mind Tanzania, which is the most obvious case; and I would put that case in front of him. I am aware that he did not raise this in some alarmist fashion, but in a most moderate way. He asked whether a warning should not be given. He said specifically that he did not want aid cut off. I am not trying to indict him for some extremist policy of unfriendliness to these countries. But as regards technical assistance (which is, after all, the
254
subject of our debate), whatever would be the merit of taking steps, if they came to be taken—I am not now talking about the warning—it would not do much good to give a warning if you did not mean in any circumstances to give effect to it. What would be the benefit to anyone if steps were taken that would swiftly lead to the exodus of over 1,000 British officers of the Tanzanian Administration, with catastrophic effects on the stability of the country? Would this further our interests in Africa or in the world at large? I submit to the noble Lord that one should ponder long and carefully before one took a step of this kind.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I agree.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Therefore, whether we call this morals or economics, at any rate it would be most imprudent to take a step of this kind, except—
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: All I was asking was that we should ponder; that is all.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sure that those who are directly responsible never cease to do so in all these matters. But I should like to tell the noble Lord clearly that I arts glad he does not argue that this aid should have been cut off already. I do not think anyone has argued that to-day, and certainly he has not done so. I would think—and I agree entirely with the noble Baroness—that the emotional reactions in the face of short-term differences would he a petty response unworthy of Britain. I think we all agree about that.
Finally, I should like to come back once more to the question which comes up in every debate of this sort and which will certainly never be settled on this side of eternity: the relative places of the moral and of the economic factor. I would say clearly that in the mind of the Government, in the mind of the Labour Party, and I should have thought in the minds of most people directly concerned with this aid, and I daresay in the minds of most people here, we approach this subject in a spirit of unselfishness. I have always been much depressed and impressed by the fact that the standard of life in this country is ten

255
times that of India, and this is not the richest country in the world and India is not the poorest. Speaking for myself—although I think it is the view of most people here—while that inequality exists it is not just a nice calculation as to whether it will benefit us or will not. It is a Christian duty, and if one were not a Christian it would be an ethical duty, to do something to redistribute this balance, and in fact to do a great deal. That is where one begins.
But economically (if I may return to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford) economics come in rapidly, because it becomes impossible to transfer as much as we should like to, such as 3 per cent. or 4 per cent., or whatever proportion one may think represented the Christian duty, if by doing so we were simply going to wreck our economy and render ourselves totally unable to help anybody at all for many years to come. So the economic limit quickly arises, although the motive should be primarily a moral one.
I am bound to say that, weighing up Lord Balfour of Inchrye's point, and weighing up this side of it, I hope in the presence of two right reverend Prelates I may, without impertinence, quote the old phrase:
"If ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have you? For sinners also do even the same. Do good and lend, hoping for nothing thereby."
I think that means not even expecting to get your money back. I believe that is the real burden of the Gospel message. That seems, surely, the driving force behind the ideas of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Todd, just as much as behind the ideas of those of us on these Benches.
I should like to end along a line which was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and also by other speakers. To-day I was reading a book which may be familiar to the right reverend Prelates, and possibly to others, called Readings in St. John's Gospel, by Archbishop Temple. I came across this sentence:
"The way to call anyone into fellowship with us is not to offer them service which is liable to arouse a resistance to their pride but to ask service from them."
That is very much what Lord Peddie was putting in other words. It brings us back to where we began with the
256
noble Lord, Lord Todd. What we want to do with these people abroad is not to descend from above like a kindly Papa, but to place ourselves on their level, work alongside them, and help them to help themselves. This is the attitude of the Government, and I am sure of everyone in this House. Speaking on behalf of the Government, I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Todd, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.
7.32 p.m.
LORD TODD: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for the way in which he so thoroughly dealt with the various matters which have been raised in the course of our debate to-day. Until he spoke I had not anything further to say at this point, but his speech left me with two matters to which I should like to draw attention at this stage.
The first concerns the matter of intermediate technology, which he raised. This term has been introduced into the debate and I may have used it somewhere in my own speech, but I feel that there are certain dangers involved in the use of this expression. It may have been used by Dr. Schumacher; it was also used by Sir John Cockcroft last night in a lecture which unfortunately I did not hear. But do not let us be led astray. It is no use saying, "What we want to go in for is intermediate technology". One does not" go in for intermediate technology". What is really meant is that if one does the things that are vital, if one gets on with agriculture, starts to make roads, and so on, the kind of technology that one will want is not advanced technology. But we just cannot start off by sticking up "intermediate technology" as something to go for. It is a secondary effect of other things. Do not let us make the mistake of elevating it into some special idol of its own.
The second point I wondered about came in the remarks of the Leader of the House when he said something about nobody having asked us for desalination equipment. Earlier this afternoon in connection with population control I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that it was the policy of the Government to give help and knowledge

257
whenever it was requested, but that we waited until we were asked. The trouble in this world is that people who need things most are very often the people who do not ask, or people who do not know that they should be asking. While I appreciate the idea behind this policy, I hope that the Government will nevertheless not he afraid to take such means as are possible to let people acquire the knowledge that certain things ought to be done. We ought to do this, even if it means we get the sort of treatment which was mentioned by the noble Baroness; that is to say, if we meet with an apparent ingratitude in the initial stages. I still think we shall be wrong to sit back and do nothing and wait for requests. However, these are perhaps only small points.
I have found this debate a most interesting one and I am sure that, speaking from these Benches, it would not be improper for me to say that, apart from a few sallies of a Party political character our debate to-day has been a very rational one. A large number of points have been brought forward, all of which are important and relevant—and all of them, I would emphasis, have been constructive. I think that the subject is clearly one which is regarded by all of us as of great importance. It is gratifying to know that Government have views which are not dissimilar from those of us who have spoken in the debate to-day. So I should like to thank all noble Lords who should take part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
7.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the fascinating and well-informed debate we have had this afternoon, I propose not to move my Motion. At the same time, I feel I ought to thank the noble Earl for his most interesting winding-up speech, and to congratulate him on his new appointment. I am sure it is a very good appointment. May I finally say that we must put first things first and pay all regard to down-to-earth matters and what Sir John Cockcroft described as "the simple things". We must also have the imagination to look at some of the longer-term
258
possibilities. I am off to Pakistan and India on Monday, and hope to learn more there.

NORTHAMPTON AND COUNTY POLICE (AMALGAMATION) ORDER 1965
7.36 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I do not propose to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper as follows:
"That the Northampton and County Police (Amalgamation) Order 1965, laid before the House in draft on the 17th of November last, be not made".
It would not be right to assume from that that the Northampton Borough Council are more reconciled to the loss of their police force; they very much resent it. But I have had to make the best estimate I can of the feelings in your Lordships' House. I have come to the conclusion that I should not be justified in troubling your Lordships with this Motion. I must express my regret to the House for the late stage at which I reached this conclusion, but I hope that your Lordships, with your customary generosity towards such lapses, will recognise the difficulties of arriving at this decision at a time when the House has only just resumed its Sittings and in relation to a Motion the timing of which, to be effective, is strictly prescribed.
I think I ought to express my regret to any noble Lord who has come here looking forward to taking part in an interesting debate and who has been disappointed. All I can say, if there should be such a Member present, is that he might not have found the debate upon this subject as entertaining as he anticipated.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, for his courtesy in explaining why he did not move his Motion. It is a matter of regret to me, of course, that I did not hear the speech he was to make, and no doubt to him that he has not heard the one which I would have made. But I hope he will accept my assurance that, so far as we are concerned, we are quite certain there will be no loss or suffering to the police force.

  PREVENTIVE DETAINEES
  PREVENTIVE DETAINEES
  MARYLEBONE ROAD WIDENING
  MARYLEBONE ROAD WIDENING