Sitting of 10 May 1966

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

MEMBER SWORN
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:—
Hugh Emlyn Hooson, esquire, Q.C., for Montgomery.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time and committed.
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [Lords]
  To be read a Second time Tomorrow.
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TECHNOLOGY

    Dounreay
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Technology how many persons were originally employed at Dounreay Experimental Station and the adjoining reactor station, respectively; how many are now employed there; in what capacities; and whether the work there is increasing or diminishing.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): At the outset, in 1955, 100 were employed; at present some 2,400 are employed, of whom three-fifths are industrial workers. The construction of the prototype fast reactor is expected to result
    188
    in a small but temporary increase in the numbers employed by the Atomic Energy Authority at the station.
    Mr. Hughes: While realising that Dounreay is doing very valuable technological work, may I ask the Minister to say how that work is related to "constructivity" and the industrial development of northeast Scotland?
    Mr. Dell: This is a prototype fast reactor. It is intended to find out whether this is a good means of generating electricity cheaply. If, as we hope, it is, then it will benefit the whole nation, including north-east Scotland and, indeed, Aberdeen.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Technology if he will establish at Dounreay Experimental Station and its adjoining reactor station electrolytic processes and processes to extract minerals from sea water which will be suitable for location in Aberdeen to use the cheap electricity in prospect from Dounreay.
    Mr. Dell: No. Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that these electrolytic processes in other nations are related to constructive work and the enrichment of those nations? Will he say how the same processes at Dounreay or the adjoining establishment are related to constructivity and the industrial development of northeast Scotland?
    Mr. Dell: I have no reason to think that this country is in any way behind in the development of electrolytic processes. However, this has nothing to do with specific methods of generating electricity, provided those methods are sufficiently cheap.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is it the intention of the Minister that scientific research undertaken at the Dounreay establishment shall be related to the prototype fast reactor, and is other scientific research not to be carried on at the establishment?
    Mr. Dell: The work at the Dounreay prototype fast reactor site is primarily related to that reactor. However, there is a processing plant for high energy fuels and also general research facilities in fast reactor technology.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In regard to the extraction of minerals from sea water,

    189
    would the hon. Gentleman say where the Atomic Energy Authority proposes to do most of the practical research on desalination?
    Mr. Dell: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the name of a particular site where this work is being done, but I assure him that it is going ahead very successfully.

    Inventors (Assistance)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Technology what facilities he makes available to inventors with limited means to encourage the growth of inventions; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Peter Shore): The National Research Development Corporation, operating with public funds, can and does assist the development of private inventions. With the increase in its resources under the Act of last year, it has been able to give more attention to private inventors.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that many small inventors claim that they get no practical and reasonable assistance from this body? Does he not think that his Ministry should try to do all in its power to retain this initiative and genius for our country, as many small inventors are going east and west to our competitors?
    Mr. Shore: The National Research Development Corporation is most anxious to assist such inventors. My hon. Friend will probably recall that it recently published a booklet—"Help For The Inventor"—designed especially to give to such inventors all the particulars of where and how the N.R.D.C. could best help them.

    Copper Substitutes
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Technology what he is doing to encourage the production of copper substitutes.
    Mr. Dell: The copper shortage and the accompanying high prices are giving a great stimulus to the use of alternative materials and to greater economy in the use of copper. The research associations and the main user industries have done a great deal of work which has made
    190
    such changes practical possibilities. My right hon. Friend is not aware that such substitution and economy are being hindered by lack of productive facilities.

    Farm Machinery
    Mr. Hazellasked the Minister of Technology if he is aware of the complaints made by farmers concerning new farm tractors and machinery which prove to be faulty and are constantly breaking down; and whether he will introduce legislation to enable him to investigate this position and take appropriate action.
    Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend has received no complaints of this kind. They would appear to be for the purchasers to take up with the dealers.
    Mr. Hazell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that the fact remains that the Norfolk county branch of the National Farmers' Union has made many complaints about faulty equipment? If the Minister would look at this matter again, with a view to writing to manufacturers, it might mean satisfaction.
    Mr. Shore: If my hon. Friend has particular examples that he would like to put before me I would be most anxious to consider them, but we understand that there is very good liaison between the National Farmers' Union and the Agricultural Engineers' Association, and that complaints are normally tackled through the Association and dealt with fairly expeditiously. There is also a countrywide network of dealers handling repairs and replacements in the industry.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: When the Minister considers this matter, will he take into account the fact that British tractor manufacturers have the best export record of any country in the world? Does he not consider this irresponsible Question unhelpful to Government policy?
    Mr. Shore: I agree that the Agricultural Engineers' Association, the contractors, and so on, have a most splendid record, and one that I wish many other industries would emulate, but it is obviously perfectly legitimate for my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) to raise a particular matter without casting any aspersions upon the performance of the industry as a whole.

    Research Findings
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Technology if he will set up a central agency to interpret research findings in the field of human relations in order to assist the effectiveness and general running of industry.
    Mr. Dell: The Ministry of Technology is, of course, very interested in the findings of research in the human relations field, particularly in the social and human effects of technological change. The Ministry has made arrangements to keep in touch with what is going on. But the application of the findings to the general running of industry is best done as at present by the various Departments of Government in relation to their own responsibilities.
    Mr. Moonman: My hon. Friend's reply will disappoint a large number of research workers in the field, as well as potential research workers. He might give consideration—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.
    Mr. Moonman: I would ask my hon. Friend to give consideration to the possibility of setting up an agency which would bring together all the agencies to which he refers.
    Mr. Dell: I am sorry if I have disappointed my hon. Friend. I accept that this is a most important question—in fact, one of the problems with which the Ministry is very much concerned is the whole problem of getting the results of research into industry. We are considering how to help in this matter, but primarily it is a matter for management and, within the Government, for the Ministry of Labour.

    Plasticity and Lubrication Laboratory, East Kilbride
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Technology how much has been spent so far on the plasticity and lubrication laboratory of the National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbriade; and when this work will be completed.
    Mr. Shore: The total expenditure up to the present on this laboratory is £825,000 on both buildings and equip-
    192
    ment. The building was completed in April, 1966, and equipment is still being installed. The laboratory is designed to work on numerical control of machine tools and fluid power as well as plasticity and lubrication.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the Government give priority to further establishments of this kind in Scotland, because of their importance to industrial development there?
    Mr. Shore: We shall certainly take into account—and my right hon. Friends who are mainly concerned with regional policy will most certainly bring it to our attention should we fail to do so—the desirability of siting, wherever possible, such stations in Scotland and other development areas.

    Industry (Modern Techniques)
    Sir H. Legge-Bourkeasked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to further the application of modern techniques in those industries for which he has not been given direct sponsorship.
    Mr. Shore: The services already operating or being developed by the Ministry of Technology are intended to help a wide range of industry, regardless of whether or not the particular industry is sponsored by the Department. Forty-eight research associations, which together cover the greater part of manufacturing industry, receive grants from the Ministry.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman yet in a position to say what his Minister proposes to do about procurement, which was referred to in the Prime Minister's statement on 26th November, 1964, when he said that the Minister, in his general survey, would be considering the whole of the procurement system?
    Mr. Shore: If I have understood that supplementary question aright, the hon. Member is referring to general Government procurement policy, and this is a matter that has been looked at through an inter-departmental committee.
    Sir T. Brintonasked the Minister of Technology if he will list the main

    193
    industries in which the present organisation is ill-suited to apply the latest technologies, and to keep ahead of developments creating new products and new productive techniques.
    Mr. Dell: No, Sir.
    Sir T. Brinton: In view of the remarks on 25th April of the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. and absent Friend, is the Parliamentary Secretary not prepared to give some instances?
    Mr. Dell: I think we can say that during the life of this Ministry, in trying to bring up to date industrial technology in this country, we have continually come across the problem of structure in industry. For this reason my right hon. Friend has mentioned it and we have joined with the Department of Economic Affairs in establishing the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation.
    Mr. David Price: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some examples?
    Mr. Dell: There are many examples of this and undoubtedly my right hon. Friend and I will mention such examples when we consider it necessary. I mentioned one: example quite recently and it is the subject of a Question to be answered later today.

    Computers (Research Associations)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology, following the Report of the Joint Working Group on Computer Research under the chairmanship of Professor B. H. Flowers, what assistance he has now given to research associations and other organisations responsible to or co-ordinated by his Department to install and operate computers; what has been the cost to public funds in each case and in total; and what further proposals he has for the current year.
    Mr. Dell: The Ministry of Technology has made two capital grants to assist research associations to install computers. A grant of £47,300 has been awarded to the British Iron and Steel Research Association and one of £10,000 to the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, but no payment from public funds has yet been made. A number of applications for assistance to research
    194
    associations have been received and are under consideration.
    Mr. Osborn: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is need now to encourage the use of computers in industry, and that one of the best ways of doing that is through research associations? Is he satisfied that the balance of aid to research associations in industry, as against universities, is correct?
    Mr. Dell: I think that it is correct. In the two cases decided on we have given a 25 per cent. grant to the research associations. There are other grants under consideration. This is one of the very many methods we are now using to develop the use of computers in industry.
    Mr. Dalyell: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the main recommendation of the Flowers Committee is being carried out?
    Mr. Dell: The main recommendation of the Flowers Committee is being carried out but, of course, the Flowers Committee was referring to universities and research councils rather than research associations, and those councils are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

    Prices and Incomes Policy
    Mr. David Priceasked the Minister of Technology what administrative arrangements he has made for the implementation of the Government's prices and incomes policy in those industries for which he is the sponsoring Minister.
    Mr. Shore: The Ministry of Technology has made arrangements, in most cases through the trade associations concerned, to receive from manufacturers and to examine notifications of price increases under the voluntary early warning system for the products of the industries for which my right hon. Friend is the sponsoring Minister.
    Mr. Price: In the deplorable absence of the Minister, can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether his Minister will be following the lead of the Prime Minister in addressing trade unions in the industries for which he carries sponsorship as to the merits of sticking to the 3 per cent. norm in wage increases?
    Mr. Shore: I do not see that that supplementary question arises from my Answer, or from the original Question. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Minister of Technology is responsible, as other sponsoring Ministers are, for the price part of the early warning system. The questions of incomes is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
    Mr. Osborn: Can the hon. Gentleman state which industries are concerned, and to which trade associations he refers?
    Mr. Shore: I could, but there is a very long list. We are responsible for 27 of the products listed in the appendix to the relevant White Paper and there are, I believe, about 17 trade associations. If the hon. Member would like to put down a Question I will try to see that he gets an answer.

    Mechanical Engineering Products Division (Head)
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Minister of Technology if he will give the name of the head of the Mechanical Engineering Products Division of his Department, the date of his appointment, and his previous qualifications.
    Mr. Shore: Mr. C. E. Coffin was appointed to this post in February last. Mr. Coffin has had a wide range of experience in the Army, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Office of the Minister for Science and in the atomic energy and the machine tools branches of the Ministry.

    U.S.S.R. (Minister's Visit)
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Technology (1) if he will give an estimate of the total cost of his forthcoming visit and that of his team of advisers to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics;
    (2) what objectives he will seek to achieve during his visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Technology what is the purpose of his visit to Russia.
    Mr. Shore: As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 25th April, he hopes to have discussions with the Chairman of the State Committee for Science and Technology and other authorities on
    196
    matters of mutual interest in the management of technological and scientific resources. His programme has been arranged to give him the opportunity of seeing how the Russians deal with these problems.
    My right hon. Friend and his party are visiting at the invitation of the Soviet Government, and so there will be no charge to the Department's Vote except for air travel to and from the U.S.S.R. and for incidental expenses.
    Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman having visited Russia once already, would not his time have been better spent—and the taxpayers' money better spent—if he had visited some other country—perhaps, in particular, the United States or a Common Market country—or was he unduly frightened that he might have been impressed by private enterprises?
    Mr. Shore: I need only say that it was because my right hon. Friend visited the Soviet Union for three days earlier in the year that a number of very interesting aspects of Soviet work were apparent to him, and the opportunity arose for a further and more prolonged visit. I do not think that it is surprising, and I hope that hon. Members will agree that a visit of this kind should take place when one is considering, after all, one of the most advanced technologies and industrial systems in the world.
    Mr. Osborn: Can the hon. Gentleman state the exact date when the Minister is leaving—or left—for Russia, and is that the reason for his absence today? Can he indicate what establishments his right hon. Friend will be visiting, particularly in connection with scientific and technological planning?
    Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend's visit was agreed about a fortnight ago, and he left yesterday. I will not give a comprehensive list of the establishments he intends to visit, but it includes the U.S.S.R. Academy of Science, the Institute of Cybernetics at Kiev, the Institute of Automation, Kiev, and the Computer Centre, Institute of Automatics and Electrometry.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that the Opposition have been trying to get rid of my right hon. Friend the Minister,

    197
    why should they object if he goes away for only a few days?
    Sir D. Renton: Has it not been known for certain for about a month that the Minister would have to answer Questions in this House at the top of the list today? Is he doing any public business for this country in Russia, or is he merely completing his education by going there? Will one of the—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is getting too long. Even Privy Councillors must ask short questions.
    Sir D. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman say why the priorities have got wrong in this case?
    Mr. Shore: Priorities are a matter of judgment. I do not think the House would wish to take too parochial a view of the advantages of travelling abroad.
    Mr. David Price: I must press the Parliamentary Secretary on this. Can he tell us what particular benefit his right hon. Friend is achieving today that he would not have achieved by postponing his visit for two days in order to answer Question in this House? His turn comes up only once in six weeks, and at the moment he is at a military review of 120 troops with equipment. Would he not do better by answering Questions in this House?
    Mr. Shore: I am sure that my right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable on this occasion to answer Questions in this House, but I quote from the remark he make before he went:
    "Despite the many differences between our two systems of Government, I believe we can learn from each other's methods and techniques for planning and managing research and development."
    I share his view.

    North of Scotland (Technical Training College)
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Technology to what extent he will assist the establishment of a technical training college north of Aberdeen.
    Mr. Dell: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter under discussion at present and it would be of the most practical importance and help for the development of this northeast part of Scotland? In view of the expansion of the Ministry's empire in the technological field, the help and vigour of the Ministry would be greatly appreciated.
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman may well be right, but responsibility in this matter is that of my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member should put his question to him.
    Mr. Maddan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not have been proper for this Question to have been transferred if it is the responsibility of another Minister?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the Ministers concerned.

    Scottish Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Technology what has been the response to his campaigns to instil more technology into Scottish manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Shore: While it is too early yet to attempt an appraisal of the response of Scottish industry to this Ministry's efforts, there have been encouraging signs but these will take time to show results. My right hon. Friend would wish me to pay tribute to the help his Ministry is receiving from the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: In view of the rather uncertain nature of that reply, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us what the exact nature of his campaign has been?
    Mr. Shore: The services which my Ministry operates in Scotland are the regional services, the regional office in this case being based on Edinburgh, and industrial liaison centres geared to the Scottish universities and colleges. In addition, there is the work done by the research stations, in particular the National Engineering Laboratory.

    Engineering Industries (Efficiency)
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Minister of Technology what evidence he has about the efficiency of firms in the engineering industries; and on what criteria he bases his calculations.
    Mr. Shore: The evidence consists of the usual published reports and returns plus the day-to-day work the Ministry of Technology is doing in this field. It suggests that the efficiency of firms in the engineering industries varies very widely. Criteria include export performance, labour productivity, return on capital invested and rate of growth of output.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under his Government the engineering industry has been loaded with tremendous overheads, increased taxation, the Industrial Training Levy, the Redundancy Payments Act, increased National Insurance contributions, and very high rates of borrowing, and that all these are acting as brakes on the industry? If he would lessen the brakes, industry could make progress and add to export successes.
    Mr. Shore: I cannot accept the suggestions behind that supplementary question, because I do not think the policies of my right hon. Friends have made things more difficult in the engineering industry. When the investment legislation comes into effect it will be of help.

    Scientific Instruments Industry
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology what proposals he has to reform the structure of the scientific instruments industry.
    Mr. Dell: If the industry is to continue to compete successfully in world markets, some reorganisation into larger units may well be necessary in order to provide adequate facilities for marketing and for research and development. This problem is primarily for industry, though the Government is certainly willing to consider in what ways it can help.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a certain ominous ring about his Answer? Could he comment on the fact that he said in this
    200
    connection that he was currently looking at the significance of the Government's position as a major customer? If Government procurement is to be used to alter the structure of the industry, will he ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement to this House?
    Mr. Dell: The circumstances in which I made reference to Government purchases here were in relation to the Government's very large purchases from the scientific instrument manufacturers. I was pointing out that if it were possible for the Government to standardise types of scientific instruments which they purchase this would be of very great assistance. It was in this context of standardising types as a way in which the Government could help the industry that I made the statement.

    Machine Tools (Export Orders)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the export orders of the British machine tool industry.
    Mr. Shore: After rising to a peak in the first half of 1965 export orders of the British machine tool industry have been declining. Orders on hand have remained virtually unchanged at between £29 and £30 million since the middle of 1964.
    Mr. Biffen: Orders on hand remain the same and deliveries are still falling. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that export orders for machine tools in the second half of 1965 were not only lower than in 1964, but also lower than in 1963 and 1962? Does he not think that that is a situation of such seriousness that his right hon. Friend should come to the Box to say something about it when he returns to London?
    Mr. Shore: I warned the hon. Member last time not to pay too much significance to one set of figures. As I said then, I am not entirely happy about this situation, but if the hon. Member had asked me in the first place how the machine tool industry was doing in the first half of the year I would have been able to say that it had shown the largest increase, in percentage terms, on orders of which we have a record, taking one year with

    201
    another. I ask him to look at the overall picture rather than at periods of six months.
    Mr. Orme: If the figures are as bad as the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asserts and if the machine tool industry is failing the nation, would my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend consider setting up a publicly-owned sector in the machine tool industry?
    Mr. Shore: The burden of my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) was that the situation was not anything like as grievous as he seemed to think. Actual exports of machine tools from this country last year were 10 per cent. in value above those for the previous year, which is bang on target.
    Mr. David Price: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend intend to take advantage of his visit to Russia to press the Russians to buy more machine tools from us under the Anglo-Soviet Trade Treaty?
    Mr. Shore: Should this opportunity arise, no doubt my right hon. Friend will take it. I should not like to attach too much importance to the particular prospect of selling machine tools in the Soviet Union. Many other trade opportunities exist.

    National Computing Centre, Manchester (Staff)
    Mr. Weatherillasked the Minister of Technology what vacancies at present exist for staff at the National Computing Centre at Manchester.
    Mr. Dell: There are currently 18 vacancies for consultancy, managerial and office staff.
    Mr. Weatherill: What is the total establishment at the Centre? What is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary doing about the filling of vacancies? Does the difficulty arise because of the question of salaries? If not, what other factors are involved?
    Mr. Dell: The total establishment will probably be 56, but this is a matter which will have to be discussed with the Advisory Council when it is set up. There have been advertisements for the senior staff and a satisfactory number of responses have been received.

    Atomic Energy Authority (High-Temperature Reactors)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Technology, in view of the symposium to be held in London this month, what progress has been made with the Dragon type reactor at Winfrith Heath; whether he will make a statement on his plans for a high-temperature development; if the Atomic Energy Authority will now sell know-how on a royalty basis and supply capital equipment for commercial high temperature reactors of this type; and if he will estimate the weight and approximate value at present prices of uranium 233 manufactured from thorium that it is planned to produce over the next five years.
    Mr. Shore: The Dragon high-temperature reactor is an experimental project in which 12 European countries are successfully collaborating. The reactor reached its full power of 20 thermal megawatts on 24th April, 1966. Plans for the development of the reactor system must await further technical progress. The Atomic Energy Authority informs me that it would be prepared to negotiate for the supply of know-how, design and patent rights. Supply of capital equipment would be a matter for industry. It is not planned to produce uranium 233 for sale.

    Hovercraft Exhibition and Operational Display
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Technology what will be the total cost to the Government of the Hovercraft Exhibition and Operational Display to be held at Browndown, near Gosport, between 15th and 19th June.
    Mr. Shore: Most of the cost of the Hovercraft Exhibition will be born by the industry, but Hovercraft Development Ltd.—the subsidiary company of the N.R.D.C.—will be spending £4,000 on its exhibit. Several Departments are co-operating in the Exhibition, but the only expenditure which it has been possible to estimate would not amount to more than £2,000.
    Mr. Crouch: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware of the growing concern in the country that the development of the

    203
    Hovercraft is being held back by lack of orders for Hovercraft by the Services?
    Mr. Shore: I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman has a Question to table on this aspect of Hovercraft it should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has finished answering Questions very ably, will he report to his right hon. Friend that when he is top of Questions he should, in spite of invitations to visit other countries, do his best to attend the House?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are still a lot of important Questions on the Order Paper.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order. Back benchers seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how the rights of the House can be protected, because Parliamentary Questions have been a sacrosanct tradition of the House and in the past Ministers have always done their best to be here.
    Mr. Speaker: I wish the hon. Gentleman would take my advice and raise this point at the end of Questions. I think hon. Members have made the House aware throughout this series of Questions of the issue which the hon. Gentleman refers to.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Decimal Currency
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring up to date the table in paragraph 650, page 148, of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on Decimal Currency, Command Paper No. 2145, giving the present estimated breakdown of conversion costs assuming that the date of the changeover will be 1971; if he will give the same information in terms of the detailed breakdowns given in Appendix 17 of that Report; and what estimate he has made of the saving which would result from the adoption of a five shilling/cent system, retaining the present shape, weight and composition of all coins from the threepenny bit upwards, as compared with the proposed pound/cent system.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The answer to
    204
    the first and second parts of the Question is "No, Sir", and to the third part is "None, Sir".
    Mr. Lubbock: Would the Financial Secretary say why he refuses to give this information, since, as he knows, the Halsbury Committee's figures assumed a change-over date of 1970, whereas the Government's policy is now for a changeover date of 1971 and by that date more coin-operated machines will have been installed and, therefore, the cost will alter? What consultations did the hon. and learned Gentleman have with the various interested parties—the G.P.O., the Electricity and Gas Councils, and consumer representatives—about the choice of the £ as a major unit as compared with 10s. or 5s.?
    Mr. Speaker: That question was too long.
    Mr. MacDermot: The cost of bringing these figures up to date would be very considerable and no very useful purpose would be served by doing this until my right hon. Friend has considered further the precise details of the coinage to be adopted and until methods of machine conversion have been fully evaluated.

    Dollar Premium
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will now take steps to reduce the inflated dollar premium.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my Budget speech.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does not the fantastic present level of the premium at 26 per cent. indicate how far the Chancellor has succeeded in undermining investment confidence in Britain? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the present rate of the premium is now actually reducing the yield to the Treasury?
    Mr. Callaghan: The answer to both parts of that question is, "No, Sir".
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the Chancellor hear in mind that the United States of America is Britain's largest export market and that this present very high level of dollar premium is militating against the

    205
    further expansion of exports to North America?
    Mr. Callaghan: No, I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman will not have overlooked what has been happening on Wall Street recently, which may well have affected the premium.

    Corporation Tax
    Mr. Grantasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps he proposes to take to relieve water-ratepayers from the increased burden caused by the Corporation Tax.
    Mr. MacDermot: None, Sir.
    Mr. Grant: Is the Financial Secretary aware that many of my constituents served by the Colne Valley Water Company are very incensed indeed that almost half the increase is attributable to the Corporation Tax? What possible justification is there for this discrimination between the private undertakings and the public authorities? Will the Chancellor rectify this in the Finance Bill?
    Mr. MacDermot: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and the water companies would like to point out to his constituents that the reason is that the companies are no longer able to take advantage of an anomaly in our tax system under which they could pay dividends after deduction of Income Tax and did not have to pay a corresponding amount of tax to the Revenue, a practice which was condemned by the Public Accounts Committee. The exemption for local authorities was based on a much more practical factor, which was that, owing to the setting off of interest charges, very few local authorities were in fact liable to any tax at all.
    Mr. Temple: Is the Financial Secretary aware that in some parts of the country as much as five-sixths of the increase in water charges is due to increases in taxation? Is he therefore aware that increases in taxation have a very serious effect on prices?
    Mr. MacDermot: Of course they have an effect on prices, but it is not right that people should in effect have a hidden subsidy due to an anomaly in the tax system which ought not to be perpetuated.

    Income Tax Returns
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority the Inland Revenue requires individuals to state in paragraph 6 of their Income Tax returns details of assets acquired since 5th April, 1965; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purpose of asking for particulars of chargeable assets acquired on the Return of Income Statement 1966–67, which puts taxpayers to extra cost and inconvenience.
    Mr. MacDermot: The authority is paragraph 6 of Schedule 10 to the Finance Act, 1965; the cost of assets is needed to calculate any gain accruing when they are disposed of.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman know that the Estate Duty Office operates death duties without getting a complete Domesday survey in advance of every person's assets? Will not this new system add enormously to the amount of red tape and complication in the working of this tax?
    Mr. MacDermot: No. I think it will simplify the tax very greatly if people make returns of these things when they have them readily available and to hand.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: What is the point of the Inland Revenue keeping file after file of chargeable assets which probably will not be sold for years and years? Is not the extra work which is being put on the Inland Revenue just the sort of thing that will bring about a strike in the Inland Revenue?
    Mr. MacDermot: No. As I have already explained, it will make things very much simpler if the information has been obtained when it is reliable and can be checked.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will take steps to simplify the form of personal Income Tax return.
    Mr. MacDermot: The Inland Revenue is already working on this. If my hon. Friend has any suggestions I will see that they are considered.
    Mr. Barnett: Would my hon. Friend look into the question of simplifying the form even further than it is at the moment, particularly for the millions of taxpayers on Pay-as-You-Earn who do not have to deal with complications such as capital gains?
    Mr. MacDermot: As I have already said, we are trying to simplify these forms and I will gladly consider this and any other suggestions which my hon. Friend cares to make.
    Captain W. Elliot: Would the hon. Gentleman consider the form which is used in Australia? I used that form for some years and found it remarkably simple.
    Mr. MacDermot: We have studied the forms in other countries but I would point out that some other countries, including Australia, have a much smaller population than ours. The number of forms sent out here is very great indeed. We have simplified the procedure and have reduced the number of forms from five to three.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that 11 pages in close type of instructions and explanations will involve an enormous amount of work for taxpayers and their advisers? Does he not agree that it will be very much more costly for the taxpayer to complete his return?
    Mr. MacDermot: I should have thought that 11 pages would make it rather simpler for the taxpayers to get the explanations which they require to help them in completing particular parts of the form.

    Inland Revenue (Provincial Offices)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will instruct the Board of Inland Revenue to keep their provincial offices open until seven p.m. on one night in the week.
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir; but interviews can be arranged by appointment outside the hours when offices are open to the public.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, now that the Inland Revenue shuts on Saturday mornings, quite rightly, workers can no
    208
    longer discuss their tax affairs, because on other days the Inland Revenue offices shut at 4 o'clock? Should not the Revenue adopt one of the practices of the private service trading industries in the distributive trade and remain open one night a week for this important function?
    Mr. MacDermot: No. It would be uneconomical and wasteful of manpower to make an arrangement of that kind. The present practice, as I have explained, is that appointments can be fixed outside normal hours where this is required. This is more economic and it appears to work to the taxpayers' convenience.

    Taxation and Government Expenditure (Scotland)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish approximate figures to show, in the latest year for which information is available, the total amount collected in taxation in Scotland and the total expended by central Government in various forms in Scotland.
    Mr. Callaghan: In 1964–65 net receipts from taxation collected in Scotland, so far as they can be separately identified, were just over £520 million. In the same period identifiable expenditure in Scotland by the central Government, including grants and loans to loan authorities, was about £600 million.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the Chancellor recognise that this torpedoes the figures which have been circulated in Scotland by the Scottish Nationalist Party? Will he also publish estimates for the future, since his new Selective Employment Tax will alter the present position to Scotland's disadvantage?
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir, I do not think the second part of the supplementary question is true.

    Income Tax Refunds (Unofficial Strikers)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual loss of taxation resulting when unofficial strikers draw back what they have paid, or get reduced future payments; if he will introduce legislation to prevent this practice; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacDermot: There is no loss. Repayment of tax when earnings cease is inherent in the P.A.Y.E. system.
    Sir C. Osborne: Is it not unreasonable that wildcat strikers who are practising anti-social activities should be subsidised in this way by regular taxpayers?
    Mr. MacDermot: There is no subsidy. It would be quite wrong to withhold a tax repayment which is legally due to a man who is doing nothing illegal.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the Financial Secretary agree that the energies of the Department would be better used in joining with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health in having an occupational health scheme investigated in view of the fact that only 1½d. is lost through disputes as against 19s. 10½d. through accidents and illness at work?

    Close Companies
    Mr. Peytonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Professor Kaldor's recent assurances to the Economic Research Council on the taxation of close companies were made with his authority; and if he will make a statement of Government policy on this matter.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Professor Kaldor specifically agreed with the Economic Research Council that the question and answer given on 22nd February, 1966 on cash earmarked by close companies for expansion should be on the record.
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. At the function referred to Professor Kaldor repeated the Government's view of Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1965, which had been previously stated in the House by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and there was, therefore, no reason to regard it as confidential.
    Mr. Peyton: Would not the Chancellor agree that it is wholly wrong for civil servants to usurp the functions of Ministers and make statements particularly on tax policy? Would he not also agree that this applies particularly to Dr. Kaldor who seems to many of us to be more of a politician than an economist, and whose advice when taken has only too often been attended with disastrous and unhappy consequences?
    Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot make more of it than that. As I have already explained, Professor Kaldor was saying nothing that was new. It had already been made clear in this House. So far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman is only pursuing a rather unworthy vendetta which besmirched the benches opposite for a considerable period 18 months ago.
    Mr. Turton: In view of the reply, will the right hon. Gentleman now withdraw or apologise for the unwarranted attack he made on the journalist who reported the meeting of the Economic Research Council when it was agreed that prearranged questions should be on the record?
    Mr. Callaghan: There seems to have been some misunderstanding about the nature of this occasion, and, although no harm was done on this occasion, I propose to review the circumstances in which officers of my Department address bodies of this sort, in order to avoid this kind of questioning with its effect on those concerned.

    Income Tax (Marriage and Child Allowances)
    Mr. Patrick Jenkinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will seek to amend the Income Tax Act, 1952, so as to make the marriage and child allowances proportional to that part of any year, if less than the whole, during which the marriage subsists or the child is of the age qualifying for allowance at a particular rate.
    Mr. MacDermot: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is the Financial Secretary aware that although the ratio of marriages may be misconceived, the babies certainly are not? Is he also aware that what The Times referred to the other day as "the rush of rebate babies" due to the incidence of the tax is causing great difficulty in the country's maternity homes and hospitals?
    Mr. MacDermot: I do not think the tax system is influencing the dates of birth of babies. In any event, my right hon. Friend would not be disposed to reduce the tax relief which is available either in the year of marriage or in the year of a child's birth.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on Government policy towards the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to the speeches of myself and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary during the debate on the Address last month.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Prime Minister give a straight answer to the Question—how the recent statements of Ministers other than himself in favour of Britain joining the E.E.C. can be reconciled with his own uncompromising rejection of the Common Market agricultural policy, both in Bristol and in this House?
  The Prime Minister: There is no incompatibility between any of these statements. We have always said—and I said it in the House, on the occasion that I referred to—that we are ready and willing to go on, provided we can get adequate satisfaction on essential British and Commonwealth interests. This is exactly what has been said by my right hon. Friends who have made speeches since that date.
  Mr. Bellenger: What is to be the procedure in the exploratory negotiations that are going on at the present moment? Is it the purpose of these eventually to make a formal application to join the E.E.C. and, if so, will the First Secretary give progress reports to this House from time to time?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friends the First Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be glad to make reports. As I explained in the debate on the Address, the purpose is to use every opportunity, whether during bilateral talks or in meetings with E.F.T.A. or, indeed, in unofficial meetings like the one last week, when there were representatives from the E.F.T.A. and E.E.C. Governments present, to explore the conditions in which Britain can make application for entry.
  Mr. Grimond: Does the Prime Minister's Answer about agriculture mean that
  212
  in no circumstances will the Government accept the levy system?
  The Prime Minister: What I said in my speech at Bristol was that the agricultural policy would mean a levy of 65 per cent. or 70 per cent. on our imports of grain—one of the few items for which we have the figures at the moment—from the Commonwealth. It is certainly the view of the Government that this is not an acceptable position for us. If the agricultural policy were altered in some way to make it more acceptable, our approach would be very different.
  Mr. Sandys: While the right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, wish to seek transitional safeguards for essential British interests, may I ask whether he can assure us that he accepts the basic principles of the Treaty of Rome and the institutions set up under it?
  The Prime Minister: We have said on a number of occasions that the Treaty of Rome presents fewer difficulties for this country—we said it when we were in opposition—than some of the decisions which have been taken since the Treaty of Rome was signed. There are, however, some difficult points about the Treaty of Rome which would require negotiation—the right hon. Gentleman himself was engaged in some of these negotiations—but whereas the Treaty envisages an agricultural policy, it does not necessarily require it to be this one and with these figures.
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister what assurances he has had from the French Government about their policy towards an attempt by the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: "None" and "no" respectively, Sir.
  Mr. Ridley: Does the Prime Minister remember saying at Bristol on 18th March that Mr. Macmillan did not tell President de Gaulle about his intended purchase of Polaris missiles? As this has been proved to be entirely false, will the right hon. Gentleman retract it, and will he agree at the same time that there now appears to be no reason why the French should object to our entry into the Common Market?
  The Prime Minister: What I did at Bristol was to refer to the Nassau Agreement because, of course, whereas there was a short reference by Mr. Macmillan in his talks with President de Gaulle to the fact that, if Skybolt fell through, he would have to get some alternative, possibly submarines—at least, he did not say it had been decided at the time—it was the terms of the Nassau Agreement in relation to the putting of these nuclear or Polaris submarines within N.A.T.O. which upset President de Gaulle at that time.
  Mr. Heath: Will the Prime Minister refresh his mind on what he actually said at Bristol? He actually used the words "the duplicity" of the then Prime Minister at the Rambouillet talks, and this, as he has now said, is entirely unjustified. President de Gaulle, as he himself told me, was informed by Mr. Macmillan of the need to go in for another weapon, possibly Polaris, if we could not have Skybolt. President de Gaulle told me that himself. The Prime Minister must not shift his ground. He should make an honourable retraction.
  The Prime Minister: There is no question that President de Gaulle, in the course of a very long discussion, was briefly told about the Skybolt difficulties, and, as I have said already, he was told that, if we could not get Skybolt, we should have to ask for something else. He did not say Polaris; he listed a number of things. What he did not tell President de Gaulle—and what President de Gaulle must have since told the right hon. Gentleman really upset him in not being told—was that the Nassau Agreement required him to collectivise it within N.A.T.O.
  Mr. Heath: As the Nassau Agreement had not been signed when Mr. Macmillan was at Rambouillet, how could he have told President de Gaulle the terms?
  The Prime Minister: Because what he told President de Gaulle involved that it would be, as the Conservatives were insisting, a purely independent deterrent, and President de Gaulle felt that it was all tied up with the Americans, which was not acceptable.
  Mr. Ridley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give
  214
  notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS OFFICE AND COLONIAL OFFICE
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister when he intends to announce the amalgamation of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office.
  The Prime Minister: Integration of the work of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office will start shortly and the staff of the two offices will be merged into a new Commonwealth Office on 1st August, 1966. It will be necessary to retain for some little time after that two Secretaries of State to deal respectively with relations with the independent Commonwealth and with the affairs of our dependent territories.
  Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say what that will mean in terms of reduced numbers of civil servants?
  The Prime Minister: A lot depends on the speed with which we are able to agree the terms of independence for a very considerable number of countries at present enjoying colonial status but which will become independent. This should lead to a substantial reduction when we are able to negotiate their independence.

  WEST GERMANY (TRADE WITH RHODESIA)
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he will make representations to the West German Chancellor in view of the continuing trade between West Germany and the illegal Rhodesian regime.
  The Prime Minister: The Federal Government have already reduced substantially their imports from Rhodesia. We are in touch with them about the possibility of their reducing them still further.
  Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable trade, particularly in steel and chrome, between West Germany and Rhodesia, and Herr Strauss was recently there on a business

  215
  trip? In view of the pressures from certain quarters—pressures which I do not share—for even closer relations with the West Germans, does not my right hon. Friend think that more support should be given to our economic policies?
  The Prime Minister: I think that my hon. Friend must be careful to relate these problems to the needs of our policy in relation to Rhodesia rather than to the feelings which we all know she has about West Germany. There has been a very considerable cut-off. We are in touch with the West Germans at present about other imports, which are principally confined to asbestos and copper.
  Sir G. Nabarro: But this Question refers to trade, not to imports alone. Is the Prime Minister aware that West German salesmen are queueing up in Rhodesia and South Africa to steal what were formerly British trade and British exports?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware that there is a number of commercial travellers and businessmen of a number of countries there, although a lot of the reports about their activities are being put out and exaggerated for other reasons, like the story of the 47 oil ships approaching Beira, none of which even existed until we got to the last two we dealt with. But the hon. Gentleman, who has now returned to us, will have to make up his mind about whether he accepts the policy of both parties on the need for economic sanctions to ensure the return to constitutional rule.
  Mr. Paget: Will my right hon. Friend take it, from one who has seen them, that these businessmen operating most energetically are very real and, if we are not permanently to lose this trade, we must start supplying it again?
  The Prime Minister: I say to my hon. and learned Friend, who is a lone voice in support of this doctrine—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—on this side of the House, that he also must come to terms with the problem with which I have asked the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to come to terms.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is my recollection wrong, or was it not the Prime
  216
  Minister himself who told us about large numbers of oil ships outside Beira?
  The Prime Minister: Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said to his hon. Friend a few moments ago. From January this year until the arrival of the "Joanna V" there were 47 ships, we were confidently told, on their way, not one of which was, in fact, on its way. When they started to arrive, we took firm action and we are still not clear whether we were backed by the right hon. Gentleman and his party.

  ATLANTIC NUCLEAR FORCE
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of his proposals for an Atlantic nuclear force.
  The Prime Minister: Discussions are proceeding among the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation principally concerned.
  Mr. Marten: Could the Prime Minister explain the speech of the Minister for Disarmament in Stockholm last Sunday when he said that the N.A.T.O. countries should have only the right of consultation on the use of nuclear forces and not have a system of collective force? If this is so, is it not torpedoing his Atlantic nuclear force?
  The Prime Minister: What my noble Friend was saying—I have studied the full text of his speech—was in accordance with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last October, that in deciding the form of collective nuclear arrangements within N.A.T.O. we should have to have regard to the problems of non-proliferation as well as to the so-called "hardware" solution; but it would be too early yet to say what the allies are likely to decide on this question.
  Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the policy carried out on behalf of Her Majesty's Government by the Minister for Disarmament in his two recent speeches at Geneva and Stockholm is receiving considerable support both in the House and in the country, in particular his declaration that nothing must be done to make impossible a treaty against proliferation between us and the Soviet Union?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I am very glad that this has the support of my hon. Friend, particularly as it has been the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government since the debate of 16–17th December, 1964, when I used exactly the same words and I did not note the same enthusiasm on my hon. Friend's part.

  ADEN AND SOUTH ARABIA
  Viscount Lambtonasked the Prime Minister (1), whether, in view of the threat of Egyptian troops in the Yemen, he will give an assurance to the local governments of the Aden Protectorate that they will receive British aid in the event of Egyptian invasion after United Kingdom withdrawal from the Aden base;
  (2) whether, in view of the terrorism in Aden, he will reconsider withdrawal from the Aden base on a fixed date and make it dependent upon peace and security existing in Aden and the Protectorate.
  The Prime Minister: The intention is that the withdrawal from the Aden base shall take place at the same time that South Arabia becomes independent. As the Federal Government fully understand, it is not our intention to conclude a defence agreement with them after independence.
  Viscount Lambton: Will the Prime Minister agree that there is a changed set of circumstances in the Arabian Peninsula and, as a result of the changed Egyptian policy, unless there is some sort of guarantee the new Aden Government will have very little chance of survival?
  The Prime Minister: It happens to be the fact that the noble Lord's criticisms are not shared by at any rate the Federal Internal Security Minister, who has said that the presence of the British base has not only marred the reputation of South Arabia but has created an Iron Curtain between the Federation and other Arab countries. There is no reason to think that any change has taken place as a result of our decision, but if we had not taken this decision we should have been landed with a policy, which right hon. Gentlemen opposite followed at such heavy cost, of trying to maintain a base in the face of a totally hostile population.
  Mr. Tapsell: Does not the Prime Minister accept that this country has obligations to the Rulers in South Arabia following more than 130 years of treaty relationship with them? What steps do Her Majesty's Government intend to take to protect their personal security and that of their families after our withdrawal?
  The Prime Minister: What we do not accept here—this was very fully argued in the two-day debate on defence and subsequently is that this country has a unilateral obligation to police a very large part of the world by itself and not on a collective basis.
  This is the basis of our policy, and the implication of the hon. Gentleman's question would be that, after leaving the Aden base, we would then have to maintain troops either again there or very near and to defend them, we should literally be back to "first base", and we should be in the original situation of trying to maintain a base in hostile territory, which, I hope, we have all learned now is not a viable policy.
  Mr. Maudling: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government's announcement about the withdrawal from the Aden base causes great distress to our friends and great joy to those in that part of the world who are not our friends? Will he do something to put that right?
  The Prime Minister: I have just quoted one view, from the Federal Minister, who did not take the view quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. However, when one is considering, as we have had to consider, the whole of our military commitments and the whole of our defence policy, it is clear, as we have said many times, that one cannot stay in a hostile base. The previous Government—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, having been Chancellor of the Exchequer—spent more hundreds of millions building up bases which they had to close than they spent, or wasted, on missiles. That being so, we have at least learnt the lessons that they did not.
  Mr. Sandys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, whatever the Minister for the Interior may have said in very difficult circumstances, the Government of South Arabia still want a defence agreement with Britain? Does

  219
  he not realise that by leaving South Arabia defenceless against Egyptian attack he is making a mockery of independence?
  The Prime Minister: The Federal Government understand that we do not need to be—do not intend to be—in a position to maintain troops either in Aden or near that base which would enable us to have the kind of treaty that the right hon. Gentleman would want us to have. No doubt, after independence, we hope, the new State will secure United Nations membership, and an attack on it would be an act of war and aggression to which I think all of us would react. But we simply cannot go on on a basis of accepting these unilateral military commitments which are far beyond the economic, military and financial capacity of this country.
  Mr. Thorpe: While I welcome this modest withdrawal from Britain's defensive rôle east of Suez, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered negotiating a United Nations presence, either in military terms or in observer terms, to ensure the integrity of the area?
  The Prime Minister: This is a very relevant proposal. The United Nations has taken a very great interest in the problems of Aden. We found last year —I found, following up the actions of right hon. Gentlemen opposite when they formed the Government—that as long as we said that we were holding on to the base it would be impossible to negotiate a timetable for independence. It all depended on that, and it is on that that further United Nations action must depend.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: As the Prime Minister has already changed his mind on a number of important aspects of foreign and defence policy, would he perhaps consider changing his mind again? Does not the reply that he has given today amount to saying that, if necessary, because he wants to reduce our defence commitments he is prepared to hand Aden and the South Arabian Federation over to Egyptian imperialism?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That is not what I am saying. What I am say-
  220
  ing is that the only way to do what the Opposition want would be for us once again to say, "We will maintain in Aden a substantial military installation and defend it", and the very fact that we were not prepared to announce our withdrawal from the base was fouling up all our relations with Aden and leading to the very grave and serious situation that we had to put up with last year.
  Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the difference between the views of the peoples of those territories and the views of their hereditary chiefs?
  The Prime Minister: I think that we were all made very well aware of this, as were right hon. Gentlemen opposite, in our negotiations. I repeat that unless we had been able to announce the date for withdrawal from the base, it would have been impossible to negotiate a timetable for independence, and without that we should have been involved in far greater internal police measures and a far greater campaign of terrorism and murder than we have had to face.
  Several Hon. Members rose
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
Sir K. Joseph(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the situation regarding the proposed shipping strike.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ray Gunter): I have seen representatives of the Shipping Federation this afternoon and I shall be seeing the Executive of the National Union of Seamen tomorrow. In this situation I would prefer to say nothing more.
Sir K. Joseph: But will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, should the strike occur, the Government have taken all practicable contingency action to safeguard essential supplies?
Mr. Gunter: My task at the moment is to try to find a solution to the problem.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS [3rd May]
  Resolutions reported,
  [For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1966;Vol. 727, c. 1461–1468.]
  Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution,
  put forthwith on each Resolution, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).
  First to Fifth Resolutions agreed to.
  Sixth Resolution—Selective employment tax—read a Second time.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 241.

  Division No. 4.]

  AYES

  [3.37 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dempsey, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Allaun Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dewar, D. C.

  Henig, Stanley

  Alldritt, Walker

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Anderson, Donald

  Dickens, James

  Hilton, W. S.

  Archer, Peter

  Dobson, Ray

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Doig, Peter

  Hooley, Frank

  Ashley, Jack

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Horner, John

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dunn, James A.

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Dunnett, Jack

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Bagier, Gordan A. T.

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Barnes, Michael

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Howie, W.

  Barnett, Joel

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Beaney, Alan

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bence, Cyril

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hunter, Adam

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Ellis, John

  Hynd, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  English, Michael

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Binns, John

  Ennals, David

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ensor, David

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Blackburn, F.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Boardman, H.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Booth, Albert

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Boston, Terence

  Finch, Harold

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Boyden, James

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Floud, Bernard

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

  Bradley, Tom

  Foley, Maurice

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Judd, Frank

  Brooks, Edwin

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Kelley, Richard

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Ford, Ben

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Forrester, John

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

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Fowler, Gerry

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

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, J. D. (Norwood)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Ledger, Ron

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Gardner, A. J.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Cant, R. B.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Garrow, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ginsburg, David

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Chapman, Donald

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Coe, Denis

  Gray, Dr. Hugh

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Coleman, Donald

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Lipton, Marcus

  Concannon, J. D.

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Conlan, Bernard

  Grey, Charles

  Loughlin, Charles

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Luard, Evan

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  McBride, Neil

  Darling, George

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McCann, John

  Davidson, A. (Accrington)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  MacColl, James

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Hamling, William

  MacDermot, Niall

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hannan, William

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Harper, Joseph

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hattersley, Roy

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hazell, Bert

  McMillan, Tom. (Glasgow, C.)

  Dell, Edmund

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  McNamara, J. K.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Stonehouse, John

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Swain, Thomas

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

  Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Swingler, Stephen

  Manuel, Archie

  Pentland, Norman

  Symonds, J. B.

  Mapp, Charles

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Marquand, David

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mason, Roy

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Tins, James

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Mellish, Robert

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Probert, Arthur

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Varley, Eric G.

  Millan, Bruce

  Randall, Harry

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Rankin, John

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Redhead, Edward

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Wallace, George

  Molloy, William

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Moonman, Eric

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Richard, Ivor

  Weitzman, David

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Moyle, Roland

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Whitlock, William

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Murray, Albert

  Roebuck, Roy

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Neal, Harold

  Rogers, George

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Newens, Stan

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Ryan, John

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Ogden, Eric

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Sheldon, Robert

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Winnick, David

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

  Woof, Robert

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Padley, Walter

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Yates, Victor

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Slater, Joseph

  Zilliacus, K.

  Paget, R. T.

  Small, William

  Palmer, Arthur

  Snow, Julian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Mr. John Silkin and Mr. Lawson.

  Park, Trevor

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Foster, Sir John

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Channon, H. P. G.

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

  Astor, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Clark, Henry

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clegg, Walter

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Cooke, Robert

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cordle, John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Batsford, Brian

  Costain, A. P.

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Bell, Ronald

  Crawley, Aidan

  Gower, Raymond

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Grant, Anthony

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Crouch, David

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Bessell, Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Grieve, Percy

  Biffen, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dance, James

  Grimonds, Rt. Hn. J.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Black, Sir Cyril

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Blaker, Peter

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Braine, Bernard

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Brewis, John

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Eden, Sir John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Bryan, Paul

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hastings, Stephen

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Farr, John

  Hay, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Campbell, Gordon

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Carlisle, Mark

  Forrest, George

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Hiley, Joseph

  224

  225

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Mawby, Ray

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Holland, Philip

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

  Sharples, Richard

  Hooson, H. E.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Hordern, Peter

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hornby, Richard

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Smith, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Monro, Hector

  Stainton, Keith

  Hunt, John

  More, Jasper

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Talbot, John E.

  Johson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tapsell, Peter

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Neave, Airey

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

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

  Jopling, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Nott, John

  Teeling, Sir William

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Onslow, Cranley

  Temple, John M.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Kimball, Marcus

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Tilney, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  van Strauhenzee, W. R.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Pardoe, J.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Lambton, Viscount

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Percival, Ian

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Peyton, John

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wall, Patrick

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

  Pounder, Rafton

  Walters, Denis

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Longden, Gilbert

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Loveys, W. H.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Webster, David

  Lubbock, Eric

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Whitelaw, William

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  McMaster, Stanley

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  MacMillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Maddan, Martin

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Worsley, W. M.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Roots, William

  Wylie, N. R.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Marten, Neil

  Royle, Anthony

  Maude, Angus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

  Seventh to Sixteenth Resolutions agreed to
  Seventeenth Resolution—Income tax, corporation tax and profits tax (Allowances
  in respect of capital expenditure)—read a Second time.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 241.

  Division No. 5.]

  AYES

  [3.52 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Booth, Albert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Boston, Terence

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Alldritt, Walter

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Anderson, Donald

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Archer, Peter

  Boyden, James

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ashley, Jack

  Bradley, Tom

  Darling, George

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Davidson, A. (Accrington)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Barnes, Michael

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Barnett, Joel

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Baxter, William

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Beaney, Alan

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Bence, Cyril

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Delargy, Hugh

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cant, R. B.

  Dell, Edmund

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dempsey, James

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Dewar, D. C.

  Binns, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Chapman, Donald

  Dickens, James

  Blackburn, F.

  Coe, Denis

  Dobson, Ray

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Doig, Peter

  Boardman, H.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Driberg, Tom

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dunn, James A.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Dunnett, Jack

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

  Park, Trevor

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

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

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Edelman, Maurice

  Judd, Frank

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pentland, Norman

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Ellis, John

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

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  English, Michael

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Ennals, David

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Ensor, David

  Ledger, Ron

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Probert, Arthur

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Randall, Harry

  Finch, Harold

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Rankin, John

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Redhead, Edward

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Floud, Bernard

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Foley, Maurice

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Richard, Ivor

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Luard, Evan

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Ford, Ben

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Forrester, John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Fraser, J. D. (Norwood)

  McBride, Neil

  Roebuck, Roy

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  McCann, John

  Rogers, George

  Freeson, Reginald

  MacColl, James

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Gardner, A. J.

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Ryan, John

  Garrow, Alex

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Sheldon, Robert

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn, E.

  Gourlay, Harry

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  McNamara, J. K.

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

  Gregory, Arnold

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

  Grey, Charles

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Lianelly)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Slater Joseph

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

  Small, William

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Manuel, Archie

  Snow, Julian

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mapp, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Marquand, David

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Stonehouse, John

  Hamling, William

  Mason, Roy

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Hannan, William

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Harper, Joseph

  Mellish, Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Swingler, Stephen

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mikardo, Ian

  Symonds, J. B.

  Haseldine, Norman

  Millan, Bruce

  Taverne, Dick

  Hattersley, Roy

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Hazell, Bert

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Tinn, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Molloy, William

  Tomney, Frank

  Henig, Stanley

  Moonman, Eric

  Tuck, Raphael

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Hooley, Frank

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Horner, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wallace, George

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Murray, Albert

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Neal, Harold

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Newens, Stan

  Weitzman, David

  Howie, W.

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Whitaker, Ben

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Hunter, Adam

  Oram, Albert E.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hynd, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Orme, Stanley

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Padley, Walter

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

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

  Paget, R. T.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  228

  229

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Winnick, David

  Yates, Victor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Mr. John Silkin and Mr. Lawson.

  Woof, Robert

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

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

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Astor, John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Grant, Anthony

  Monro, Hector

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  More, Jasper

  Balniel, Lord

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Grieve, Percy

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Batsford, Brian

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Munro, Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Bell, Ronald

  Gurden, Harold

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Neave, Airey

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Bessell, Peter

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Nott, John

  Biffen, John

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Blaker, Peter

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pardoe, J.

  Braine, Bernard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Brewis, John

  Hay, John

  Percival, Ian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Peyton, John

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bryan, Paul

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Burden, F. A.

  Holland, Philip

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hooson, H. E.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hordern, Peter

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hornby, Richard

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hunt, John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Clark, Henry

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Clegg, Walter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Roots, William

  Cooke, Robert

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Royle, Anthony

  Cordle, John

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Costain, A. P.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Jopling, Michael

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Crawley, Aidan

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Scott, Nicholas

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Sharples, Richard

  Crouch, David

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Kimball, Marcus

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Currie, G. B. H.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Smith, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kirk, Peter

  Stainton, Keith

  Dance, James

  Kitson, Timothy

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stodart, Anthony

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Lambton, Viscount

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Talbot, John E.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Tapsell, Peter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

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

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Longden, Gilbert

  Teeling, Sir William

  Eden, Sir John

  Loveys, W. H.

  Temple, John M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacArthur, Ian

  Tilney, John

  Farr, John

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McMaster, Stanley

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Forrest, George

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maddan, Martin

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Foster, Sir John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

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

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Marten, Neil

  Wall, Patrick

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maude, Angus

  Walters, Denis

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Webster, David

  230

  231

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Wylie, N. R.

  Whitelaw, William

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Younger, Hn. George

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Worsley, W. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

  Eighteenth Resolution—Corporation tax (rate for financial years 1964 and 1965)—read a Second time.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 346, Noes 231.

  Division No. 6.]

  AYES

  [4.5 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dewar, D. C.

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Hooley, Frank

  Alldritt, Walter

  Dickens, James

  Hooson, H. E.

  Anderson, Donald

  Dobson, Ray

  Horner, John

  Archer, Peter

  Doig, Peter

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Ashley, Jack

  Driberg, Tom

  Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Howie, W.

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Baxter, William

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hunter, Adam

  Beaney, Alan

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hynd, John

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Bence, Cyril

  Ellis, John

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  English, Michael

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Ennals, David

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Bessell, Peter

  Ensor, David

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Binns, John

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

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

  Bishop, E. S.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Finch, Harold

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

  Boardman, H.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Booth, Albert

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Boston, Terence

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Floud, Bernard

  Judd, Frank

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Foley, Maurice

  Kelley, Richard

  Boyden, James

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

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

  Bradley, Tom

  Ford, Ben

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

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Forrester, John

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Brooks, Edwin

  Fowler, Gerry

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Fraser, J. D. (Norwood)

  Ledger, Ron

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Buchan, Norman

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Gardner, A. J.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Garrow, Alex

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Ginsburg, David

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lipton, Marcus

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Gray, Dr. Hugh

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Loughlin, Charles

  Chapman, Donald

  Gregory, Arnold

  Luard, Evan

  Coe, Denis

  Grey, Charles

  Lubbock, Eric

  Coleman, Donald

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Conian, Bernard

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  McBride, Neil

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  McCann, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  MacColl, James

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Darling, George

  Hamling, William

  McGuire, Michael

  Davidson, A. (Accrington)

  Hannan, William

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Hattersley, Roy

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hazell, Bert

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  McNamara, J. K.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Delargy, Hugh

  Henig, Stanley

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Dell, Edmund

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Dempsey, James

  Hilton. W. S.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

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

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Manuel, Archie

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Swain, Thomas

  Mapp, Charles

  Pentland, Norman

  Swingler, Stephen

  Marquand, David

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Taverns, Dick

  Mason, Roy

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mellish, Robert

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tinn, James

  Mikardo, Ian

  Probert, Arthur

  Tomney, Frank

  Millan, Bruce

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Tuck, Raphael

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Randall, Harry

  Urwin, T. W.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Rankin, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Redhead, Edward

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Molloy, William

  Rees, Merlyn

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Moonman, Eric

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Richard, Ivor

  Wallace, George

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Moyle, Roland

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Weitzman, David

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Murray, Albert

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E)

  Whitaker Ben

  Neal, Harold

  Roebuck, Roy

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Newens, Stan

  Rogers, George

  Whitlock, William

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Norwood, Christopher

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ogden, Eric

  Ryan, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, 8.)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Sheldon, Robert

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Orme, Stanley

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

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

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Padley, Walter

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Winnick, David

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Paget, R. T.

  Slater, Joseph

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Small, William

  Woof, Robert

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Snow, Julian

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Pardoe, J. W.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Yates, Victor

  Park, Trevor

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Stonehouse, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mr. John Silkin and Mr. Lawsen.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Astor, John

  Clark, Henry

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Clegg, Walter

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Cooke, Robert

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Balniel, Lord

  Cordle, John

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Costain, A. P.

  Gower, Raymond

  Batsford, Brian

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Grant, Anthony

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Crawley, Aidan

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Bell, Ronald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Crouch, David

  Grieve, Percy

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Gurden, Harold

  Biffen, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dance, James

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)

  Blaker, Peter

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Body, R.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Harrison, Brian (Malden)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Braine, Bernard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera

  Brewis, John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Eden, Sir John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hay, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Bryan, Paul

  Farr, John

  Heath, Rt. Hn, Edward

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Heseltine, Michael

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Burden, F. A.

  Forrest, George

  Hiley, Joseph

  Campbell, Gordon

  Fortescue, Tim

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Foster, Sir John

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St Hord & Stone)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Holland, Philip

  234

  235

  Hordern, Peter

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Hornby, Richard

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sharples, Richard

  Hunt, John

  Monro, Hector

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  More, Jasper

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)

  Smith, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stainton, Keith

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Stodart, Anthony

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Jopling, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Talbot, John E.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Nott, John

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

  Kimball, Marcus

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Teeling, Sir William

  Kirk, Peter

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Tilney, John

  Lambton, Viscount

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Percival, Ian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Peyton, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

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

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wall, Patrick

  Longden, Gilbert

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Walters, Denis

  Loveys, W. H.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Webster, David

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Whitelaw, William

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Maddan, Martin

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Marten, Neil

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Worsley, W. M.

  Maude, Angus

  Roots, William

  Wylie, N. R.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Mawby, Ray

  Royce, Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Pym and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

  Nineteenth to Twenty-ninth Resolutions agreed to.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) any increase of the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section 84(7) of the Finance Act 1965 (relief for existing companies with overseas trading income) which is attributable to any amendment of Schedule 20 to that Act relating to groups of companies;

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance or any other government department incurred for the purposes of provisions of that Act of the present Session relating to the selective employment tax.

  Resolution agreed to.

  WAYS AND MEANS [9th May]
  Resolution reported,
  WAYS AND MEANS [9th May]

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in
    236
    connection with finance, so however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making—

    (a) amendments of the enactments relating to purchase tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description, or for all goods to which any of the several rates of tax at present applies;

    (b)amendments of the provisions of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1964 relating to temporary charges on imports so as to give relief from the duty imposed by those provisions, other than amendments making the same provision for all goods chargeable with that duty.

    Resolution read a Second time.
    Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and upon the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Money] and agreed to this day, and upon the Orders [9th May] relating to Finance Bill (Procedure), (Stamp Duties Management Act 1891),

    237
    Finance Bill (Procedure) (Sugar Act 1956), Finance Bill (Procedure) (Friendly Societies), by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Diamond, and Mr. MacDermot.

  FINANCE
  Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 15.]

  RESERVE FORCES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the Order Paper I find that we propose to take the Reserve Forces Bill first, and the Armed Forces Bill second. I am under the impression, but I am open to correction, that unless we pass the Armed Forces Bill we can have no standing Army. Obviously, there is no point in having a reserve force without this. My assumption, and it may be ill-founded, is that precedents should enable us to deal with the Armed Forces Bill first.
  Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a most ingenious point which I must answer without any preparation. I understand that the Armed Forces Bill is continuing the Armed Forces, which are in existence, and that technically, should we take the first Bill on the Order Paper first, we would not jeopardise the existence of the British Army by allowing the Armed Forces Bill to come second. In any case the question of Bills on the Order Paper is not a matter for the Chair, but a matter for the Government.
  Mr. Shinwell: I do not want to be unduly troublesome, but it seems that although it is perfectly true that the Armed Forces Bill proposes to continue the right of the Government to create or continue the Army and forces generally, unless we do this in the first instance we have no right to proceed with the creation of a Reserve Force.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): On a point of order. Is it not the case that since the legislation which the Armed Forces Bill is intended to continue does not lapse until 31st December the natural concern of my right hon. Friend is misplaced?
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] This is exactly the point which, I am afraid, I put much more clumsily.
  4.22 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. David Ennals): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

  239
  There have been a number of developments since 16th December, 1965, when the House last debated the Government's plans for the reorganisation of the Army reserves, all of which should create a different climate in which we can consider the Bill now before the House.
  The Defence Review has outlined the broad strategy of Government policy and the financial limits within which we are operating. Then, on 2nd February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department outlined our conclusions concerning the establishment of the Home Defence Force and has recently given additional information in Written Answers. Thus the House can now consider the provisions set out in the Bill within the framework of our whole defence policy.
  There has also been the General Election. There was in the debate last December the mood of the hustings, when issues were seized upon by the Opposition and dealt with not on their merits but in the light of possible electoral advantages. Therefore, the carefully considered and reasoned proposals set out in the White Paper were distorted to provide electoral ammunition. To the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) the proposals now given legislative form in this Bill would, in the course of time, so he said:
  "… sound the deathknell of a citizen volunteer army in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 1582.]
  If, by "citizen volunteer army", the right hon. Gentleman meant the old concept of the militia or the yeomanry marching into the battle, then the death-knell was sounded years ago. If he thinks that we are destroying the spirit and sense of purpose of the Territorial Army, then he is out of touch with the situation. The deathknell of the old concept was sounded by the advent of nuclear weapons, with their profound effect on the method of modern war.
  What the current reorganisation does is to face the realities of the situation—on the one hand, to provide the Regular Army with the reserves which it needs and, on the other, to give T.A. units a new sense of purpose with a rôle which is relevant to the future rather than the past.
  Most of the criticisms which were voiced from the Opposition benches last
  240
  year seemed to ignore both the changing military requirements which must provide the raison d'etre of any volunteer service, and the growing dissatisfaction within the T.A. There had been increasing feeling within the T.A. Council and the T.A. associations about training arrangements, dress and equipment and a growing awareness that fundamental changes were needed. The T.A. Council quite frankly stated on 22nd July, 1965, that the organisation of:
  "… the present reserves is clearly unsatisfactory on the grounds that the proliferation of types of reserve from the original Territorial Army had led to duplication and waste and that it was created for a purpose that no longer exists".
  It was not seriously in dispute that we inherited a force too large for the real needs of national defence while providing reserves too few for the needs of our regular forces—a force under-trained, under-equipped, not available when needed and geared to perform tasks which were only relevant in the context of the First and Second World Wars.
  Moreover, our predecessors, and such of the present shadows as still survive, refused to accept the logic of their own arguments. It is instructive to recall the words of the then Secretary of State for War in the Army Estimates debate on 5th March, 1964:
  "Yet, when we think about the way in which the Territorial Army would be likely to go to war—some of it to provide 'Ever-readies', some to reinforce B.A.O.R.—some to act at home in support of the civil power, a rather different picture emerges from the one of a large field Army slowly built up to war efficiency and mobilised for war in the old style."
  He went on to ask a very pertinent question:
  "What is the point of organising and training the Territorial Army in one way if it is really more likely to have to be used in a different way?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 1552.]
  It was a very pertinent question. But, as on so many other issues, the Conservatives refused to provide the answer.
  Field Marshal Lord Montgomery, who never pulls his punches on these issues, was right when he said:
  "The reshaping should have been carried out ten years ago or more, when we were definitely in the age of the hydrogen bomb, but nobody in those days would grasp the nettle."
  In setting out the structure of the new Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve

  241
  we are now grasping that nettle. Yet, though the changes that we are making are substantial, they are in line with previous changes both in philosophy and in organisation.
  Over the years, there has been a gradual move away from the concept of an Army organised to fight in its own military formations, as conceived by Lord Haldane. Increasingly, it has been realised that the likelihood of the country being engaged in a conventional war against another major power has become more and more remote. In a nuclear age it is impossible to imagine mass armies opposing one another with conventional weapons, as they did in the last two wars. If, tragically, they should come, wars are likely either to be conventional ones on a comparatively limited scale outside Europe, or we shall be faced with the appalling prospect of a nuclear holocaust in Europe.
  The various post-war T.A. reorganisations have been in line with this train of thought. For example, in 1954, as the House will know, it was decided to abolish Anti-Aircraft Command. This represented the last effective rôle of the T.A. in the defence of this country against conventional attack. In 1955, the number of divisions designed to fight as such in Europe was reduced from 12 to 2 and eventually, in 1961, to none at all.
  Meanwhile, there was an increasing emphasis on the rôle of the T.A. in the provision of reinforcements for the Regular Army—a tendency which we continue in the Bill. In 1958, it was recognised that Civil Defence must be included among the rôles for which the T.A. was being trained and specific training in fire-fighting was introduced in 1964. Throughout this long period the establishment of the T. A. had been steadily dropping, from 700,000 in 1947 to 300,000 in 1955 and, following the 1961 reorganisation, to its present establishment of about 190,000, of which only 97,000 are now enrolled.
  Moreover, far from destroying the pattern of service given by the "Terriers" the reorganisation and the character of the Bill itself emphasises the extent to which present proposals are in line with the past.
  The Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve will be based throughout on existing units of the Territorial Army
  242
  and of the Army Emergency Reserve. We have been at pains in framing the reorganisation to ensure that as many units as possible of the A.E.R. and Territorial Army are represented in some form or other in the new Reserve. Happily, we have substantially achieved this aim. We are most anxious that the new units of the T. & A.V.R. should take over from their predecessors in the A.E.R. and T.A. the traditions and spirit of service for which they are noted. We have tried to emphasise the continuity in our present proposals by including the name "Territorial" in the title of the force; for good measure we have also included the name "Volunteer", which takes us back to an even earlier period.
  The House will note that the Bill starts off in Clause 1 by changing the name of the Territorial Army to one more appropriate to its new rôle. As will be clear from Clause 17 of the Bill, we also envisage the continuance of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations, which have played such an important part in the life of the Territorial Army.
  It would, I think, be appropriate at this stage to pay tribute to the contribution that has been made by the T.A. Council and by associations locally to the deliberations leading up to the Bill which is before the House today.
  It has had a difficult part to play; we realise that many members of the Council started with considerable misgivings about the Government's proposals. I am, however, very glad to tell the House that I believe that all the major difficulties and most of the minor differences of opinion, too, have now been resolved.
  The form which the reorganisation takes may not be precisely what the Council would have wished if it had been given a free hand, but it has loyally accepted that it is for the Government to lay down policy and for the Council to give its advice on how this policy can best be carried out. I pay tribute to the rôle that it has played during this period of negotiation, bringing us to the state as now presented to the House.
  Let me turn now to the tasks of the new force. When the Government came into office in October, 1964, the rôle of the T.A. was then defined as follows:

  "(a) To provide units and individual reinforcements, on the outbreak of war, for the Regular Army overseas, particularly for B.A.O.R.

  243

  (b) To provide Headquarters and units on the outbreak of war to aid the Civil Power and to support the Regular Army in the U.K., and

  (c) To provide a framework on which, in a period of rising tension, general preparations for war can be made."

  In addition, we also inherited a small but completely independent force, the Army Emergency Reserve, which was designed to contribute towards meeting the first of these three rôles. But it was organised differently and, in the case of Category I—the larger part—on a completely different call-out liability.
  Broadly, the present Government recognise the first and second of the rôles laid down by the previous Government, but the basic change is in the method that we have adopted to enable the Reserve to fulfil these rôles. We are not questioning the rôles themselves. On the other hand, we regard the third rôle,
  "To provide a framework on which, in a period of rising tension, general preparations for war can be made",
  as an irrelevance today. In fact, as I have already shown, its abandonment has been going on gradually for years. It would only be necessary to provide a framework for expansion if we seriously thought in terms of a large-scale conventional war with huge armies built up gradually in slow time. That we regard as a remote possibility; and in any case the limiting factor would not be men, but equipment.
  It might be argued that there is no great harm in including in the rôle of the Army Reserves some recognition of the possibility that the unforeseen may happen. But there is, in fact, harm in it. Seeking to make provision for the unknown has distorted the organisation, training, equipment and cost of the Territorial Army.
  First, it has entailed the retention of an establishment greatly in excess of the recruited strength, with all that this implies in extra overheads. We have been paying a very heavy price in manpower and money for the retention of unnecessary headquarters, the provision of heavy equipment for units of the Royal Armoured Corps and the Royal Artillery, which could not conceivably have been required, and the maintenance of numerous units of teeth
  244
  arms, when the main need is for supporting units. All this has been the consequence of sticking to the outdated idea of providing a framework for expansion.
  Secondly, it has, in practice, operated to the detriment of the provision of sufficient training and equipment for units required to perform the very important reinforcement rôle.
  Thus, the Government having abandoned this hypothetical, costly and irrelevant third rôle, we were free to consider the most economical and efficient way of meeting the other two rôles, namely, to provide reserves from the Regular Army and Home Defence. This we propose to do, as the Bill sets out, by creating two separate but inter-linked forces within the common legislative framework of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, as the legal successor of the T.A. under Clause 1 of the Bill, but embracing also the A.E.R. under Clause 14(4).
  But why, it may be asked, have we decided to set up two new and separate forces rather than carry out another scaling-down operation for the Territorial Army? In my view, there are several convincing reasons why we have decided to do this. First, the result of trying to perform two quite distinct tasks within a single framework would almost certainly have led to the production of a hybrid force which did not meet either requirement adequately. We would also inevitably have been left with the wrong balance between teeth arms and logistic units for the reinforcement needs of the Regular Army.
  Secondly, the liabilities, both for call-out and training required for Regular Army reinforcements and for Home Defence are quite different, and it would have been difficult to cater satisfactorily for both liabilities within the Territorial Army as it is at present constructed. Thirdly, a single force like the T.A., organised on a uniform basis, would, even if reduced considerably in scale, have cost a great deal more than we are planning to spend on the new Reserve.
  Fourthly, and finally, the T. & A.V.R. also has the advantage of incorporating the A.E.R., which has hitherto been quite separate from the T.A. This last point is fundamental to the present reorganisation. The existing Army Emergency Reserve, particularly Category I, which has

  245
  the rôle of providing some of the logistic units required for support of the Strategic Reserve in the event of limited war, makes a vital contribution to meeting the reinforcement requirements of the Regular Army. Men in this category have a higher call-out liability than members of the T.A. They have been recruited up to about an 80 per cent. level, they provide some highly efficient units, and I should like to pay tribute to those members of A.E.R. I who have accepted the higher liability attached to their service. Nevertheless, important as the rôle of the A.E.R. has been, it has not been a satisfactory arrangement to keep it as a small separate force with different liabilities from the rest of the volunteer reserves.
  Let me now summarise the various categories of the new Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve. The Special Army Volunteer Reserve, S.A.V.R., consists of volunteers on a "Ever-ready" call out liability, totalling 8,600 men in all, an increase in the present establishment of the T.A.E.R., which is established at 7,700. The S.A.V.R. is legally a continuance of the T.A.E.R. established by the Army Reserve Act, 1962. The T.A.E.R. has already given very good service in Aden and elsewhere. In the same way as we obtain the "Ever-ready" volunteers from the T.A., so we hope to recruit about half the 7,000 men whom we require for S.A.V.R. from the T. & A.V.R. A new feature, however, is that under Clause 8 we shall aim to recruit the remaining half of the individuals from the ranks of Regular reservists, and this will enable us to take full advantage of the experience and the relatively high state of training of Regular reservists.
  The remaining 1,600 on an "Ever-ready" liability will be organised in separate units in order that the Government will be able to fulfil their offer—one which I warmly welcome—to provide logistic backing for a United Nations force of up to six battalions if required. To fulfil this rôle a unit must obviously be available for call-out as a whole on an "Ever-ready" basis; it is most likely to be needed in a situation falling well short of the requirement for calling out the rest of the Reserve. T. & A.V.R. I might itself form part of the logistic backing to a U.N. force or to a purely British force.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether, when men are being invited to join this force, it will be made clear to them that in doing so they automatically accept the liability to serve in a United Nations force? At the moment it is not clear, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make absolutely clear what the conditions are.
  Mr. Ennals: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the commitment will be made clear. It will be understood that the decision whether Britain should provide logistic backing for a U.N. force will be taken by the British Government, but those who volunteer will understand the nature of their liability.
  T. & A.V.R. IIA consists of "independent units, organised on a local basis, as set out in the White Paper. T. & A.V.R. IIB are the "sponsored" units, raised on a countrywide basis. But I must emphasise that T. & A.V.R. IIB is not just another A.E.R. I under a new name. It will incorporate some ex-T.A. units, now to be recruited on a countrywide basis.
  As the White Paper explains, the distinction between independent and sponsored units is not a distinction related to the kind of operations for which they may be used, or the distinction of liability of service. It is a distinction in the method of recruitment, and in the nature and degree of training required.
  It would be wrong to imagine that only sponsored units are required, or indeed primarily designed, for limited war outside Europe, or, on the other hand, that independent units are required and designed only for a re-inforcement rôle for B.A.O.R. No units will be confined solely to a B.A.O.R. rôle, although we are making certain provisions for doctors, dentists and nursing sisters as individuals. Although, in practice, certain units of a highly specialised character are unlikely to be needed outside Europe, this does not apply to the teeth arms.
  We must regard the whole of the T. & A.V.R. II as a single whole. All units will include the name "Volunteer" in their titles. They will have the same liability for call-out, and even though it may be organised and trained primarily for either one rôle or the other, any unit could be used anywhere. This will give the maximum flexibility and economy in

  247
  meeting the reinforcement needs of the Regular Army.
  Sir Richard Glyn: Will all these units in each group be trained and equipped identically?
  Mr. Ennals: I am not certain of the answer to that question. I shall ask my hon. Friend to deal with it when he winds up the debate.
  Dame Joan Vickers: Clause 1 refers to the Royal Marines Reserve. Will this be a separate organisation?
  Mr. Ennals: If the hon. Lady will be patient, I shall mention the Royal Marines Reserve later.
  I do not want to say any more on this occasion about the detailed organisation of the volunteers, as this was fully set out in the White Paper published last December. I should like to concentrate on one particular aspect which is specifically covered by the Bill, and this is the question of call-out liability for T. & A.V.R. II, which has given rise to a good deal of misunderstanding.
  I hope, and believe, that most of the misunderstanding has disappeared, but, in case it has not, a special leaflet is about to be issued by the Government to employers explaining once again the Government's intentions. It is hoped that this will be helpful to those who are hoping to volunteer for this Reserve. We are grateful for the help which has been given by the Confederation of British Industry and the T.U.C. in preparing the leaflet, and indeed in discussions on the call-out liability generally.
  Leaving aside the general liability for call-out in defence of the United Kingdom, the great majority of the present volunteer reserves—the T.A. and A.E.R. Category II—can only be called out in case of imminent national danger or of great emergency. While we propose to retain this liability in Clause 5(1) of the Bill, we do not consider that it covers at all adequately the range of circumstances in which it might be necessary to call out T. & A.V.R. II in support of the Regular Army. This is a matter partly of substance, and partly of timing.
  As regards the former, it is very doubtful whether a major limited war outside Europe of a kind in which Britain might
  248
  become engaged could reasonably be regarded as constituting either "imminent national danger" or a "great emergency". Yet this is the sort of situation that we are most likely to face. A major crisis in Europe, resulting in a N.A.T.O. Simple Alert, could more justifiably be described in these terms, but the timing of a call-out in these circumstances could be all-important. It might be desirable to call out at any rate some reservists before it was advisable to announce that national danger was imminent, or that a great national emergency had arisen, with all the diplomatic consequences of so grave a statement. We thus came to the conclusion that a more flexible definition was required if our volunteer reserves were to be of maximum value.
  The new legal liability for call-out is defined in Clause 6(1) of the Bill as
  "when war-like operations are in preparation or progress."
  It is, however, impossible to define by Act of Parliament the type of hypothetical circumstances that might merit the use of this sort of broad definition. But it is fair to say that this broad definition has been in operation for nearly 70 years, and now governs the call-out liability of Section A of the Regular Reserve and of A.E.R. Category I.
  Outside the two world wars, during the whole of that 70 years' period there have been only two occasions when that liability has been invoked, and the very few occasions on which it was invoked for the categories to which it applied should provide some reassurance that it will not in future place unreasonable demands either upon employers or upon volunteers themselves. There is no question whatever—as some people suggested—of the new liability being an "Ever-ready" liability or anything like that.
  I do not think that those who have been concerned about the liability have been greatly worried about the aspects of a N.A.T.O. Simple Alert. It is in relation to a limited war outside Europe that most of the anxieties have been expressed. We cannot foresee all the hypothetical situations that might arise, but we have clearly stated on many occasions that we would not call out volunteers unless major military operations were in progress, or appeared to be imminent, and when a serious situation affecting vital national interests had arisen.

  249
  Our lust resort in the event of a limited war would be to provide the necessary reinforcement from the Strategic Reserve or such elements of the Regular Army as could be made available. This would be followed, if necessary, by the call-out of Section A of the Regular Reserve, and we have given an assurance, which I repeat, that volunteers who have not accepted the "Ever-ready" liability will not be called out until full use has been made of Section A. Only when we have exhausted these resources would we have to fall back on ordinary volunteers. Even then it might be necessary only to call up a limited number. It should not be assumed that, if there were a call-out, it would involve all volunteer units. On the contrary, it is most unlikely in that in a limited war situation the whole of T. & A.V.R. II would be required.
  While we have been at pains to reassure employers and potential members of the volunteers that their liabilities will not be unreasonably invoked, we do not want to mislead them by going too far in giving the opposite impression that they would never be called out under any circumstances short of a major war in Europe. If this situation were to be so, we would not require an important part of the present Bill, and we should not have succeeded in our aim of providing the more flexible and readily available Reserve which we believe to be required. The existing T.A. liability, as the House will generally agree, is insufficient. It is now generally assumed, unfortunately, that the T.A. would only be embodied in a general war situation like that of the last two world wars. It would be wrong for us to allow men to join the volunteers now believing that this was still the case, or that they were to be paid a £60 bounty for nothing.
  From the employers' point of view there are two facts which should weigh heavily in the balance against this slightly increased risk that volunteers may be called up. The first is that fewer men are involved—in fact, little more than one third of the number that have been involved in the T.A. and A.E.R. in recent years. Secondly, the more immediate concern of employers is likely to be the amount of peace-time training. They can be assured that there will be no change
  250
  in the period of annual camp, which remains at 15 days, as provided for in Clause 16.
  It is true that there will be an increase from 17 to 24 in the number of out-of-camp training days for members of independent units, but this will normally be confined to Saturdays and Sundays. There will be fewer drill nights during the week. Therefore, we can confidently assure employers that they have no reason for concern. As for the T. & A.V.R. III—the new "Territorials"—they are set out in Clause 2(2) and are limited to Home Defence, and under Clause 6(6) they are exempt from the "war-like operations" call-out.
  The primary rôle of this section of the Reserve is to assist the police in the maintenance of law and order and to act generally in support of the civil authorities in the tragic event of a nuclear attack upon this country. It will be organised, equipped and trained for this primary rôle. As my right hon. Friend said in a previous Written Answer, there are 87 units of a standard infantry type, each normally having three companies, with a maximum recruited strength of 23,000. All T.A. major units of the R.A.C., R.A. and Infantry who did not find a place in the volunteers' order of battle will be represented, at least at company level. Units of the R.A.C. and R.A. will be organised and will operate in exactly the same way as infantry units, but for reasons of tradition and to suit their wishes they will retain their yeomanry or gunner titles.
  We are anxious to foster close links between the independent units of T. & A.V.R. II and T. & A.V.R. III, but the House must recognise that, because of the great differences in their rôles, their liabilities, their equipment and training, the Territorials must constitute separate units and must have their own independent command structure. This should not stand in the way of mutual co-operation between units, some of whom will share drill halls. There are opportunities in training and social activities. We expect also that the links will be further fostered by the fact that the auxiliary associations will be responsible for certain aspects of the administration of both sections of the Reserve and thus

  251
  will provide a valuable link between the two.
  An important part of the reorganisation provided for in the Bill is the improved arrangements that we propose to make to enable the Regular Army Reserve to play a more effective rôle. The Regular Reserve will in any case be increasing steadily in the early 1970s to about 45,000 as a result of the measures introduced by the previous Administration, but we are not at present making as much use as we might of this source of manpower—manpower which is highly trained and which includes experienced men.
  We are proposing to take the following measures: first, as I have already said, we intend and hope to find 3,500 men for the Special Army Volunteer Reserve—the "Ever-readies" from Regular reservists. Secondly, Regular reservists will be able to take their place in volunteer units and will assume the same liabilities and receive the same bounty as do other volunteers. Thirdly, we are providing for all Regular soldiers who join the Army in future to retain their ability for call out "when war-like operations are in preparation or progress" throughout their period of reserve service. This is provided for also in Clause 6. It would be wrong to attempt to impose the liability compulsorily on those who have already joined the Army, although we hope that many will volunteer for this additional liability.
  Fourthly, all new recruits into the Regular Army will, under Clause 6, acquire a liability for service at home as well as overseas if called out for warlike operations. As part of the general process of improving and simplifying call-up arrangements, we are providing in Clause 5 for the existing Proclamation procedure to be succeeded by a Queen's Order. This would enable reservists to be called up in the appropriate circumstances rather more rapidly than at present. This might be important in a situation where hours were of great significance.
  The Queen's Order which will be substituted for the Proclamation will, naturally, be issued only in the same circumstances as are now laid down for the issue of Proclamation, that is to say, at a time of imminent national danger or great emergency. Only the form will be altered.
  252
  I have already covered the ground of Clauses 1 to 8, with certain exceptions. Clause 3 abolishes certain reserves or divisions of reserves which are no longer in existence, no longer required and, indeed, in some cases, have not come into existence. Clauses 4 and 7—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say just now that a Queen's Order would be issued only in circumstances of imminent national danger, or of great emergency. Is it not the case that a Queen's Order would also be used for calling out, in the event of warlike operations being in preparation or progress, that part of the Volunteer Reserve which was concerned? I was wondering whether I had heard him correctly.
  Mr. Ennals: Yes, I am certain that that is the case, as the right hon. Gentleman put it.
  Clauses 4 and 7, as I was saying, are consequential on the extension of the warlike operations liability provided for in Clause 6. I will now deal with some Clauses which follow. Clauses 9 to 13 constitute a group of Clauses which deal with the administration of a call-out. Thus, they deal with the question of how men are to be called out, the length of service during call-out and what should happen if men are called out in one set of circumstances and are then required to meet another set of circumstances.
  Clause 14 contains a number of miscellaneous provisions. It enables Army reservists to join the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve and for members of the Emergency Reserve to be transferred to it. Officers in the Army Emergency Reserve with land forces commissions will be able to become officers of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve without the issue of T.A. commissions. It has been decided that officers newly entering the T. & A.V.R. will receive land forces commissions. Officers who already have Territorial Army commissions will, of course, continue to hold them, but in the long term this form of commission will disappear. When the T.A. was a separate army it was quite appropriate that it should have a separate commission. Now that the T. & A.V.R. mainly constitutes the reserve for the Regular Army, the officers in it should have the same commissions as Regular Army officers.

  253
  Clause 15 is another consequential of the warlike operations liability becoming a normal liability for men in the Volunteers. Clause 16 provides for the training of the Army and Air Force reserves and the Teritorial and Army Volunteer Reserve. It is much simpler than the corresponding provisions of the 1950 and 1953 Acts. The main feature of this Clause is that, for the first time, men may be compulsorily required to train overseas. This does not, of course, include the Home Defence Force. Training overseas is, in the Government's view, increasingly important, at a time when we may have to depend on quick mobility for the achievement of many of our objectives.
  Clauses 17, 18 and 19 deal with Territorial Army Associations and I shall deal with them in a moment. Clause 20 deals with deputy lieutenants and the Government have now agreed that persons other than those qualified by service in the forces will be eligible for these appointments.
  So far, I have referred only to the Army. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force are also affected by the Bill, but to a much smaller extent. Generally speaking, changes in liability and conditions of service introduced into the Regular Army Reserve are carried into the Regular Air Force Reserve and, to a more limited extent, into the special class of the Royal Fleet Reserve. This class is roughly equivalent to the Section A of the other two Service reserves. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force is only marginally affected. All the reserves of the Navy and Air Force are to be called out only by Queen's Order, instead of by Proclamation, in imminent national danger or great emergency.
  I now turn to the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. The White Paper issued in December left open the rôle to be played in future by associations. I am happy to say that we have now reached agreement with the T.A. Council on the functions for which these associations will continue to be responsible. They will continue to look after such matters as relations with employers, with the trade unions, and local interests generally. They will also be responsible for recruiting, except, of course, for sponsored units and for the issue of clothing to T. & A.V.R. III units and also for the man-
  254
  agement of centres. They will also retain their present functions in relation to cadets.
  However, because of the reduced size and spread of the T. & A.V.R. as compared with the T.A., we would clearly not be justified to maintain anything like the present number of associations or secretariats. In particular, it will be essential, for reasons of economy, to reduce substantially the number of secretariats. We have in mind a total of about 15, serving groups of counties, so that the concept of a county secretariat will no longer exist. The Bill accordingly provides, in Clause 17, for the winding up of individual associations, for the variation of the areas they cover and for the alteration of the scope of the schemes under which they are constituted.
  Clause 17(5) is particularly important, because it enables the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to make payments to men employed by associations who have either lost their jobs or suffered some reduction in salary as a result of the reorganisation. In certain circumstances, men will be given compensation for their loss of earnings. We cannot, of course, interfere with the system of payments under the current redundancy payments legislation—
  Miss Harvie Anderson: I notice that the hon. Gentleman is telling us of the provisions for men who will be redundant. Would he make some comment on the three aspects so far uncovered with regard to women at present serving, first, in relation to redundancy, and second, in relation to the W.R.A.C.T.A., and then give an explanation for the fact that Clause 20 makes no reference to women, who are now as eligible as men to be deputy lieutenants?
  Mr. Ennals: Yes, Sir. There will be no women's unit, but there will be the opportunity for a limited number of women to enrol. They can enrol in signals units and also as clerks and cooks, where the circumstances are appropriate and where the right people are available. So the opportunities are still provided for some of the competent women already involved in the W.R.A.C. to continue their rôle in the reorganisation.
  As many hon. Members will know, the social life of the T.A. is very important and it is in the various messes that the life and morale of a unit are fostered.

  255
  Normally, when a unit is disbanded or amalgamated, its non-public funds cannot be used for the purposes of a new unit unless the Charity Commissioners in England and Wales—or the Court of Session in Scotland or the High Court or Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland—have accepted a plan.
  This would be time-wasting and frustrating in the course of this reorganisation. Happily, the Charity Commissioners have suggested a provision that the non-public funds of the units which are being disbanded or amalgamated may be used by their successor units unless an order is given to the contrary. By this means we hope to achieve time saving and to avoid a tremendous amount of paper work. Clause 18 deals with this question in England and Wales and Northern Ireland and Clause 19 deals with the situation in Scotland.
  Now that the whole pattern of the reorganised reserve forces has been presented to the House, the absurdity of the Opposition's attitude a few months ago is clear for all to see. Reason then was thrown to the winds in an election atmosphere. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who moved a Motion, used terms such as "abolition, dissolution and destruction of the Territorial Army". It is clear that none of these was justified. It is also clear that hon. Members opposite sought to play on the emotions of those men who have given such notable service to the Territorial Army by pretending that our aim was to destroy the Territorial Army.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Member not aware that when the Government's first observations on the future of the Territorial Army were published there was a considerable state of discontent throughout the whole Territorial Army and that all that hon. Members on this side were endeavouring to see was that these anxieties were fully expressed and publicly aired?
  Mr. Ennals: My impression at the time was that hon. Members opposite were stimulating misunderstanding and not simply reflecting it. It is clear that at that time many men misunderstood the situation because of speeches which had been made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, particularly in the censure de-
  256
  bate, which created a political climate in which there was a good deal of misunderstanding. It has taken the negotiations of the past few months and the very helpful co-operation of commanding officers, who have explained the situation to their men, to show just what the situation is.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Member persists in making a political point. Does he not agree that since their first proposal the Government have had a lot of second thoughts?
  Mr. Ennals: I do not accept that at all. I presume that the hon. Member is referring to the decision to establish the Home Defence Force. I have been looking this up in the First White Paper which read:
  "The Government are, however, continuing their examination of how best to secure appropriate provision for borne defence and what contribution military units might best make towards it. They will announce their conclusions in due course."
  In winding up the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
  "… there may be a case for further volunteer military or para-military units which might be based on the present Territorial Army, but might be organised to train in conjunction with the future Army Volunteer Reserve. The Government are now considering this, and will announce their conclusions on it after the Recess, but I do not want to mislead the House. It is not conceivable that the proposals which will emerge from this consideration will lead to the reconstruction of the Territorial Army in its present form, or with its present equipment, or at its present size."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 1590.]
  Every word that he then said is true. It was from the Opposition benches that there were attempts to push away these statements and to pretend that we were trying to destroy the Territorial Army—attempts which, during that period, did a great deal of harm. Happily, it brought no electoral dividends, as we see. Nor, and even more happily, did it have any lasting effect on the attitude of the Territorial Army.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, as he has done so frequently during the last few minutes. I am sure that he is trying to be objective. Would it not be fair to say that it was owing to the action of hon. Members on this side of the House that something was saved from the wreckage?
  Mr. Ennals: I cannot accept that for one moment. The contribution by hon. Members opposite has not been particularly helpful. I hope that it will be more helpful today and in Committee.
  The long discussions which we had with the T.A. Council were extremely helpful, and the way in which it was putting forward constructive proposals has meant that as we have gone along we have sought to find compromises—compromises which have enabled the present high state of morale to exist. I say this because I believe that the morale within the Territorial Army today is higher now that the circumstances are fully understood.
  Particularly I find that the volunteers are looking forward to the improved standards of equipment, clothing and training which they will get. I know from a visit which I paid only two days ago to an infantry brigade in training that the vast majority of the men who had then had their declarations of intent put before them had readily signed up, and that the state of interest and determination to take part, if they could, in the new force which was being established was very encouraging and very inspiring.
  I am, therefore, confident that we can rely upon the support of the T.A. Council and of the associations throughout the country in persuading members of the Territorial Army to join the T. & A.V.R. and that they will do their utmost to ensure that the new Reserve is as successful as it deserves to be. The passing of this Bill will ensure that the fine traditions of the Territorial Army and of the Army Volunteer Reserve will be continued in the service of this country.
  5.16 p.m.
  Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish: At the outset, I have the very pleasant task of congratulating the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box in a full-dress debate. It cannot have been very easy for him to speak on such a specialised subject having been so recently appointed, and I am sure that he will not think I am being over-critical when I say that his ease of delivery by no means covered a lot of bare patches. A great many questions have to be asked and answered in this debate.
  258
  I propose to discuss the provisions of the Reserve Forces Bill in the context of the unhappy sequence of events leading up to the position today. I shall speak about the rôle, strength and equipment of the volunteer reserves in the wider framework of our military reserves as a whole and mention certain features of the Bill which we shall want to scrutinise particularly carefully in Committee. Finally, I shall say something about the future of the new Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve and about the hope held on this side of the House that everyone concerned will now be ready to join in bringing a happy ending to a sad and bad story of Socialist muddle and indecision.
  I will restate our criticisms of the last 12 months, because obviously they have been misunderstood by the Under-Secretary of State and by his colleagues; and I believe that our motives have been misunderstood, too. When the Labour Party took office in 1964, they came inevitably under intense pressure from their Left wing to slash the country's defence costs drastically and immediately. There is ample evidence for this, such as the unanimous demand from the Parliamentary Party to "make drastic cuts in arms expenditure", coupled with a threat of "trouble" for the Government if they were not made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was probably in the Chair at that meeting. I think that I am right. This resolution was reinforced by numerous Motions on the Order Paper all in similar vein. They were from hon. Members whose demands were, of course, far from rational, and on this side of the House we shared the sentiments of the hon. Member for Liverpool Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) when he said that he was tired of his colleagues who constantly pressed for drastic cuts in defence only to ask in the next breath why we had no Army to send to Rhodesia. In admirable contrast to these pacifist and other pressures—I want to be fair—I want to say that many hon. Members opposite, such as the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), have very often reminded us that
  "there is no way by which to get effective defence on the cheap".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 72.]
  I quote from something which he said in a similar debate in November 1961. I can assure hon. Members that on this

  259
  side of the House we have learned this lesson the hard way. The Labour Party still have to prove that they have learned it.
  The raucous demands for hasty economies could not be ignored by a Government so delicately poised. A lamb had to be found for the slaughter, and the Government had good reason for supposing that none was more suitable than the Territorial Army. In the debate last December, we were told by the hon. Member for Toxteth, in one of the most courageous and outspoken speeches I have heard in these debates on military matters:
  "On this side of the House, I regret to say that there are many Members who genuinely do not like the T.A. It may sound strange to say that, but they have all sorts of queer conceptions about what it is, not least the one which one of my hon. Friends seriously confided to me the other day, that it was kept in being by the Tories only to be used against the workers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 1530–31.]
  [Interruption.] That was said by an hon. Gentleman opposite, not by one of my hon. Friends. Some of the snide and bigoted comments made about the Territorial Army during the past year clearly reveal the degree of malice in certain sections of the party opposite which hoped that the so-called re-organisation would, in fact, amount to destruction. In spite of these pressures, the Minister of Defence for the Army, then the Under-Secretary, assured us to our great relief—and this was in March of last year—that there was no intention of re-organising the reserve forces until the Defence Review was complete. He said:
  "Once we have carried out the review of our commitments and Civil Defence and the home defence requirements, we can look at the size and disposition of the Regular Army and see what is needed to improve it. Having done that, we can look at the Reserves needed to back up the Regular Army in maintaining the commitments, and the Reserves include the Territorial Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 190.]
  That is not, in fact, what happened. In spite of those assurances, there were rumours in the Press early in April of last year, with a strong smell of official leaks—and I particularly remember an article in the Sun—that the Territorial Army would come under the axe. It came as no surprise to my hon. Friends and I when, on 29th July of last year,
  260
  the Government announced that the axe had fallen.
  Under the new proposals, the volunteer reserve force, incorporating both the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve, was to be cut from its then strength of 120,000 to "about 50,000". The Minister of Defence for the Army said that on 29th July of last year. This, by the way, was extremely misleading. As it later transpired, by a fluke, we learned that the Government's intention was to recruit this force to only 80 per cent. of establishment; in other words, not to about 50,000 but to about 40,000 because they did not think that more men could be attracted. That was certainly taking a rather jaundiced view of their own proposals.
  Out of 156 Territorial Army units, 135 were to be disbanded completely. Only 300 drill halls would be left out of 1,300. The new force would consist mainly of logistic units and be based mainly on industrial areas. It would have the single rôle of reinforcing the Regular Army abroad.
  Whatever the real reasons behind this curious political manœuvre—and that is what it was—of taking the reserves out of the context of the whole picture of our defence and military manpower needs, the Government based it on certain dogmatic assumptions which many of us seriously question. The responsibility for these assumptions rests squarely on Ministerial shoulders, and I am sure that the Front Bench opposite will accept that, because it cannot be said to rest on military shoulders.
  We read in Cmd. 2855 the flat statement that if major war came again in Europe it would involve the use of nuclear weapons. I think I hear the Secretary of State saying "Hear, hear." The Under-Secretary reiterated that view today. Of course, a certain amount of clairvoyance is implicit in all defence planning, but they are a rash Government who do not listen carefully to what the experts have to say.
  Mr. Healey: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be aware that this doctrine was first enunciated by a Conservative Defence Minister in the 1957 White Paper and reiterated in other Conservative White Papers after that date.
  Sir T. Beamish: It was not enunciated in precisely the same form, and nor did I happen to agree with it. We are now

  261
  talking about the future—[Interruption.]—and decisions made by the party opposite. As a result of this bald assumption, they might at least have listened to some of the experts. One such expert, for example, whom they might have listened to was the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Defence Council, Sir Solly Zuckerman, an extract from whose forthcoming book was published in the Sunday Times in February of this year. He gave this as his view:
  "… the Russian High Command now believes that there could be operations in Western Europe in which … the fight would be waged in a non-nuclear or conventional fashion."
  Moreover, in this year's Defence White Paper, it is clearly implied that our allies in N.A.T.O. do not share the cocksuredness of Her Majesty's Government about the future. We read in paragraph 13 of the White Paper:
  "We have … urged on the Alliance that it should abandon those military preparations which rest on the assumption that a general war in Europe might last for several months."
  May I ask when this was urged on our allies in N.A.T.O.,; on what occasion, and what was the response? We want to know.
  Mr. Healey: A general war that lasts for several months has always been seen by our allies as a nuclear war. There has never been any suggestion by any military advisers to the alliance or to any national Government that a war lasting for more than a few days could be fought without the use of nuclear weapons.
  Sir T. Beamish: In that case, I do not understand why it was necessary to urge this view upon our allies.
  Mr. Healey: I regret interrupting the hon. and gallant Gentleman again, but I wish to clear this up. Had the hon. and gallant Gentleman done his homework and read what has been said in the House by me and other Ministers, he would know that the reason why it was important to urge this on our allies is because some of them believe that it would be possible to fight for several months using hundreds of nuclear weapons every day during those months. We believe—and I think that we have now convinced them—that this is totally inconceivable and that those parts of the alliance's plans which are based on this assumption now require revision.
  Sir T. Beamish: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has given that explanation, and I assure him that I read his comments with the utmost care, but in any case, living as we are in such an uncertain and dangerously changing world, it is particularly important that we avoid dogmatic assumptions which inevitably lead to the suspicion that they are only made to dovetail with preconceived plans.
  This suspicion is naturally heightened when the chief character in the act, the right hon. Gentleman himself, in order to attempt a political somersault, lands with such a crash on his head. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but this needs some explanation as well. Only just over two years ago, the right hon. Gentleman wrote in the Financial Times about the Conservative Party appearing to him to agree with his party that
  "… nuclear war is now the least likely of ail contingencies."
  Mr. Healey: Hear, hear.
  Sir T. Beamish: That is what I am saying. We seem to be agreed on this now.
  Mr. Healey: Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must try to think this through. We do not believe that there will be a nuclear war in Europe, because the Russians know that any war in Europe would be a nuclear one. We believe that no sane Government anywhere in the world would deliberately take any action likely to lead to nuclear war. This is the doctrine of deterrence which, I understand, the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends have supported for the last 20 years.
  Sir T. Beamish: I confess that I do not believe that that is a partcularly good explanation. The right hon. Gentleman is now saying that war in Europe would be so certain to escalate that we have no need to prepare for any other contingency. His crystal ball is cracked and cloudy. I wish we could have a little less of the crystal balls and a little more commonsense.
  The Government based their plans last July on other assumptions which we question, too. They decided that in the event of war this country would be so

  263
  devastated that the Territorial Army could provide no worth-while help at home. That was their assumption last summer, an assumption which is no longer valid in the light of the decision about the home defence forces.
  They also decided that no military force could conceivably be needed at any time to defend Britain against sea or air attack, or against sabotage, or to provide a framework for general mobilisation, or to aid the civil power in any circumstances. Those were their assumptions last summer.
  I will comment on the consultation with the Territorial Army Council, and it may surprise hon. Gentlemen opposite to know—
  Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me for saying that so far he has been discussing general defence—the question of a nuclear war or the use of conventional forces. I interpose at this stage to ensure that if in the course of the debate any of my hon. Friends catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or Mr. Speaker's eye, we shall be able to pursue that subject.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I express the hope that as the hon. Gentleman who moved the Second Reading made frequent reference to the White Paper, Command 2855—which certainly covers the whole question of the need for reorganisation—those who take part in the debate will also be allowed to refer to that White Paper in as great detail as he has.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that anything said so far has been out of order, and it will certainly be open to any hon. Member who subsequently catches my eye to refer to the speeches already made.
  Sir T. Beamish: I turn now to consultation with the Territorial Army Council. It may surprise hon. Members to know that it was not until the July proposals had been announced that the Government invited the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Farces Associations to join in consultations about how to implement the plan. The members of the Council, like many senior military
  264
  advisers, must have found themselves in an impossible position. In any military appreciation, the rule is to start with an object and work to a conclusion. If the object is faulty, the conclusion is likely to be faulty, too.
  It is hardly surprising, as the Under-Secretary has said, that the Council had misgivings about the plan about which it had not been consulted. I am sure that the Minister will agree that in spite of this the Council's behaviour was praiseworthy. It deserves a warm tribute for the way in which, with dignity and restraint, it resisted any temptation to let the Territorial Army become a political issue. It struggled manfully to preserve the all-important morale of the force, and worked patiently to help the Government improve their ill-conceived proposals.
  But the party opposite deserves censure for its behaviour at this time. The Defence Correspondent of the Evening Standard, writing after the Government's announcement of a home defence force, had this to say:
  "Denis Healey and his Ministers snubbed and bitterly hurt tens of thousands of volunteer soldiers: and as a result he will have the greatest difficulty in making either of the two replacement forces a success. If they do succeed, it will probably be due to the magnanimous co-operation of the slighted Territorial Army Council."
  He described the whole procedure, quite rightly, as
  "… a model of bad management."
  We on this side could not agree more.
  I thought that the Under-Secretary's attempted defence of the muddle of the last 12 months was singularly unconvincing. This sort of bungling and ineptitude is quite inexcusable. When the Conservative Government carried out a major reorganisation in 1961, which was most unwelcome to the Territorial Army and resulted in the axing or combining of many proud and honourable regiments, the Council was consulted at an early stage and the whole procedure was carried through with good will and courtesy on both sides.
  But it was not only the Territorial Army Council that was not consulted this time by the party opposite: very senior officers who had every right and every need to know what plans were afoot for the country's defences, and what men would be available to them in case

  265
  of emergency, were deliberately kept out of the picture. It is an open secret that they expressed justifiable anger. As everyone here knows, there was a countrywide reaction to the Government's proposals. The Under-Secretary seemed to have forgotten about that until he was reminded of it by two of my hon. Friends. During a debate in another place, apart from the half-hearted Government spokesmen, not one voice was raised in the Government's defence. The only Labour peer who spoke attacked the proposals root and branch.
  Even Lord Montgomery, who has been partially and, I think, unfairly quoted today and previously as a supporter of the Government's policy, put his finger firmly on one of the major weaknesses of the plan. In that same debate in another place, he said that a second tier was needed
  "… to nourish the first tier and keep it up to strength with basically trained men."
  He went on to say that the issue revolved round whether the time had come to abandon any form of defence. He said:
  "I do not believe that the time has come. In war time, absolute security of the home base is vital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House, of Lords. 23rd November, 1965; Vol. 270, c. 819.]
  Does the Minister agree with that view or does he not? We on this side do. I thought that, on the whole, it was a very good speech, and very critical of the Government. I am not surprised that the Government, feeling round for some witness for the defence, would very much like to feel that Lord Montgomery agreed with them. But he did not agree with them in that speech. His only praise of them was praise that they had grasped the nettle of reorganisation.
  Men from all walks of life, regular soldiers of long experience, men and women with memories of two world wars that so nearly brought this country to its knees, and Territorial soldiers of all ranks, implored the Government to have second thoughts. They all got the brush-off. The Socialists knew all the answers.
  I should like now to turn briefly to the White Paper, which is an important part of the background to the Bill. It appeared last December, and was hotly debated in this House. It showed that the Government were not prepared to yield on any major point, and that was
  266
  in spite of the very serious doubts expressed by some of their own Members and the censure of the Conservative Party. The hon. Member for Toxteth expressed the view that the Government would have been defeated had there been a free vote, and I am sure that he was right.
  Very serious doubts on the wisdom of the proposals were cast by the right hon. Member for Easington who I am glad to see in his place—a former Minister of Defence—in a most excellent speech. Another former Service Minister, the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) after accusing the Government of lack of imagination, wastefulness and the needless destruction of good will, concluded by saying of the White Paper:
  "Those of us who are concerned with the country's defence want something more substantial."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 1515.]
  There was a terrific weight of criticism of the Government's proposals from all over the country, and it is quite useless for the Under-Secretary to try to deny it, because the facts are on record.
  The Government's one-vote victory on that occasion amounted to a technical knock-out, since the combined support in the country of the Tory and Liberal parties for the Liberals fully shared our criticisms,—and I am glad to see one Liberal hon. Member here—represented 3 million more electors than the Labour Party. It is difficult to believe that any Government could feel that they had a mandate to carry out these proposals in the face of such intense opposition and such serious doubts.
  The House will remember that, in spite of last summer's flat, almost arrogant, rejection of the need for the Territorial Army to have a home defence rôle of any kind, the December White Paper, with every sign of hasty last-minute revision by shaking hands, stated in paragraph 4:
  "The Government are … continuing their examination of how best to secure appropriate provision for home defence and what contribution military units might best make towards this. They will announce their conclusions in due course."
  This paragraph was read with relief by the Government's critics and warmly welcomed, for all its woolliness. The Government were obviously having agonies of doubt about their previous decisions,

  267
  and there was every hope of wiser counsels prevailing. And so it turned out.
  Here, I turn to the more pleasant task of congratulating the Government on having second thoughts at the eleventh hour. It is never easy to admit to a change of heart, still less to appear to yield to arguments at such a late stage. Eating one's own words is never much fun. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House must have admired the Minister of Defence for the Army who, although he was only partly responsible as Under-Secretary for the original proposals, cannot have found it easy to announce on 2nd February that there was, after all, to be a military volunteer force with a home defence rôle. Having made this late right-about-turn, what did the Minister see? He saw a Territorial Army in a parlous state—there is no denying it. A year of Socialist humming and hawing had taken a heavy toll.
  When I asked the Minister recently to give the figures showing the strength of the Territorial Army for the past 12 months, I found that after the July announcement it began to drop at a rate of 1,000 a month. But I understand that the position may be far more serious even than this. According to a circumstantial rumour—and that is all it is—that has come to my ears, resignations recently may have outnumbered new recruits, and may amount in total since last summer to about 15,000. The Under-Secretary said that the latest figure was 97,000, and I would be somewhat comforted if it was, but even that figure means a run-down of 1,000 a month during the whole of the last 12 months.
  Mr. Ennals: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House. He will surely confirm from the figures he must have before him that the reduction in the total number of recruited members of the T.A. is due almost entirely to a fall away of enrolment. It was obvious that there would be a fall away in enrolment when it was quite clear that there would be a new force in which men could enrol. There has not been a substantial fall away of those already serving. There has not been a run-down of existing serving men, but a run-down in recruitment.
  Sir T. Beamish: I wish to be fair and I am very glad to hear that, but I cannot agree that morale in the Territorial Army has been high in the last few months. It has never been lower, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, and I keep in touch with the problem. I am glad to hear, however, that the position is not so serious as I feared and we have had confirmation that in the Territorial Army there are about 97,000 men.
  Sir Richard Glyn: Is it not absolutely clear from what the Under-Secretary has said that this substantial reduction in the total number of recruited men is due to the failure of old-established members to re-engage owing to uncertainty about the future?
  Sir T. Beamish: I should say undoubtedly that has a lot to do with it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that point.
  So much for the background to the Bill. We on this side of the House, in spite of the criticisms I have made, are anxious to give all the help and encouragement we can if we have the Government's firm promise of good intentions. Let us make clear to present and future members of the volunteer reserves that the nagging uncertainty has ended and the future is brighter. I agree with the Under-Secretary that a new climate is wanted. He can be quite sure that we on this side will do our best to engender it, but we have serious anxieties about the future of the reserve forces.
  Those anxieties come under three main headings. First, are the forces large enough? Secondly, will the conditions of service attract and hold men of the right quality? Thirdly, will these forces have the right equipment? We have been told by the Under-Secretary that the detailed arrangements and organisation were stated in the White Paper, but, frankly, they were not and a great deal more information is needed. The question of strength must be considered in the context of Regular forces and Regular reserves and overseas commitments. I have said something about the gravely declining strength of the territorial army in the last few months. It has been running down by about 1,000 a month for the past 12 months.
  The Regular recruiting position is equally disquieting. During last year

  269
  normal Regular engagements have fallen by 22 per cent. and in terms of man years they have fallen by 18 per cent. This is a very serious situation. Let us not forget that a strong volunteer reserve does much to stimulate Regular Army recruiting and any discouragement of the first will quickly be reflected in the strength of the second. It is not disputed that our Regular forces are seriously overstretched. The Minister of Defence has usually been the first to emphasise this. I make no party point here for it is something which the party opposite inherited from us.
  However, when the Minister of Defence for the Army was asked what forces were immediately available for home defence other than the Territorial Army, he replied that there were 230,000 Regular personnel of the three Services at present stationed in this country. That sounded very comforting, but, when I took up in a letter this misleading answer, he informed me that they included
  "all adult Regular Service personnel at that time in the U.K."
  and that only 93,000 were Army personnel. He conceded that
  "not all of them would necessarily he available for home defence."
  That was a masterly under-statement. Indeed they would not. The impressive figure of almost a quarter of a million doubtless includes men on courses, men on leave, depot staffs, pay clerks, men in hospital, training school staffs, musicians, field marshals and recruits. I should like to know whom the Minister was trying to fox with that figure—not me, I hope.
  We were given the true picture in this year's Defence White Paper on page 2, paragraph 5:
  "On several occasions, no units of the strategic reserve have been immediately available in Britain. We have thus been compelled to make use of our right to withdraw forces committed under the Brussels Treaty to serve in Germany, in order to meet temporary needs overseas."
  Nor should we deceive ourselves into thinking that the over-stretch of our forces is likely to improve in the foreseeable future.
  The Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): The point which the hon. Gentleman has read from the White Paper is true, but he is talking about units available for posting to an
  270
  overseas theatre, not that there were no units in the Strategic Reserve in this country. They had either come back from operational tours, or were going on operational tours and were available for home defence if required.
  Sir T. Beamish: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what I had in mind when I asked the Minister how many men would be needed to bring all units of B.A.O.R. up to war establishment. He told me that the British Army of the Rhine would be approximately doubled if it were put on a war footing. In other words, about 50,000 more would be needed to put B.A.O.R. on a war footing. The Minister also said in a recent speech that a N.A.T.O. Simple Alert would involve calling up:
  "pretty well all reservists at once."
  Europe, of course, is not the only theatre we might have to reinforce in an emergency. Under the Government's present proposals, the Minister has said that in 1969 there would be about 80,000 Regular and volunteer reservists available to reinforce the Regular Army. How has he arrived at that figure? Has he counted every man-jack of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, excluding the units designated for home defence? Has he also counted the whole of the Regular Reserve, which includes men who left the forces many years ago and who are elderly, out-of-date, untrained and perhaps unfit, too? Has he even included me? I believe that I am still on the Regular Army reserve of officers, although I hope that I do not fully fit my description of some of the older members of the Regular Reserve.
  The Minister himself has told us how long it would take to train a recruit to the necessary standard if he were to take his place as an individual reinforcement with an infantry unit on active service overseas. I was told that he would have to complete at least his first year's training, including 15 days' camp. Of course, that is so, but this training requirement must be taken into account when we calculate how many volunteer reservists would be available in case of emergency. Where they are concerned, this would depend on the average length of service. If it is there years, at least one-third of these men will not be available at any given time.

  271
  The number of trained volunteers available for reinforcing the Regular Army overseas will be only a little over 30,000 under these proposals—that is, after allowing for 100 per cent. availability of the A.E.R. element and the Regular element of the "Ever-readies", and subtracting all men in their first year of training from the remainder of the force. I am sure that many hon. Members have not realised that figure. This leads me to ask what plans the Government have for running the new T.A. down to 80 per cent. of its new establishment. The White Paper says that by 1969–70 the force will be at its new establishment figure. If that is so, over what period will the force be reduced by another 16,000 or so to 80 per cent. of this establishment? I hope that when he replies to the debate the Minister will tell us the answer. Incidentally, only then will the full estimated saving be achieved, if it is ever achieved.
  The size of the force is of great interest to our N.A.T.O. allies. With the exception of Canada, Britain is the only member of N.A.T.O. which does not have conscription, with the automatic effect that this has on the size of the total reserves available in emergency. The size is of critical importance also to us and to our allies because of the persistent rumours that the Government intend to cut the Regular Army by 15,000 men. It is high time the Government "came clean" about this instead of wriggling out of the question as they did on 26th April in the House when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) put a direct question to the Government and no answer was forthcoming.
  If a cut of this sort of size were to be made, it would heavily underline the need for trained volunteer reserves of adequate size to reinforce our overstretched Regular forces in carrying out our international obligations. One thing at any rate is quite clear. The ceiling for the new Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve has not been set too high. It looks very much to us on this side of the House as though it has been set too low.
  Assuming for the moment that the ceiling for the Volunteer Reserve is about
  272
  right, shall we get the men? We shall not get them if they are offered the second-best, nor if their equipment is old and insufficient; certainly not if there is a feeling that they owe their very existence to a grudging Government indifferent to their success or failure. They will not join for the sake of the bounty. I am puzzled to know why such heavy emphasis is laid on the liability bounty. Would it not be more sensible to relate the bounty to standards of training and length of service, thus providing an incentive for men to stay on and train up to the highest standard? I hope that the Minister of Defence for the Army will consider this and comment on it when he replies to the debate.
  The next two years are crucial. Everything will depend on the reactions of the first young men to join the new Territorial Army. If they find high standards, heavy demands, a real sense of purpose and pride, they will bring, on their part, the same enthusiasm that the Territorials have always shown. The whole essence of a territorial volunteer force is that it springs from a locality. These roots are very important. Men and women who join have local loyalties and local knowledge, both of which are invaluable in time of trouble.
  There are two very important factors to consider before being sure that the Home Defence Force is being formed on the right lines for the right purposes. First, we have to remember that the police, taken over England and Wales as a whole, are 20 per cent. under strength. Secondly, the Civil Defence Forces are still heavily dependent on the Territorial Army for fire-fighting, transport, communications and a military command structure.
  Both these facts must be remembered in considering the size, location and rôle of the Home Defence Force and in deciding on the links with the civil defence organisation, about which the Government are still dithering after 18 months of consideration, both as regards its functions and its size. We on this side shall watch these matters most carefully before deciding whether the new Home Defence Force matches the needs of the times, both as regards its rôle and its strength.
  The success of the new reserve does not depend only on the men themselves.

  273
  It is interwoven in the fabric of our society. It depends on the good will of employers, local authorities, trade unions and, perhaps, most of all, of wives.
  I am sorry to say that nowhere in the Bill is provision made for requiring reservists to tell employers of liabilities they have accepted. I think that the experience of the call-up of 180 "Ever-readies" ought to show quite clearly that we should give consideration to making it a requirement that they should tell employers what liabilities they have accepted rather than that they should be simply encouraged, which I understand to be the present position which the Minister of Defence for the Army said he was reconsidering. I think it is quite right that there should be a positive requirement upon them. This would gain the confidence of employers, which is so important.
  I do not know why there is no mention of women reservists in the Bill. I was glad that the Under-Secretary said something about them. We on this side of the House feel very strongly that women have an important contribution to make to our volunteer reserves, albeit only in comparatively small numbers, in such fields as communications, administration, and so on. I hope that the Minister of Defence will tell us what sort of numbers of women he expects to be able to enrol in the new force, bearing in mind that last November, I think I am right in saying, the strength of women in the Territorial Army was about 4,000.
  We are very glad indeed that such real efforts are being made to preserve the names and continuity of so many units which have played a splendid part in the service of this country in the past. We certainly do not want to be in any way cynical—no one in the House should be—about the tradition that springs from exacting standards, loyalty and sacrifice, whether in a school, a factory or a military unit, and this is an excellent thing to be encouraged in every possible way. To squander it would be stupidity of a high order. For this reason, it is of the utmost importance that careful thought should be given to the framework for the administration of these new volunteer reserves.
  On this point, I should like to ask just two questions. First, will the new Secre-
  274
  tariats which the Under-Secretary mentioned conform as far as possible geographically to the Army districts and Home Office regions? This seems to us to make sense. I was surprised that the Under-Secretary spoke in terms of only 15 Secretariats. I should have thought that rather more were wanted. Something round about the middle 20s is what I had expected would be the decision. I hope that no firm decision has yet been taken to have only 15, though we on this side certainly accept the need for the amalgamation of Secretariats.
  Secondly, what means will be found to maintain the county connections where there is an amalgamation of associations? In the past, a great deal has been done by voluntary effort to encourage recruiting locally and to build and maintain good relations between the Territorial Army, employers, trade unions and local authorities. As a member of my county association for some 20 years, I know what I am talking about.
  Does the Minister of Defence for the Army intend I hope he does—to set up county advisory committees where there are gaps resulting from amalgamations? I should be most grateful if he would say something about the importance of county advisory committees where no county associations exist.
  Now may I briefly say something about equipment for the Volunteer Reserve? We have been told too little about the Government's intentions. Originally, a promise was given that
  "The higher state of readiness … will be reflected in training and equipment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1965; Vol. 717, c. 695.]
  That was on 29th July. However, when the White Paper appeared last December it was confusing and disappointing on this point. After a vague promise that the new force would be equipped to a higher scale than before, the White Paper continued in paragraph 27:
  "… it is unlikely to be justifiable, in view of the role of the force, to provide for its re-equipment in future with all the major items of new equipment, although small quantities will, where necessary, be made available for training."
  That was very different from the statement made on 29th July. What does this mean? For 18 months now there has been a virtual standstill in the provision

  275
  of equipment for the Territorial Army, so there is a good deal of anxiety on this score and I hope that when he winds up the Minister will be able to clear this up. In a recent speech the Minister described the present scale of Territorial Army equipment as "rational and correct". Frankly, I would not have gone quite so far as that. I think it was very generous of him.
  The Minister went on to state clearly that the Army Volunteer Reserve—I am not talking about the Home Defence Force—would be issued with combat kit and the self-loading rifle and that starting in 1967 infantry battalions could expect to get the general purpose machine gun, the Carl Gustav anti-tank weapon, the 81 mm. mortar and modern radios. This is very good news indeed for the Territorial Army, but what did the Minister mean when he said that artillery regiments would get
  "their full entitlement of guns"
  and radios? What guns is it planned to issue to them? Presumably not the old 25-pounder? Presumably the Minister was speaking of the 115 mm. howitzer. I hope that that is right.
  Since the primary function of the Army Volunteer Reserve is to reinforce the Regular Army, it must of course, be trained on the same weapons, even if their full-scale issue has to be spread over two or three years. We want clear assurances from the Minister about equipment for the Army Volunteer Reserve; and we are naturally, anxious on this score, since we know—I want to emphasise this—that by placing a five-year arbitrary ceiling on defence costs, as has been done, there is bound to be a slow-down in the provision of new weapons and equipment, the cost of which is always rising, both for the Regular Army and for the Territorials. The Minister shakes his head, but this is the inevitable result of putting a five-year fixed ceiling on defence costs. The Minister must surely know that this is right.
  So far as the rôle and equipment of the Home Defence Force is concerned, we still do not know very much about it, although a good deal of information has been provided in the last few days. We would like some more information during the course of this debate. I hope that "infantry-type", as they are called, does
  276
  not mean something so remote from real infantry as that horror, port-type wine is from the genuine article.
  Is the Minister setting his sights too low? Is he thinking of a really first-rate force with a convincing rôle, or is it to be immobile with too little and old-fashioned equipment? How does the Minister envisage this force? Is the 8-day camp enough? Are they to be equipped with a range of modern weapons which will fit them to do a proper soldiering job? Are they to be provided with enough vehicles to enable them to train for a mobile rôle, or is it to be only one vehicle per company? Are they to have a modern communications system similar to the new police system with which they must co-operate? We want answers to these questions, because there is real anxiety on this score.
  Recruiting depends to a large extent on getting the right answers. I hope that the new Home Defence Force will not be, as The Times described them, "policemen in khaki". There would be nothing to gain, and a lot would be lost, by restricting unduly the rôle and the equipment of the Home Defence Force. The Minister has described as its "primary" rôle giving help to the police in the maintenance of law and order in the event of a general war. He has referred to its "primary rôle" several times. The Under-Secretary has used the term again today. He too said that its "primary" rôle is to give help to the police in the maintenance of law and order in the event of a general war. What other conditions does he envisage?
  In answer to a supplementary question by myself on 2nd February this year he said that the force would
  "also be used to engage enemy forces if they were in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1101.]
  The Under-Secretary laughs.
  Mr. Ennals: "If."
  Sir T. Beamish: I agree it is quite a big "if". There are not any here at the moment, as far as I know.
  Will the Minister define the Home Defence Force's rôles more clearly? We want to know, with clear answers to these questions. We all want to get

  277
  the maximum value from the Home Defence Force in terms of flexibility and preparedness for the unexpected. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on 16th December last, when we censured the Government:
  "I believe that it is a deep-seated instinct in the British people that a disciplined, effective volunteer force widely spread across the country is required … to deal with both the forseeable and the unforeseen in time of emergency, stress and war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 1477.]
  That is precisely the "if" that the Minister is talking about.
  Lastly, may I say something about links between the different types of force in the volunteer reserves. I hope the Minister will now recognise and acknowledge how important it is that there should De the closest possible links between the different sections of the volunteer reserves. In my opinion, this remains much the most serious deficiency in the present proposals. Of course, it must vary between different areas. But, where it is feasible, cross-fertilisation can play a big part in keeping up the strength and quality of these reserves. In many areas it should be possible for a man to transfer easily between the "Ever-readies", AVR IIA, and Home Defence units, as his circumstances change and he wishes to undertake a different liability.
  Mr. Ennals indicated assent.
  Sir T. Beamish: I am very glad to see the Minister nodding.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
  Sir T. Beamish: I cannot give way. I had better get on. I have spoken longer than I had intended, through a number of interruptions. I am sure that the hon. Member will be speaking. He has not missed a debate on a military subject for many years, and I shall look forward to what he has to say.
  Sub-units with "Ever-ready" liability, others with the normal liability and others with a Home Defence rôle could be grouped with many advantages. We think that the mix could be widely varied to suit different localities, and we hope that will be done. I was not convinced by the arguments of the Under-Secretary
  278
  against the suggestion, but I was interested to see the Minister and the Under-Secretary nodding when I made this proposal. There is still a good deal of doubt about it, and I hope the Minister will make clear to what extent this mix can take place.
  The basic training that these men require is the same all through. Instructors and training facilities could be shared. If there is flexibility of this kind I believe that the new reserves, with their varying liabilities, can settle down and provide the kind of volunteer forces we need. But if there are attempts in Whitehall to cut off one unit from another, to set up rigid barriers that prevent the nourishment of one tier by another, I am sure that the whole plan could fail. We therefore ask the Minister to adopt the most imaginative and responsive attitude and listen very carefully to the advice he may get from men on the spot who understand better than any stranger the needs and the potential of their own localities.
  What matters now is not so much the details of this rather dry-as-dust Bill, but the spirit in which it is administered. If there is a skinflint attitude, if there is a certain amount of sneering or hostility in any corner of this House, if the section of the Reserve that is to have a Home Defence rôle is to be treated as no more than a grudging concession to public pressure and protest, we shall, as I have said, not get the volunteer reserves we need; the Government will be squandering one of the country's great assets, and the effect on regular recruiting, already in the doldrums, will be very serious indeed. Then, as the Minister himself hinted recently, we should he forced back on to National Service which, for all its advantages, is both expensive and wasteful.
  The opportunity to serve in the volunteer forces can offer great rewards to the men themselves. It gives them a leisure activity that is fun, that is demanding, physically toughening and socially friendly. To many it offers a chance to travel, as the Under-Secretary mentioned, to live alongside regular soldiers and to share their way of life. It offers technical skills and experience. It offers, above all, an opportunity to serve this country, an opportunity which young

  279
  men will still grasp with the same enthusiasm and the same courage as they have in the past.
  I have asked a lot of questions. I am sorry if I have spoken overlong, but this is a Bill with very important implications for the future. I particularly hope that answers to the questions that I have put will be forthcoming during the debate and I shall appreciate it if the Minister will do his best to answer them all.
  Briefly, and in conclusion, what are the assurances that we seek from the Minister? They are these. First, is there any truth in the persistent rumours about the Government's intention to reduce the strength of our Regular forces for reasons of economy, before there is a radical change in our commitments and responsibilities? May we please have a straight answer to a straight question? It is most important that we should know.
  Secondly, does the Minister intend to equip these volunteer reserves to a really high standard? May we have an assurance about that?
  Thirdly, will he make flexibility the keynote of future planning, and recognise the advantages of linking the various categories of volunteer reserves wherever this is possible?
  Fourthly, will he turn his back on the bungling of the past 12 months, bring a fresh mind to bear on this question and have regard only to the best interests of the country, ignoring as he must the prejudices and pressures of his own left wing?
  Fifthly, will he, in short, work and fight in an imaginative spirit to make the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve a fine, proud force, worthy of its past history and deserving a great future?
  The present Minister of Defence for the Army has a challenging task before him, and I believe that he is admirably fitted for it. This gives me the chance, in parenthesis, to say how grateful I am to him for many helpful acts and courtesies when I was "shadowing" him during the past 12 months. I am extremely grateful to him. I believe that he has the best interests of the Territorial Army very much at heart.
  If the Minister will give us the assurances for which I have asked, he can be certain of the wholehearted good will and
  280
  co-operation of the Conservative Party in making his proposals as successful as possible. In 1907, Lord Haldane described his proposals as intended to ensure that
  "no one would rashly dare to meddle with us."
  I feel confident that the very great majority of the House of Commons—party politics apart—has the same objectives today.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: I am very grateful that I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I ask the indulgence of the House for this my maiden speech. I have sought and been given much advice on how to tackle this problem. The consensus of opinion seems to be that I should be non-controversial and as short as possible. On this occasion I shall try to conform to convention.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members will remember my predecessor, Mr. Bernard Taylor, C.B.E., who was a Member of the House for 25 years. It is no surprise to me to find that Bernard was as well loved and respected here in the House as he is in the constituency of Mansfield. For the benefit of his many friends on both sides of the House, it is with great pleasure that I am able to announce that a special council meeting of the borough of Mansfield is being convened to ask Bernard if he would wish to become a freeman of the Borough of Mansfield. I do not think that even Robin Hood managed this great honour—not legally, anyway.
  It is all too obvious to me, having been introduced to hon. Members on both sides, that I am to be judged against the record of my predecessor. I can only hope to earn the rescpect and admiration of the House which he so rightly enjoyed.
  I have the honour to represent Mansfield. Mansfield is the regional centre of the West Nottinghamshire group of towns. Though its original nucleus is ancient, much early growth was stimulated by the domestic hosiery industry. The opening of two collieries soon after the turn of the century, however, started Mansfield in the world of industry. This industry has grown to such proportions in the area that Mansfield is now referred to as the capital city of coal—though some of my colleagues may well disagree about that.

  281
  Although it has no collieries within its own boundaries, 30 per cent. of Mansfield's resident male population are employed in mining, and, of course, when one includes the subsidiaries as well, the proportion is a great deal more than that. The town offers a predominance of female employment in manufacturing, largely through the dominance of metal goods and textiles. Mansfield is a major shopping centre for a catchment area of 150,000 persons. Its spending power per head of population is way above the average for England and Wales.
  The reasons for this happy situation are that the main economic force for the area is coal mining, plus the full employment of its female working population. We in Mansfield are anxious that this trend shall continue. There is no immediate danger of the mining industry in this area suffering the fate which has come upon it in come unfortunate areas represented by certain of my hon. Friends. At present, in fact, the East Midlands coalfield is in the act of trying—I emphasise that word—to expand.
  With Mansfield and its surroundings so economically dependent on coal mining, one can understand the anxiety expressed at times by its local leaders. The policy of local government is to plan for the future expansion and prosperity of the town. Planning policy for the area has been to encourage alternative male employment, though this has not met with a great deal of success because of shortage of labour and, of course, Board of Trade policy. The major economic transition within the area from coal mining, though not yet imminent, will demand considerable forward planning.
  I believe that this is the fourth maiden speech within a few days to come from a predominantly mining area. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), who so graphically described his first visit down a mine, much to my discomfort, sat on these back benches having a quiet little cough, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand), my neighbouring constituency, pinpointed some of the problems of the mining industry today—low wages, shortage of manpower and, above all, a complete lack of confidence in the industry due, in the main, to no comprehensive fuel policy.
  282
  The position is now so serious that, if present trends continue, the figure given in the National Plan of 170 million to 180 million tons for 1970–71 may be as low as 125 million tons. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Consett and for Ashfield for pinpointing these problems. They are both non-miners, and I fully appreciate the problems which they have in representing a mining area. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made his maiden speech, and I fully endorse everything he said about the mining industry.
  I come now to the subject of today's debate, the Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill. Having read the Bill and the report of the debate on the Territorial Army in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 16th December last, I wish to make one or two observations. Hon. Members have put forward certain qualifications to justify their taking part in a debate on this subject, so, first things first, I must declare my own interest. I was a Regular soldier for six years in the Brigade of Guards, so now all the guardsmen are not to be found on the opposite side of the House. I have been a Class B Reservist and a Territorial for another eight years. I cannot claim any immediate recognition of fame. I cannot claim that I worked my way through the ranks from private soldier to become the C.O., as the mover of the Amendment in that earlier debate did.
  Somehow. I got stuck at a certain level, lance-corporal. This happened to be my last year as a member of the Territorial Army, and, I may add, there was a considerable amount of blackmail over that. But hon. Members can judge from my background that I have a good deal of respect for the Army and, of course, for the men who serve in it. Anything I say in the next few minutes should, therefore, be taken in that spirit.
  First, as a trade unionist, I was amazed when I read the White Paper to see that the Class A and Class B reservists still receive only 1s. 6d. and 1s. per day retainers. This is 20 years old. When the 1s. a day was paid to me quarterly after I first came out of the Army, it used to pay my gas and electricity bill. By no stretch of the imagination would it do that now. I should like to see it tied to the cost of living, just to press things along a bit. I know that

  283
  it is only a payment more or less to keep men on the books, but that is how I feel about it.
  There are many reasons why men join the Territorial Army, but the least of all is the one given in c. 1582 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 16th December last. The comradeship is what man misses when he comes out into civilian life after five or six years as a Regular soldier. This is very real. I can remember joining the Territorial Army for, probably, just this one reason. I missed the comradeship of my fellow soldiers, and it took a great deal of effort on my part to settle in to civilian life. This is undoubtedly one of the problems, and it is one reason why men join the Territorial Army.
  Of course, the extra money also comes in handy when a man is just starting in life with a young family. So do the paid holidays, the annual camps. If anyone does not think that the annual camp is a paid holiday for a man after working 50 weeks in the year in a coal mine, I can tell him that it certainly is.
  Whether we like it or not, the Territorial Army also fills a social need in the area where its units are established. This is another factor influencing ex-Regular soldiers who feel a bit lost when they come out into civilian life. The licensing hours are bad, and there are not very many good poker schools around in the area where he goes to live.
  I come now to recruitment to the Regular Army. I was in the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry in the Territorial Army, and I would say that most of the members in my particular squadron were ex-Regular soldiers doing their best to revert back to civilian life. Those who could not make it in time rejoined the Colours. This is where the majority of men come from. Just about the only people I know who rejoined the Army from the Territorial Army were of that type. We had an Army Cadet Force attached to us, and this, of course, is another source of recruits to the Regular Army. This is quite logical. When Army cadets reach the age of 17½, they are eligible to join the Territorial Army, and they are old enough to join the Regular Army if they want to.
  Any soldier would sooner belong to an efficient, well trained, up-to-date unit,
  284
  properly armed and on a proper establishment. Unfortunately, in nine out of ten units the establishment was quite under strength. This at once tends to produce inefficiency. We have more tanks than men and more guns than gunners. The Bill now before us is designed to look at the problem as a whole and to look at it from a rational point of view. What we ought to have, and what the Bill, surely, entails, is fewer units on a proper establishment, on a proper footing, well trained and well armed to do the job expected of them.
  I come now to my last point, on Clause 5 of the Bill, the call-out of reserves. This is a touchy point with me, because I was a Class B reservist at the time of the Suez affair. Not wishing to be controversial, I call it just an "affair". I had served in Egypt in the Canal Zone, and I had been trained in amphibious landings, so I thought that the odds on my being recalled at that time were very high. Incidentally, I could never understand why the medium of radio and television could not be used to recall the reservists needed. At that time, we had the laughable situation—at least, it would be laughable were it not so serious—of men working in the coal mines miles underground at the working faces, and someone came crawling up to them on his hands and knees to say, "Your country needs you. Off to Egypt"—and away they had to go. I would tell my colleagues on this side of the House that I was fortunate enough not to be recalled, so I had no hand whatsoever in the Suez campaign.
  I believe that the outcry about the Government White Paper was grossly exaggerated. It may seem to many hon. Members and to many laymen—and one cannot be more a layman than a lancecorporal—that all the fears about this were purely in this House.
  I am a member of my local council, and it was my duty to oppose a motion there of non-support of the Government over this issue. The debate received a very good press. I was warned that I should have to sit back and wait for the deluge of mail. When it arrived—I emphasise "it"—it was from an officer of one of the local regiments, and all that he was worried about was redundancy; and it was his own redundancy at that.
  In my constituency we have two drill halls within about a mile and a half of

  285
  each other. Undoubtedly, they meet a social need, but it is obvious to us in the locality that each is working under immense difficulties. It is clear that the Bill will match up the needs in this respect so that one of these drill halls can go. Our local authorities have had their eyes on them for some while, and my own authority would like to have at least one of the drill halls, if not both of them.
  Having recognised the need for the Bill, my main function in being here, as I have told my constituency, is to work to help bring about the right conditions in Britain, Europe and the world so that one day in the not too far distant future I may be here debating not the Reserve Forces Bill, but a Bill for the abolition of the Reserve Forces and, at some time in the future, a Bill for the abolition of all armed forces.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: I am very lucky in being selected to follow the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). I remember that in 1951 I followed Mr. Bernard Taylor, his predecessor into the Ministry of National Insurance. I was very pleased with the tribute that the hon. Member paid to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor was a man who was regarded as of great value by everybody in the House both for his work as a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry and also for his work as a Member of this House, where he had many friends on both sides.
  I congratulate the hon. Member on his speech. He has shown that he has the two essential qualities for success in the House—common sense and a sense of humour. I can assure him that whenever he speaks in the future we shall come in to listen to him and to hear him display those two qualities, mixed with a certain amount of controversy which he had to forbear on this occasion.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I must declare an interest. I was a pre-war Territorial. I served with a Territorial division for most of the war. I now have an honorary connection with the Territorial Army. The lesson that I have gained from all this is that war is unpredictable, and that whatever assumption we make about what will be the form of a future war, we find that it turns out to be entirely different. If I had been speak-
  286
  ing in the House 30 years ago, I should have said—I think that hon. Members on both sides would have said—that it was impossible for a Territorial division to have been one of the four last divisions to leave Europe at Dunkirk, to have been the only British infantry division fighting for a long period in the Middle East, to have been the first division to land in Sicily and to have been one of the two divisions that were the first to land when we came back to Europe on D-day. But it was a Territorial division.
  The cardinal error which the Government have made is that they have not envisaged any expansion of the Territorial forces to fight again as a formation. I believe that to be unwise, for I believe that we should have that as one of the rôles of the Territorial Army. That controversy is now over, but I take that view.
  As I see the position now, there are four main rôles for the Territorial Army: first, reinforcement of the Regular Army; second, as a basis for recruiting; third, as a defence force in emergency; and, fourth, to meet the need for a disciplined body of men as volunteers to form the background of this nation. I shall concentrate on three points which arise out of those four rôles.
  First, with regard to the reinforcement of the Regular Army, I gather from the Minister for Defence for the Army that the position is envisaged that we shall reinforce the Regular Army only after a Queen's Order, by sub-units and by individuals. I should like the Government to consider using the Territirial forces for reinforcement of the Regular Army without a Queen's Order, Territorial units being used to reinforce the Regular units with which they are affiliated when those Regular units are short of men. Any unit commander knows that he is constantly in danger of being below establishment through casualties, in peace or war, leave or having men on courses. One of the great wastes in the defence forces at present arises from this risk of their being below establishment. Consequently, one has to have a higher establishment than is really necessary.
  Such reinforcement is taking place at present in units of which I have knowledge. For instance, units send one officer and 30 other ranks to train in

  287
  B.A.O.R. I know of an instance in one battalion where a young subaltern, at his own expense, went out to Libya to serve with his Regular battalion for the period of his leave from industry. It is by such methods as this that one could engender great enthusiasm in a Territorial unit. The Government should consider allowing Territorial units to give an undertaking that when the Regular battalion was short of men it would be willing to send replacements to do their training for that period with the Regular battalion.
  Now that we have trooping by air, I believe that this becomes a very reasonable proposition. Anyone who has been in trooping planes to establishments outside Europe knows perfectly well that there is a constant stream of men going from the station overseas on leave and on courses, and there will, therefore, be empty space for those who wish to take their place. I ask the Government to consider this method of discharging the rôle of reinforcement of the Regular Army. It would, of course, be additional to the method after a Queen's Order or Proclamation.
  The second point which I want to raise, and which is causing a great deal of difficulty among those who are dealing with the question of the Territorial reserve is the definition of the commitment and the duration of the commitment. On the North-East Coast, employers are very reluctant to agree that those employed by them who are in the Territorial Army should accept an engagement in T.A.V.R.II because of the undefined length of commitment referred to in paragraph 20 of the White Paper. The length of the commitment should be stated.
  I do not know what period the Government would suggest, but if it were provided that no member of the T.A.V.R.II would be required for longer than four months the employers would know the obligation which they were assuming. If the warlike operations have been in preparation or in progress for four months, it is clear that something more than a Queen's Order is required.
  In the battalion of which I have most knowledge, the only officer who could be an "Ever-ready" was the medical officer of the unit, who was a busy panel doctor.
  288
  This was not possible for the others because they were all engaged in industry. Because he had the same sort of humour as the hon. Member for Mansfield, the medical officer undertook the engagement and thought, "Hang my panel if I am called up for operations".
  This seems to me a great weakness. I find that men are very ready to join the Territorial defence force, but they feel that as they are in industry they have not a chance to be allowed to join the T.A.V.R.II. I applaud the right hon. Gentleman's decision to publish a leaflet for employers, but as long as the duration of the commitment is uncertain I feel that the Government will not get a good response to the T.A.V.R.II.
  I should like an assurance that "warlike operations in preparation or in progress" cover the kind of difficulty we had in, say, Cyprus, where there was internal disorder, or even in Aden. I should have thought that in situations of that kind the Regular Army could be reinforced by a sub-unit. But I should hardly have thought that in that case one could say that warlike operations were in preparation or progress. Many employers want to be clear on this matter, and I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear.
  The great weakness of the present plan—I think that it is a weakness which could be remedied—is the split between the territorial defence force and the T.A.V.R.II. In many cases, as the Minister said, a company of the T.A.V.R.II will be in the same drill hall as the headquarters and a company of the battalion of the Territorial defence force. They will both be affiliated to the same regiment. One will be attached to the command and unit probably 40 miles away in one direction and the other will be married up to a formation which is probably 30 miles away in the other direction. This does not make sense. There will be as a result either a good deal of jealousy or comparisons between the two units. They will drift apart. At the moment, these are men of the same battalion who previously belonged to one unit.
  I accept the need to have the T.A.V.R.II on quite different terms of engagement, with a quite different scale of equipment. I should have thought

  289
  that it would be possible to marry in to one unit the defence force and the T.A.V.R.II. Therefore, we should have an extra company to the Territorial battalion and one company which had the T.A.V.R.II obligation which, while being in that battalion also had the engagement to form a company of a larger formation of T.A.V.R.II.
  I believe that this could be done and that it would not be unnecessarily complicated. Otherwise, there will be a very great waste of material. The Regular officers and soldiers attached to the T.A.V.R.II company will have no obligation to help with training the Territorial defence force headquarters and company. By brining them together there would be an economy in manpower and certainly an increase in efficiency.
  The Government take pride in this new plan and talk about saving money. I doubt whether there will be any real saving as a result of the Bill. Last year, according to the Defence Estimates, every Territorial soldier cost the country £207 per head, which included his equipment, land and buildings. According to the same Estimates, a Regular soldier cost £832 per head with his pay and equipment and another £551 in respect of land and buildings, making £1,383 per head. We have to try to find a way in which, economically and efficiently, we can weld this Territorial reserve with the Regular Army and to make an efficient force with good morale.
  There are many thousands of young men who are anxious to serve and give voluntary service to the Territorial Army. The damage done by the White Paper was that it caused a lot of them to feel that their service was not recognised and that they were not wanted. Whatever comes out of our deliberations on the Bill, we must make the Territorial Reserve a success. This will want a little bit of give and take on both sides of the House.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I join the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in paying tribute to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). My hon. Friend gave the most convincing reason that I have heard in this House for joining the Territorials when he went on to say that it provided
  290
  the miner with a month's holiday in the fresh air every year. I really cannot see any answer to that. Mining is probably more dangerous than military activities, but I warn my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Army that with the steady increase in holidays with pay in the mining industry, and the opportunity that miners will have to get into the fresh air in consequence, there will no longer be such a good incentive for them to join the Territorials.
  The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said that war is unpredictable. He gave from his experience an example of his gallant service in the last war, under the conditions in which the last war was fought. We must always remember—and this, I think, is the right hon. Gentleman's argument—that no war is just like the last war.
  Underlying the whole of the argument in this debate seems to be the argument that the Territorial Army will have the same rôle to play in a future war as it had in the last war. That, I understand, has been the main argument of the Government in reorganising the Territorials. One of the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in the last Parliament was that the next war is likely to be a nuclear war. With all the good will that exists for the Territorials and all their military traditions, people do not quite understand the rôle that this force will play in the next war.
  We do not even know whom we will fight. In the last war we fought the Germans. Nobody assumes that we will fight the Germans again, so there is no point in the intelligence section of the Territorials learning the German language. Are we to fight the Russians? I agree with the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), that we are not going to fight the Russians again. I remember the right hon. Gentleman's interesting speech on television in Moscow when he said that we must not only coexist with the Russians but we must co-operate with them. That was an excellent speech, the best speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman during the whole of his career. If we are to co-operate with the Russians, I do not see how we need a Territorial Army to fight the Russians. So we rule out the Russians.

  291
  There is a tendency to argue that the French have now become our enemies, but I am sure that nobody thinks that we will fight the French except in a dialectic way. So we are left with the Chinese. I cannot quite see the possibility of organising the activities of a Territorial force for protecting the Holy Loch or the Gare Loch from a possible descent of Chinese paratroopers.
  As somebody said in the early stages of this debate, let us be realistic. How can we be realistic? The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who opened the debate for the Opposition, is not a realist. I have heard him speak in debate after debate for the last 15 years. He is an incurable romantic. As for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who is to conclude the debate for the Opposition, I do not know exactly what he is. He is supposed to be a realist. If we are to be realistic in thinking of the rôle that the Territorial Army must play in the future, the Territorial Army must have some idea of what it has to do, how it will fight and what kind of activity it will carry on.
  A long time ago, I think before the First World War, Mr. Bernard Shaw wrote an introduction to the play, which was afterwards made a musical feature, called "The Chocolate Soldier". In rehearsing, he said that he was talking about the Army manoeuvre at the time. He said that they were rehearsing for something that would never come off and which, even if it did come off, would not be like the rehearsal. Therefore, I should like the Minister to give us a more realistic idea of what this newly reorganised Territorial Army will do.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes said that the Territorial Army should be equipped with modern weapons. What does he mean? Modern weapons are not revolvers or pistols. Modern weapons are nuclear artillery, tactical nuclear weapons. I invite the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, when he concludes the debate for the Opposition, to explain what hon. Members opposite want when they demand modern weapons. Do they want nuclear artillery or nuclear tactical
  292
  weapons, or what exactly do they mean when they talk about equipping the Territorials with modern weapons? I can imagine that all over the country, and especially in the War Office, there would be an extreme reluctance to dish out to any Territorial unit, however well-intentioned, anything like a nuclear weapon because they could not be trusted with it and that would be suicide.
  The Territorials, presumably, are being asked to train with dummy rifles and revolvers, or perhaps to go back to swords or bows and arrows, all of which are equally relevant to the possible conditions of modern war. Whether we like it or not, the nuclear age has arrived, and in Germany both sides are training with nuclear tactical weapons. I do not believe that there is anything in the theory advanced by an hon. Member who spoke for the Opposition that in a possible war there would be a gentleman's agreement to pretend that nuclear weapons did not exist.
  If I were asked by the War Office to give some ideas about the possible training of Territorials or home defence units, I would like to give them a realistic idea of what they are likely to be up against. If they cannot do the real thing, there are the films. Hon. Members will have seen a grimly realistic film called "The War Game", which was shown in Westminster Hall. That film gave us an idea of what was likely to happen in the event of a nuclear war if we had to fight a nuclear Power.
  I believe that the scene of the film was Rochester. What would the Territorials of Rochester do if an atomic bomb were to be dropped in the neighbourhood of Rochester? The film was so realistic that the B.B.C. would not allow it to be shown to the country. I suggest that if it is too realistic to be shown in the cinemas, it should be shown to the Territorials, because surely soldiers who go into the Territorial Army are entitled to face the realities and ought not to be squeamish.
  I suggest that one of the good ideas would be to make every Territorial Army unit see "The War Game". That is a sensible proposition, and I am glad to see from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the War Office agrees with me.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: I am fascinated by the hon. Member's argument. I also saw "The War Game". Was net one of its lessons that there was a useful purpose in having an organised force to help in an emergency? That is just the sort of thing that the Territorials could do.
  Mr. Hughes: I quite agree that there must be some attempt to prepare for an emergency, but I cannot see that being done unless the Territorial Army is completely different from what the Territorial Army has been in the past. If the Territorials of Rochester were to see that film, they would come to the conclusion that the only possible thing they could do if they were stationed in Rochester would be to prepare for the Resurrection. There would be total annihilation over great areas. So I suggest that, if we are to have realism, let us have the real thing and no doubt of what is possible in another war.
  Mr. Ennals: I, too, saw the film "The War Game", as my hon. Friend did. It showed the devastating effect of a nuclear attack, and all of us hope that it will never happen. But it showed that if nuclear weapons ever fell on the country there would be human life left and problems of administration, discipline and public order to be faced. As the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) said, that indicates precisely the sort of rôle that might have to be played if that terrible situation ever came about. I therefore agree with him that it is a reasonable suggestion that those who are being asked to volunteer for this form of service should understand the realities of the situation which they might have to face.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. An intervention cannot be a second speech.
  Mr. Hughes: I have no objection to that intervention, because my hon. Friend has conceded the main point. I hope that "The War Game" will figure as one of the main ways in which it is hoped to obtain recruits for the Territorial Army. But I have my doubts about it, because it is far more likely to lead to people deciding that the best thing that they can join is not the Territorial Army but the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. However, that is beside the point. I can quite understand the dilemma in which
  294
  soldiers who have experience of two previous wars find themselves, in thinking exactly what the Territorials are likely to do in another war.
  I have listened very carefully to both sides and, as far as I can gather, if the premises of my hon. Friend are right, the rôle of the Territorials will be a cross between the ambulance service and the police. That is not the kind of rôle that we usually associate with the Territorial Army.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes argued for the transfer from one service to another, and I see interesting possibilities in that. It should be possible to transfer from the Territorial Army to the Civil Defence and to the police; indeed, I would start it now, because, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out, the police are undermanned by 20 per cent. I should like to see recruits to the Territorial Army given the opportunity of serving in the police, because in the film that I have referred to the police played just as important a rôle as the Territorial Army.
  I want to illustrate that by pointing out the present position in the country. The greatest enemy of our citizens is not a Russian, a Chinese, a Frenchman, a German, or any other foreigner. The great danger to life and limb and the security of our people comes from the bandit and criminal. In Edinburgh, there was a robbery at one of the biggest banks in the city only last week, within a quarter of a mile from police headquarters, and we shall probably learn in the papers this weekend of more daring robberies and attacks on defenceless citizens in the City of London. It goes on regularly, and everyone is perturbed about the real danger to the people, which is not from any foreigner at all, but the armed criminal.
  I suggest that there should be transfers, both from the Regular Army and from the Territorials, and that members of the Territorial Army who wish to enlist in the police force, or even soldiers who are serving in Western Germany, should be allowed to transfer in order to fight the real menace to our country.
  I know that this is a rather unorthodox speech, but we are faced with an unorthodox situation. The old ideas of war are completely changed. One cannot hide from the fact that we are living in

  295
  an atomic age. War, today, means universal destruction, and, in order for the sum of money that we are prepared to spend on the Army to be justified as part of our national expenditure, we should be realistic. We should face the facts of war and military organisation today, and, as the hon. Member for Mansfield said in his final, logical and realistic peroration, that will lead us to the assumption that the best thing is not to have any war at all.
  6.56 p.m.
  Sir Richard Glyn: I will not follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) into all the details of his fascinating speech, but perhaps I may be allowed to start by saying that I have a considerable personal interest in the Territorial Army, having served in it for the greater part of my life in both non-commissioned and commissioned capacities. As a result, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that he is not completely informed about the rôles and the types of training that the Territorial Army has been doing for the last ten years or so.
  As for the film which so impressed him, no one living can possibly say whether it is realistic or not, because we do not know. It is at best an informed guess. The hon. Gentleman said that, judging from it, the rôle to be played by the Territorial Army seemed to be a cross between the ambulance service and the police. That is not an unfair description of the third echelon civil defence work for which the Territorial Army has been trained for about 11 years.
  Every third year, each unit of the Territorial Army has done a period of civil defence training, and big exercises have been held in conjunction with the police, fire brigades and civil authorities exactly along the lines which he has described. I have not seen the film myself, but, judging from what he said, it gives a good description of what the Territorial Army has been training to do, in addition to its more military rôle. Civil defence is nothing new to the Territorial Army.
  I turn now to the Bill, which I find disappointing. The Territorial Army and the men in it have become sadly depressed by and in some cases rather angry about the rumours and imprecise statements which have been flooding the
  296
  country for months. It had been hoped that the Bill would explain quite definitely what was to happen. I am bound to say that in my opinion it does not. Under the Bill, the Government could do practically anything to any unit of the Territorial Army. There is no certainty about the way in which the Bill is to be implemented, and a very great number of important questions are hardly touched upon, let alone answered.
  The Under-Secretary of State referred to the part played by the Territorial associations, and, just in passing, he mentioned Clause 17. That is a very important point, because, as I know well, the Territorial associations play a crucial part in helping individuals in the Territorial Army who experience difficulties with employers such as we have already heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It is a continual difficulty for Territorials, especially when the time comes for them to re-engage.
  Employers bring pressure to bear on their better men not to continue in the Territorial Army, and this pressure will increase, because under the Bill the commitment for the Territorials other than special forces is increased, and employers are not anxious that their best people should be liable to be taken away for a year or more, whatever the circumstances. There is no doubt that employers bring pressure to bear on good Territorials not to re-engage. Up to the present time this pressure has been met partly at battalion and regimental headquarter level, and partly with the aid—unofficial but none the less effective—of the Territorial associations.
  If these associations are not to be continued, and there is this greatly fragmented Territorial Army, with very many fewer regimental or battalion headquarters, with odd companies dotted about, a large number of individual soldiers far away from their headquarters will be far more exposed to pressure from their employers, and national industries, and in some cases local authorities, are not the least bad in pressing people to leave the T.A. They will be exposed to this pressure, with no one to whom they can readily go to seek comfort, encouragement, and sometimes practical help, in staying on.

  297
  Clause 17, to which we were referred as though it is something of a comfort, refers to the establishment, alteration and winding-up of associations, and goes on to talk of redundancy payments to employees of associations which are to be wound up, or whose jobs are to be cut down. This is no great encouragement to those Territorials who are frantically hoping that at least the associations will be left to them, knowing their unit headquarters will disappear and be out of reach. They hope that at least the Territorial associations will be there, where perhaps some of their old comrades are serving, and will be able to help them to deal with the pressure from employers. If this is to be denied them, it is indeed a sad thing, and it will reflect considerably on the number and quality of the men who can remain in the T.A., because it is the best men who are always under the biggest pressure to leave, or at least not to re-engage.
  We have been told that of the 1,300 drill halls now in existence, 1,000 are to go. But these drill halls are crucial for all T.A. training, both in the special services and for other types. It is said that the T.A. does not need so many halls. I am not saying that economies cannot be made but in the long winter evenings, which are, and always have been, the basic time for T.A. training, one must get indoors. In the British climate it is out of the question for soldiers to become efficient unless they have a substantial drill hall which they can readily reach for their training periods.
  I am glad to see the Minister here. I ask him, what are the Government's plans for the defence of vulnerable points, which took up the equivalent of several divisions for long periods just before and during the last war? I accept that the Government do not think there will be another long conventional war—and this is one of the points on which I think they are very brave to be so certain—but Ministers and experts have so often been wrong before, and in any case, during the period of tension building up before a war it has been found necessary in the past to guard not a few but thousands of vulnerable points against possible saboteurs, and so on.
  In a previous debate we were told that in the London area alone 10,000 men were required for this duty at the be-
  298
  ginning of the last war. Where are these men to be found? The police cannot possibly take on the job, and it seems to me that with the reserves cut to the extent indicated in the Bill, these vulnerable points can be protected only by hastily reconstituting something on the lines of the Home Guard, but this will be possible only if county organisations are retained. Clause 17 seems to smack of the suggestion that in future T.A. associations are not to be entirely on a county basis. I do not know whether I am right in that, but I think I am; the Minister indicates that my fears are well-founded.
  If this is done, and if the drill halls go, the possibility of reconstituting the Home Guard, or of finding any men capable of defending these essential vulnerable points to which, although absolutely starved for soldiers, it was found necessary to devote several divisions during the last war, will be out of the question. It will not be possible to do this without a county organisation of some kind, be it only a committee, and without sufficient drill halls to provide training facilities.
  Drill halls play another important rôle in the T.A. They constitute the great majority of the Territorial miniature rifle ranges, and almost all the artillery miniature ranges which are important for those units of the artillery which are to remain. They have an important social part to play, too, and I hope that the number of drill halls to be abolished will be reconsidered. To cut them down to a quarter, or perhaps less, seems to be going altogether far, and to do so would make it virtually impossible to reconstitute any form of armed forces should the Government's guess be wrong and there be a need to guard vulnerable points even for a few days.
  Let us consider again the point so well put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), about whether sufficient reserves are left under the Bill. It is really rather sweeping. Clause 3 abolishes the Royal Navy Volunteer Reserve, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, a large part of the Army Reserve, and other classes are greatly reduced, and, as has been pointed out, a substantial proportion of the men included in the numbers quoted by the Government will be first-year recruits who will not, and cannot, have attained

  299
  a standard of training to fit them to go abroad.
  The estimate given by my hon. and gallant Friend that the total of reservists with more than 12 months' service might be as low as 30,000 is really alarming compared with the Government's admission that 50,000 reservists are required to put B.A.O.R. on a war footing. This would mean that there would be less than no reservists available as first-line reinforcements, and as reinforcements for possible casualties. Even if the hon. Gentleman considers using as reserves pensioners who have a reserve commitment, the total there is under 10,000. They will not fill the gap, and they are very old soldiers indeed. They have no training commitments of any kind, and no opportunity for training.
  All that really seems to suggest that the cut in the effective reserves may be altogether too much, and I should like to ask whether our N.A.T.O. allies were consulted and told the full implication of these great cuts before they were decided on. I ask that because it is less than two years since N.A.T.O. carried out a major exercise of reserve troops in which American, Belgian, Turkish and other N.A.T.O. units, including British T.A. reserve units, took part. One battery—had better not name the regiment; it was not mine—of British T.A. soldiers achieved such remarkable results that observers from other countries had great difficulty in believing that they were not Regulars. There was some dispute on this point. Of course, they were Territorials.
  The Territorial Army is wasting away very fast because there are so few reengagements, owing to the great doubts that exist as to the future of the Service. I understand that the utmost difficulties have been placed in the way of each man concerned, who is now asked to agree to serve in the new Territorial force. He is asked to sign a piece of paper which says that he will serve in any unit. He is allowed to put down the unit of his choice just like a Regular recruit, but he has to sign an irrevocable undertaking to serve permanently in a force which may not be the unit that he has chosen. It may not be in the same Army or branch of the Service; and the H.Q. may be 100 miles from where he lives. Having irrevocably signed this paper he
  300
  can be posted to such a unit and left to get on as best he can. I am told that this is a great deterrent to volunteers who would otherwise have come forward readily.
  Big issues arise over the Government's policy with regard to the reserves. I do not doubt the Government's sincerity; I doubt their judgment. They have accepted the advice of what might colloquially be called boffins, who have convinced them that the next war will be fought on lines dictated by nuclear considerations. Similar boffins before the last war convinced everyone who would listen to them that the last war would be fought under circumstances dictated by gas. I am old enough to remember what was said 30 years ago about the certainty of the extermination of millions of the public by gas, of the wiping out of the Army by gas, and of the impossibility of using horses in the war because of gas.
  The British Army listened to them to the extent that it became mechanised, and the horses were kept out of the firing line—which was a good thing. But gas was never used. It is difficult to know exactly why. Perhaps it was because both sides possessed it. Looking back at the articles written with such certainty and authority by top scientists of those days, to the effect that gas would dictate the course of the last war, it is worth wondering whether, possibly, the so-called experts who have convinced the Government that nuclear power will dictate the course of the next war may be wrong.
  What would happen if the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, succeeded? What would happen if the world became sane and nuclear weapons were abolished? What would the Government do then, having put it beyond the power of this country ever to recreate a substantial conventional force? The Regular Army is in no position to do this. Only through the Territorial Army could a conventional force of any size be recreated, and if the T.A. is cut to ribbons that can never be done.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I always listen to the hon. Member's views with great

  301
  interest. Let us rule out the possibility of a nuclear war, and let us suppose that the Russian Army marched over Europe and that this country was in danger and the hon. Gentleman had a nuclear weapon. Would not he use it?
  Sir Richard Glyn: Exactly the same was said about gas. At the end of the last war Hitler was left with ample supplies of gas, whereas the Russians had no provision for fighting it, and all their transport was horse-drawn. They were very vulnerable to gas. Yet Hitler never used gas. No historian has ever been able to say why. He could have won six months' respite. No Government could possibly be under greater pressure to use nuclear weapons than Hitler was to use gas in the last days of the last war. Perhaps we shall never know why he did not use it.
  There is another group of reservists who are not clearly referred to in the Bill. I refer to the Territorial Reserve of Officers, in which I was serving until recently, and in which I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House are serving at present. These Reserve officers include a wealth of experience and a willingness to serve which the Government should not overlook. What would happen to them in the event of other reserves being called out? May we have an answer to that question?
  I should like to explain shortly the big difference that exists betwen hon. Members on each side of the House. It is a sincere and crucial difference. It concerns what used to be the third rôle of the T.A., which was to provide a framwork for expansion during a period of tension. We were told that this is now considered irrelevant. This is the main issue between us. The Government consider this issue to be irrelevant at a time when many of our N.A.T.O. allies are actively increasing their conventional reserves and when America has more conventional ground troops deployed in action that at any time in the last twenty years. The Government's proposals, in effect, would make it impossible for Britain ever to reconstitute a substantial conventional Army in under 15 or 20 years, which period would hardly be granted to us.
  I repeat that we do not doubt the sincerity of the Government, but we abundantly doubt their judgment. I could
  302
  give many examples. I do not wish to make party points. Hon. Members opposite know me too well for that. But because of the seriousness of this question I have looked through the many examples of previous debates which are available, and have chosen one which is far enough back not to concern personally any hon. Member present and yet recent enough to be within public memory. I refer to the Motion of censure which the Labour Party, when in Opposition, sincerely and honourably moved on 11th March, 1935—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Second Reading debates are broad, but I hope that the hon. Member will link what he is going to say with the Bill which is in front of us.
  Sir Richard Glyn: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but this was a Motion of censure on an increase in the reserves in the Army, Navy and Air Force. The Bill before us provides for a decrease in the reserves of the Army, Navy and Air Force. The point at issue was exactly the same—the question whether we should increase or decrease our reserves in the three Services. That was the point of the Motion of censure to which I was referring.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must address himself to the Bill. We are not debating that Motion of censure now.
  Sir Richard Glyn: I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but it is a question of the judgment of the Government, who were then in Opposition. I must confirm what the point was. I bow to your Ruling, but the plain fact is that at that time they sincerely believed that it was wrong to increase our reserves, even by a little—even by 190 aircraft—more than two years after Hitler had come to power, and less than three before he invaded Austria. They sincerely thought it wrong to increase our reserves even by a little. History has proved their judgment on that occasion to be absolutely wrong. For Britain's sake I hope that history will not prove them wrong again.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Oakes: I intervene very briefly, and I hope that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very pertinent and reasoned remarks.

  303
  I welcome the Bill as one who, until the events of the autumn of last year, knew very little about the Territorial Army. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, but particularly on this side, at the time of that dramatic debate, I consulted the commanding officers of Territorial forces in my constituency and, like other hon. Members who did the same, I learned a great deal.
  There was a great deal of heart-searching by many of my hon. Friends on that occasion and this was not helped by the fact that, while hon. Members on both sides agreed that the state of the Territorial Army drastically needed revision and there was a White Paper, with which all hon. Members were satisfied, no constructive suggestions were made by hon. Members opposite in place of that White Paper. Consequently, hon. Members on this side, although they had heart-searchings about the fate of the Territorial Army in their constituencies and in the country as a whole, recognising that it needed drastic modernisation, revision and reorganisation, had no alternative but to go into the Lobby—with the courageous exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), who, hon. Members will remember, abstained on that occasion.
  I welcome the Bill because it preserves some links between local areas and reserve forces. Hon. Members may not think that the links are as strong as they were in the past, but transport and communications are much easier than they were in the past, when people were confined almost to a particular village or area. Nevertheless some local affiliations are preserved in the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) referred to the local knowledge, the local loyalty and, I would add, the local pride of particular units, which is vitally important.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has left the Chamber, as I wanted to take him up on one point in his excellent suggestion that the film "The War Game" should be shown to those who decide to enter the Territorial Army. This was answered in an intervention by an hon. Member opposite, but I should like to stress that there are many circum-
  304
  stances which we possibly do not and cannot foresee when, in the event of a nuclear attack on this country, there would not be the total annihilation which my hon. Friend seems to expect.
  If such a catastrophe happened, there might be total annihilation—I agree with him—but I am sure that this would not be the case. He said that the police, for example, could deal with the affected areas. He mentioned Rochester, where, of course, the Territorial forces and everyone else would be eliminated, but in many areas there would be survivors. These survivors might be panic stricken, with no communications and cut off from law and order. It is imperative that there should be a regular, trained and disciplined body of people who could help, who could serve the community in such circumstances.
  I can envisage other things, such as a potential enemy—it is all very well for my hon. Friend to say, "What enemy?" but one can always say that—using only one or two nuclear weapons on this country and then introducing armed saboteurs in the other areas. Who would deal with that? The police? The Civil Defence? Surely, we need an armed, disciplined body of men to deal with a situation like that.
  Therefore, I welcome the Bill as a reorganisation and modernisation of an essential service in the defence of this country, which has given great service in the past. My own two constituency regiments—the Bolton Artillery and the Bolton Loyals—were the first regiments abroad in two world wars. They served their country both in 1914–18 and 1939–45. Their units were the first to leave the country at a time of war in defence of Britain.
  There is one thing in the Bill which puzzles me. I refer to Clause 20, which deals with the continuance of the offices of deputy lieutenants of counties. The Bill is about the modernisation of the Territorial Army. It is a Bill about making it more efficient and one which, we hope, will generate enthusiasm and encourage people to volunteer for the Territorial Army. Yet Clause 20 extends the provision for creating deputy lieutenants, distinct from the Territorial Army, and including civilians. I do not object to the inclusion of civilians, if we

  305
  are to have this office at all. What astonishes me is that the office is preserved.
  Before the debate, I investigated exactly what deputy lieutenants do. It takes a great deal of research to find out. I found that, in 1882, under the Militia Act, lord lieutenants of counties were given the statutory duty to create, within each of their areas, 20 deputy lieutenants. I found that, in 1918, an Act was passed by this House—the Deputy Lieutenants Act—which defined the areas from which those deputy lieutenants must come. But I searched long and hard before I found what their duties are. I found one—that a deputy lieutenant has a responsibility for the attraction of recruits into the militia, which would probably now mean into the reserve forces. But he shares that duty not only with the lord lieutenant of the county but with every officer, Regular or Territorial, and even with justices of the peace in the county concerned.
  I should like my hon. Friend to tell me why Clause 20 is in a Bill dealing with the modernisation and efficiency of a modern effective Territorial Army, which is of great importance to the defence of this country—an organisation in which many citizens have been in the past and, I am sure, will be in the future, able to use their abilities for the service of the community in the way they desire. It is merely that question of Clause 20 on which I should like some elucidation.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) said, rightly, that it was impossible to foretell with exact clarity how this country is liable to be threatened in the future. In matters of defence, it is sometimes difficult to tell exactly what this Government's policy will be. Not long ago hon. Members opposite were loud in their criticisms of the United States of America. Now, in defence matters, almost every egg has been put into the American basket. Once upon a time, not long ago, hon. Members opposite were loud in their criticisms of a nuclear policy, yet this afternoon the Secretary of State intervened in the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) and expounded the pure doctrine of nuclear retaliation as championed by the "mandarins" of the Strategic Air Command.
  306
  One can see reasons why hon. Members opposite have changed their views in these important respects, but I am still absolutely perplexed about why the Secretary of State for Defence published his original White Paper foreshadowing the destruction of the Territorial Army before the Government had completed their review of the home defence requirements. In practice, not a month has been gained by this curious decision to put the cart before the horse—and now the cart has had to be drastically modified.
  In those days, before the Home Defence Review was completed, the Secretary of State for Defence frequently remarked that this country would not be threatened by a large-scale conventional invasion, and everybody agrees that he is right. Nobody contemplates that hordes of Mongols will move into Murmansk and there get into landing craft and paddle towards this country. During the last 20 years there have been few full-scale invasions of one country by another. But in the past 20 years we have seen every form of terrorism, subversion and disguised attack on one country by another, and just as we have learned a great deal since 1066, so have our enemies learned a great deal since 1066. The fact that we are no longer threatened by a conventional invasion does not mean that we are not threatened in other ways.
  I am glad that there has been a change of heart by the Government and a belated recognition that home defence is important and that a substantial body of men is needed for this rôle. I regret that this home defence force is to be kept in a state of unnecessary isolation in both training and command. Some arguments can be put forward for this isolation, but I suspect that the real reason for it is a desire to save the Secretary of State's political face.
  It is true, regrettably, that there are some members of the military establishment who, in a period in which there is a shortage of funds for defence—and there is always likely to be a shortage of funds for defence—think that the reserve forces should come at the end of the queue. The view of such members of the military establishment is that soldiering has become such a highly technical matter that part-time, even though vigorous and enthusiastic, recruits have no valid rôle to play in modern war.

  307
  Thanks to the kindness of the Minister for Defence for the Army I have had an opportunity in the past 12 months to see something of Territorial on active service abroad, in Aden. I went to see a detachment of the Royal Engineers serving near the Radfan where a number of men from the Territorial Parachute Brigade had recently done some of their training. One of them, regrettably, had been killed by a random shot from a distant tribesman. I was immensely impressed by these men. The commander of that detachment which had been ready within 48 hours and had flown out of England, told me that they had more than pulled their weight and had done a useful job.
  I was also impressed when I saw the "Ever-readies" serving with the Regular forces. I talked to some of them, to their sergeants, platoon commanders and company commanders. The conditions were extremely difficult. The camp left a good deal to be desired and the climate was appalling. The job which they had to do was arduous and only intermittently interesting. I was impressed from talking to the men and from reading the reports on them by the way in which in a matter of days they had blended into the team and had become indistinguishable from the regular members of it.
  We have a lot to learn from this experiment in sending out the "Ever-readies". I am sure that the Ministry have learned the lessons which are there to be learned and that next time some changes will be made, but the fact remains that this experiment has shown that the reserves can with great speed become an effective part of the regular team. They have shown, in the sort of conditions which our Army is likely to face in the next few years, that the reserves have an important part to play.
  I believe that the Bill, far from strengthening the reserve, will weaken it. Fortunately it does not go nearly as far as the original White Paper, which would have destroyed the Territorial Army. This Bill, I believe, does not do that. But it does harm which can be repaired and harm which I hope will be repaired by us.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: I should like to start by congratu-
  308
  lating the Government at least on their climb down from the initial position which they took up over the Territorial Army. It cannot be disputed that there was to have been a very severe cut in the strength of the Territorial Army and that now, with the second thoughts, we are to get the A.V.R.III which will be of some benefit in restoring the very severe cuts which were intended.
  Nevertheless, I resent the treatment of the Territorial Army, the way in which they were initially told that they had to suffer these severe cuts and the way in which the whole matter was cut and dried before it was ever presented to the Territorial Army The units had already been designated. Some units were told that they would be abolished. Now, on second thoughts—and I welcome the second thoughts—units are being told, "You may remain in existence if you accept the A.V.R.III Home Defence rôle". This is done with the obvious intention that as a sop it is better than nothing.
  Looking at the rôle for the Territorial Army or the reserve forces, it is essential to allow for the unexpected. Nuclear weapons aside, there might be a war, not necessarily in Europe, which lasted for a considerable time and which put a tremendous strain on our reserve forces. It is necessary, for this reason, not to have just a tiny, cut-and-dried force exactly shaped to meet our commitments in Europe, but to have a variable force designed to meet other requirements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) warned of the possibility of a war of subversion rather than of the conventional type. If we think in terms of the disruption which a small number of criminals could create in this country, and multiply that ten times, we see that subversion directed at us by a foreign Power could cause disruption which it would not be possible for our police force to contain. There is, therefore, a need for reserve forces—forces with a home defence rôle—on a fairly large scale. I am glad that the Government have recognised the usefulness of the "Ever-readies". The "Ever-ready" concept did not receive their warm welcome when they were in Opposition.
  Mr. Reynolds: I recall sitting on the benches opposite and stating on behalf

  309
  of this party that we welcomed the "Ever-readies" and expressed the hope that they would be successful.
  Mr. Allason: I sat through the whole of the debate the hon. Gentleman has in mind and I assure him that there was a a great deal of doubt about the view of the then Opposition. They seemed to query whether it was a good idea and whether the "Ever-ready "concept could possibly work. I am glad to learn that at least the hon. Gentleman supported the idea.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham pointed out how useful the "Ever-readies" were. However, we now see that their numbers are being severely reduced, because of the 8,600 of them, 3,500 are to be taken from the Regular Army Reserve, Class A. They will, therefore, not come from what we know now as the Territorial Army—what will be the A.V.R.I—but will simply be transferred from the Regular Army Reserve. That Reserve already has a substantial commitment and this transfer will, therefore, reduce the Regular Army Reserve and merely achieve a slight change of emphasis. It might be more satisfactory to transfer them from the Regular Army Reserve Class B, but to transfer them from Class A is a retrograde step.
  This means that only 5,100 reserves will come from a source which now provides more than 7,000. The obvious result is that, by cutting down the number of basic units from which the "Ever-readies" can come, one must expect to get fewer of them. In any case, I do not believe that 8,600 is anything like the required number, and we could do with many more.
  This brings me to the question of the integration of the three rôles. If A.V.R.I, A.V.R.II and the Home Defence Force can be together in one unit—in different sub-units of the same unit—there might be a proper interchange. The Under-Secretary welcomed the idea of interchange, but is he not aware that if they are not wearing the same cap badges and are not in the same unit the difficulty of interchange will be great?
  The Under-Secretary said that these reserves would come under the same administration in certain respects; that they might be sharing drill halls and would know each other socially. That is not the
  310
  same thing. When a man joins a unit and becomes trained in it he is then able to move to the A.V.R.II and become an "Ever-ready", all alongside the same colleagues. In other words, progress should be within the unit and not by transferring men from one unit to another.
  As I understand, the equipment to be provided to the Home Defence Force is likely to be disastrous. I do not want to "knock" this force, or say that it will be useless. However, while it will be far from useless, it will be harder for it to succeed if it is not given better equipment than one lorry for 100 men and just a rifle apiece. For example, I understand that these men will not have any signals equipment. How will they be able to carry out the rôles for which they will be required? How will they co-operate with civil defence, which at present needs a substantial amount of signals assistance from the Home Defence Force? If the Minister will say that the Regular Army will provide signals assistance for civil defence I will be surprised, since the Home Defence Force is the proper organisation to provide this assistance.
  I have a great fear that a number of drill halls will be got rid of merely to bring in money. There is a great need for drill halls, not only for the Territorial Army, the A.V.R. units, but for the cadet forces, boys' clubs and rifle clubs. To say that it is not the responsibility of the Army to provide boys' clubs is to shirk the issue. There is a definite requirement here and I hope that a substantial number of drill halls will be retained. At present, it is feared that the vast majority of them, especially those with high site values, will be sold just to save money.
  I am equally concerned about the Regular Army career structure. There is a need not to create "jobs for the boys", but to ensure that there are sufficient jobs for the Regular forces to provide a good career structure, both in terms of promotion and continuation up to the age of 55, of employment in the Regular Army. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Government's proposals will not adversely affect the career structure of the Army.
  The question of deputy lieutenants was raised. I would like to correct the general impression which has been given in the House that these appointments are made

  311
  for actual service with the Armed Forces. Of course, the post can be given for civilian services to the Armed Forces and, in particular, to the reserve forces. This has been the gift of the Secretary of State and is an honour which is prized. It serves to encourage people to give service in a civilian capacity to the Territorial and other forces. I understand from Clause 20 that this is to be changed and that it will be the gift of "a" Secretary of State and not "the" Secretary of State. In other words, the Home Secretary could, I suppose, say, "There is someone here who has given good service and I would like to give him this honour".
  Mr. Reynolds: Deputy lieutenants are nominated by the lord lieutenant for the county. The job of the Secretary of State is not to disapprove of the nomination of the lord lieutenant.
  Mr. Allason: I am very glad to hear that. Nevertheless, although it is not in the gift of the Secretary of State, it is a valuable piece of patronage in his hands. He does not approve these appointments "blind", and it is an encouragement to civilians to give valuable service to the Armed Forces. I admit that I am sufficiently conservative to resent any change here unless the case for it can be amply made out.
  I appeal to the Government to think again about separating the various elements of the Reserve. If home defence forces can be sub-units of the same unit with the A.V.R. I and II, immense benefit will come to every member serving. I hope that the Government will take a further step and come very much nearer to the constructive proposals put forward by the Territorial Army Council.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: The Government now accept that there is a home defence rôle for the Territorial Army. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) said, it is not easy in politics to admit that one's first ideas were wrong, and I congratulate the Government very much on their wisdom in doing so. Once it is admitted that there are two separate rôles—first, the rôle of reserves of men and units with the Regular Army, and secondly the rôle of home defence—it is quite clear that the
  312
  Government have two quite separate ways of dealing with the situation. Either they could have provided separate organisations—one for each rôle—or they could have decided to reorganise the Territorial Army so that it could fulfil both rôles. I am sure that in opting for the two separate organisations the Government have made a cardinal error, and I urge them to think of it again even at this late hour—but I am sorry to see the Minister shaking his head.
  I speak in this debate because I was lucky enough to serve for 13 years in the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry, and was a squadron leader for eight years. Although I speak of my experience with the Yeomanry, my remarks apply equally to the Territorial Army as a whole. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary suggested that we had played politics with this issue. I assure the House that I seek to make no political point at all, and I ask the Minister to accept my sincerity.
  I say at once that those in the Territorial Army must be prepared to be flexible. Indeed, the Territorial Army has always prided itself on being flexible. The Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry has appeared in many rôles in different years. At times it has had tanks, armoured cars, horses—mules, I believe—and searchlights. A good regiment will always be able to adapt itself to any task it is given. It is also possible for one regiment to have two rôles so that one part of the regiment can be given on rôle to play and the other part another. That is not a point that the Minister has yet been able to grasp.
  The Government's decision is to reduce my regiment—the senior Yeomanry regiment—to one single squadron. That is to be an armoured reconnaissance squadron. I presume, although I am not certain, that it will be part of a regiment with widely scattered squadrons. I see that the Minister agrees. I therefore imagine that these squadrons of the regiment will possibly meet only once a year at camp, and it is very difficult for me to see how we can in this way build a strong regimental spirit.
  At the same time, it will presumably be necessary to create in Wiltshire another force to deal with home defence, although, as far as I know, details have not yet been published. I warn the Government, with the utmost sincerity, that their proposals will cause very grave

  313
  recruiting problems for the armoured squadron and for the home defence force. The Government would have been wise to have preserved the whole regiment and to have given it as to one squadron the armoured rôle and as to the other three squardons the rôle of home defence. This would have solved the recruiting problems both of the armoured squadron and of the home defence force.
  I can say something about recruiting, because one of the duties of a squadron leader is to make quite certain that he can keep his numbers up; he is no use as a squadron leader if he cannot produce a squadron. Young men join the Territorial Army for two reasons. The first reason—and I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) in what, if I may say so, was an excellent speech—is to be soldiers, and to experience the feeling of comradeship. Secondly, they join in order to be members of a good regiment of which they are proud, with its fine traditions and regimental spirit.
  The Government have failed to understand the importance of the regimental spirit, but if we destroy that we shall really damage the Territorial Army. With the scheme I have been trying to put forward, we would encourage a genuine interchange between the sub-units within the regiment. For example, one can imagine a very useful N.C.O. serving for a number of years in the "teeth", or armoured part of the regiment—in the armoured reconnaissance squadron—and then finding that commitments at home or at work prevent him from continuing with that squadron. He would be an invaluable man if he joined the home defence force. If it was just a question of transferring to another squadron in his regiment he would be encouraged to do that, but if it meant leaving his regiment altogether and joining the Home Defence Force, I imagine that such a man would leave the Territorial Army altogether.
  At the other end of the scale, one can imagine a recruit on first joining being a little cautious about taking on too many commitments. He wonders whether he will like the life. He joins the lower level or home defence side and so takes on fewer commitments, but subsequently he becomes a very keen Territorial soldier. He can then be transferred—and it seems a sensible proposal—to the armoured
  314
  squadron of the regiment. In that way we should get a ready interchange between the two sides of the Territorial Army. I should like to imagine an armoured squadron with a long waiting list of men wanting to be transferred from the non-armoured rôle.
  I should like to ask a detailed question of the Minister, although I shall quite understand if he cannot answer it tonight. People are worried about regimental property, which is dealt with in Clause 18. To take the example of the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry, instead of a regiment we shall have a squadron which will be part, if the Minister agrees, of a larger new regiment. The Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry has a good deal of regimental property which it has acquired over the years, and it would naturally like to keep that property in Wiltshire. I understand, however, that the property may have to go to the new regiment, which is not necessarily a county formation. Those having responsibility for this regimental property are anxious, and if the Minister can do anything to allay their anxieties they will be very grateful.
  I regret the tone of the Under-Secretary in suggesting that we were seeking in this case to make political points. We are doing nothing of the sort. We would like to see the Territorial Army have a successful future. We are glad that the Government have had second thoughts, but I would ask them, even at this eleventh hour, to think once again.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I do not propose to delay the House for very long. I wish to make reference to two matters, the numbers in the Territorial Army and the use of its assets.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) referred to the problem of deputy lords lieutenant. In some parts of the country it appears that there will be more lords lieutenant than Territorials. This worries me profoundly. I hope that the Minister will look at this particularly with reference to the Highlands of Scotland. As he must know, negotiations are going on about the numbers and how they are to be disposed. Especially in regard to the defence force, it has been agreed that it shall fulfill as wide a territorial rôle as possible, whether in general defence of the country, the repelling of

  315
  saboteurs, or whatever it may be. I shall not enter into controversy as to the precise functions of the force, but against the things which could happen and in their contact with the civilian population it is important that the military spirit should continue to flourish as widely as possible and that Regular recruitment should continue to flow. I am sure everyone in this House is conscious of the necessity for Regular recruiting and of its poor state today.
  I hope that before the Government publish their final recommendations they will look more closely at the problem in the Highlands, which in the past has proved such a wonderful recruiting area for the British Army. I hope that they will look especially at the Western Isles, where apparently there is to be no military presence whatever. I presume that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), is in his constituency. I am sure that he would agree, because this is a non-party point. I have the honour to be the honorary colonel of the Lovat Scouts. It is a great sorrow to those men and officers in the Island of Lewes that there will be no further job for them. It is an area from which a considerable number of recruits come to the Army. Knowing the Highlands very well, I am sure they could do with more units, which would help recruiting for the Regular forces.
  I turn to my second point, about the disposal of assets, which is dealt with in Clauses 18 and 19. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) is a very fair one. So far as possible these assets should remain regimental assets in the county areas. But I would ask the Minister to give further thought to the question of the assets of the Territorial Army as a whole. As he will know, I had the honour to serve as Under-Secretary of State for War. I found that assets such as drill halls sometimes belong to the Regular Army and sometimes to associations. There is a considerable problem in administration which should be tidied up by the Bill. I hope that the Minister will think of the possibility of the Territorial Army and reserve forces obtaining more money from these assets. They are short of money. Judging by the taxation they impose, the Government, too, are short of money. It is worth
  316
  while to look into the question of developing some of these valuable sites and making money out of them by giving the basements and the first floors to the Territorial Reserve Army Force, and then creating large sums of money by development of the rest of the property for the sustenance of these forces.
  When I was Under-Secretary I looked at this situation with a very distinguished developer who did a great deal of work for the Church Commission. The Minister may look up the papers—he has my full permission to do so. He will find that in 1958 it was considered that between £10 million and £20 million could be generated from these sites by the Territorial Army keeping the ground floor and basement and the rest of the property being developed. This could be done in London and parts of the Midlands, where the sites are of immense value. When I was in the job this was thought by the Treasury to be an improper proposal. Perhaps it is now thought less improper. It is certainly worth looking into.
  I make a final appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He must see that there is proper coverage of the country by the Territorial Army. I am sure the Government are right and wise to have retained its title. I hope that they will look at the question of the Highlands and the Outer Isles and make certain that this magnificent human material, which has been of such benefit to the country in the past, is not now thrown away.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. George Younger: We have at last reached the first piece of solid legislation as a result of the various excellent and interesting debates we have had in the last 18 months on this subject. I start by paying a respectful tribute to the deputy Minister of Defence for the part he has played in those 18 months in dealing with the Territorial Army and Territorial Army associations. He has had a very difficult task. Although many of us have disagreed, and may still disagree, with some of the things which are being done, he has won the confidence of the people. That is appreciated on both sides of the House and throughout the Territorial Army.
  In welcoming the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for

  317
  the Army to his new position, in which we are delighted to see him, I hope that he will not mind my saying firmly that he made a great mistake in starting and finishing his speech with some remarks which I do not think added to the value of his speech, but which subtracted from the atmosphere of support in the House. This is something which he may have inherited from the previous deputy Minister, now the Minister of Aviation, for he did it always in the last Parliament. I pray that the lesson has now got home. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am interested only in the welfare of the Reserve Army. I am quite prepared to agree with anything suggested from the other side for the benefit of the Reserve Army.
  I want to speak mostly about the future of the A.V.R. and, in wishing it well, to say a few things about how I think it can be helped. Before doing so, I mention one or two basic facts about the Defence Review, which are very important, but which have been skated over. First, I wish to get the time-scales right, for the hon. Gentleman, in opening the debate, rather conveniently for his argument, telescoped some of them. I well remember the morning of 27th July, 1965, when I was absent from this House and in camp with the Territorial Army commanding a battalion. I well remember the occasion when the news came through of what then amounted virtually to the destruction of the entire Territorial Army as we knew it. My instructions were to put the news across to the troops in my command as best I could and to cause as little alarm as possible.
  It was perfectly clear that the position was that, apart from the small force—a maximum of 50,000 men to reinforce the Regular Army—there was to be nothing. In his speech the hon. Gentleman indicated that even then there was a possibility of military reserve forces being used in a home defence rôle. I challenge him very directly that that is not strictly correct. That idea first occurred in the White Paper of December, 1965. It was the result of the combined, sustained, and carefully put across pressure which was well backed up from T.A. associations, the Territorials and, I think, Service Chiefs as well. It would
  318
  be only fair, and would add to their stature, if the Government admitted that it was a change in policy and was brought about by excellent arguments deployed by excellent people throughout the country who knew what they were talking about. I hope that we can see the end of the argument that the Home Defence Force was always in the Government's mind. I do not believe that it was and I do not think that it is possible to argue that it was.
  There are two final points about the Defence Review which must be made clear. I wrote down two things which the Under-Secretary said. First, he said that it is impossible to imagine a conventional war ever happening again; those were his words. That is a very extraordinary statement. What do the Government think is happening in Vietnam? No nuclear weapons have been used there. It is a perfectly ordinary conventional war.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Or in Korea.
  Mr. Younger: That is going a little further. I remember that war well, but it was a little time ago. It was a perfectly conventional war.
  What about the confrontation in Borneo? That is a small war with, fortunately, very little loss of life. What is that if it is not a small conventional war? It is absolute nonsense for anybody to say that it is impossible to imagine a conventional war. It may be very unlikely; it may be completely improbable; but it is certainly not impossible to imagine.
  A Government who are running the country's defences must employ one of two arguments. One argument is to say, "We recognise that there can be a conventional war, but we intend to do nothing about it. We shall ignore it", which is a fair, if foolish point of view. The other argument is to say, "We recognise that there can be a conventional war and this is our means of dealing with it". Those seem to me to be the only two logical arguments.
  Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman sought to quote what I said. Therefore, I will give the correct quotation, because he has given the wrong impression. I said, "In a nuclear age it is impossible to envisage mass armies opposing one

  319
  another with conventional weapons as they did in the last war." I added, "Wars are likely either to be conventional wars on a comparatively limited scale outside Europe, or we shall be faced with the appalling prospect of a holocaust in Europe." Therefore, the situation as it exists in Borneo was envisaged in my speech.
  Mr. Younger: I quite recognise that. I am sorry if I slightly misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I think that his argument is that he cannot envisage a conventional war in Europe. I think that that is a perfectly straight statement to make, but it is an equally extraordinary statement. Although I would say that at present I cannot envisage it, who can say that he could not envisage any form of conventional war in Europe in five, 10, 15, 20 years' time? It is not possible. I do not think it is wise.
  The second matter was the Under-Secretary's statement, which was partly attached to that, that there are the alternatives of either a nuclear war or a limited conventional war. Throughout what the hon. Gentleman said on that there was the assumption that, if there was a conventional war, however limited, it would be because it was able to be dealt with by our present forces, possibly supplemented by the reserves the Government are now producing, possibly supplemented by the regular Class A reserves which the Government hope to bring in.
  That has been more or less accepted, but I do not think that it should be accepted, because nobody can say that a conventional war can be solely dealt with by those forces which we are now to have under our command. That is why many of us see—it may not be politic for the Government to say so—the Home Defence Force still in a rôle of being able to be expanded, if ever the worst should happen. We lose nothing by saying that. It does not cost any more to say that. It encourages those who go into it to feel that they have a really important rôle to play, if ever the country is in danger.
  I suggest that this is the last fence that the Government ought to climb off from their previous original ideas and they should admit that the Home Defence Forces will, in fact, also be a very useful framework for expanding conventional
  320
  forces if—and I still say "if"—it should ever be necessary to do so. I hope that this will receive consideration.
  That is all I want to say about the Defence Review, except for these words. I really think that, whether or not they admit it publicly, the Government within themselves should realise that as an example of muddle, bungling, badly thought out and badly put across planning, the Defence Review will go down in history as a real winner. Although they may not be prepared to admit this publicly, I hope that privately, within themselves, they will admit it and ensure that it will not happen again.
  I come to the future, which is so much nicer to talk about. I have been in the Territorial Army for a long time in Scotland. There is an absolutely unique wish and intention in Scotland that this new reserve force as set up in the Bill shall be a success and shall carry on the excellent and outstanding tradition of the Scottish Territorial Regiments for so many years in the past. The Territorial associations, the Territorials themselves, the Regular soldiers serving with them—we are all absolutely determined that this new scheme will be a first-class success and will be a worthy successor to the forces it replaces.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Why does the hon. Gentleman say that it is the almost unanimous view in Scotland? What right has he to speak for Scotland in this way?
  Mr. Younger: I was saying that it was the almost unanimous view of all those in Scotland in the Territorial associations, the Territorial Army, and the Regular forces serving with them.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is slightly different.
  Mr. Younger: It is only slightly different. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is not quite so right in his suggestion that the majority of the people in Scotland might not believe it. Although I may not have the right to speak for them, I am quite convinced that they would agree with the premise I am putting forward.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the hon. Gentleman's majority?
  Mr. Younger: Recruitment to the A.V.R.II and the A.V.R.III will be not

  321
  nearly as difficult as many of us have thought. It is important to realise the different problems as regards recruitment to these two forces. The first problem facing the A.V.R.II will be the problem of employers. The Under-Secretary went a long way this afternoon to reassure employers that they will be risking nothing by allowing their employees to join the A.V.R.II, but will, in fact, be doing a very great service to their country.
  At this point, I want to say something which I hope will tie in with my earlier remarks. I want to pay a tribute to the nationalised industries for the way they treat Territorial soldiers in their employ. This applies also to private industries, most of which are very good. The nationalised industries in particular—the Coal Board, the Post Office, British Railways—are splendid in the way they let soldiers off for their annual camp. This should be recognised. It is very important for the Government to do all they can to persuade employers that they should be very keen to encourage their employees to take part in the reserve forces in this way. I believe that the Under-Secretary went a long way to reassure those who may be apprehensive about this.
  There will be a great problem in regard to recruitment for the T. & A.V.R.III, because of the inevitable lack of continuity due to the very low training commitment. The Territorial soldier joins for many reasons. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who made such an excellent maiden speech earlier this afternoon, stated the reason, with which I entirely agree, why Territorial soldiers join. One of the things which keeps soldiers in the T.A. once they are in it is that they have the habit of going along weekly to the drill hall. Possibly they go along only to play badminton. They may go along to be trained. The point is the habit.
  I have ample experience gained over the past few years of what happens when training is suspended even for two months. The habit is broken and people no longer come. I hope that the Government will be thinking very hard about what small things they can do to encourage the use of drill halls frequently, even by units where the training commitment is very small.
  322
  One small thing which the Government could do is to be prepared to spend a small amount of money on helping to make drill hall canteens more comfortable and attractive. It has always been a great problem that this part of the furnishing of the drill hall must be provided out of unit funds. Apart from the provision of the building, the canteen furnishings have to come out of unit funds. It would be of tremendous assistance to the A.V.R.III units if there could be a little help in this direction. I do not know whether it is possible. Perhaps the Minister would think about it.
  Finally on recruitment, there is one thing which will be a problem to both the A.V.R.II and the A.V.R.III. This is the very much increased distance drill halls will be from the homes of those serving in the units. Because of the smaller number of drill halls there will be a real problem here, and I plead for a flexible, realistic and generous attitude to the problem of travelling expenses which will be very important if we are to encourage people to travel 10, 15, 20 or 30 miles to their drill halls. The Government ought to regard this as part of the price they must pay for the saving resulting from closing a lot of other drill halls. Therefore, I hope that they will stretch points galore and make it as easy as possible for people to attend their drill halls.
  Training will present some new problems to the Territorial Army. First of all, assuming that the A.V.R.II, actually gets its new equipment which has been mentioned this afternoon, and which at times has been slightly qualified as "being available"—an expression which we in the Territorial Army have heard of for so many years that we can, perhaps, be pardoned for being a little sceptical—it is very important that this equipment is good. The training commitment for the A.V.R.II is something that we have been longing for. An increase in training days up to 24 is excellent. Camp is still 15 days admittedly, and perhaps the Minister can state whether members will still get the bounty if they attend for only eight days. This is a matter which I have regarded as not entirely satisfactory. I believe that to get the bounty, especially, when it is a big one, it should be necessary to attend for the whole period. This would be a great help in training recruits.

  323
  With regard to A.V.R.III, the main training requirement is going to be the definite need for contact with the A.V.R.II. I can see a great problem in enrolling a recruit in the A.V.R.III, with that very small training commitment, and trying to turn him into something even remotely resembling a soldier. The best territorial battalion would take at least six weekends of hard training to turn a raw recruit into anything like a soldier at all. I suggest that there will be a great need of help from the A.V.R.II to make it easier for the A.V.R.III, even with their limited rôle and limited weapons, to turn them into an efficient unit.
  I now wish to say a word or two about the civilian staffs. Here a slightly less charitable note must creep into my remarks, because I feel that by all the standards of employment and employer-employee relationships, the treatment that civilian staffs employed by the associations have received in the past year, through uncertainty, falls far below what should be expected from good employers. It may have been inevitable with all the decisions which have had to be made, but the fact is that civilian employees have been in a state of total uncertainty as to their future since 27th July last year, and it is far too long for employees to exist in that situation.
  The Government must produce their detailed facts as to who is going to be kept on and who is to be declared redundant, and they should let these people know very quickly. I hope that this will go some way towards making up for the shortcomings in their treatment of these staffs, by making efforts to place them in other employment whenever this can be done. In particular in my own part of the world, in Ayrshire, I hope that the people there who are redundant can be offered employment, even if they do not take it, in the Post Office Savings Bank which has recently been moved to Glasgow. This work would be very suitable for this type of person.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to make a speech in the debate. I should like to conclude by assuring the Government that although I have been critical, and although many of the Territorials and associations have been critical, we have done our best to keep party politics out
  324
  of this whole controversy. We believe that as a result of the work put in by so many people we have produced a much better answer than the original answer of the Government. I assure the Government that everyone in Scotland, and I am sure everyone in Britain, in the Territorial Army or who is connected with it is determined to see that this new plan works well and they can count on our full support in making it a success.
  8.25 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I wish to begin by following straight on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) has just said in his very effective speech. I believe that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, who introduced the Bill this afternoon, began by making what is almost a classical error when seeking to get maximum support for a new Measure, by deliberately bringing in a highly contentious political point. This is an issue on which over the years we have done our best to avoid indulging in party differences and have tried, at least ever since the Second World War, to put the defence of this nation above the ordinary cut and thrust of party politics. Why the hon. Gentleman chose to do this, I cannot for the life of me think.
  Mr. Ennals rose—
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. We all know the hon. Gentleman is a tremendous United Nations man. We all know that he is new to his job. He had the good will of the House before he rose to make his speech. By taking the line that he did at the beginning, all he did was to throw away the maximum amount of good in the shortest possible time. As his speech went on, he got better, but then, unfortunately, at the end of it he reverted to the same line and undid a great deal of the good he had done in the middle of his speech.
  I say to the hon. Gentleman that of all the subjects to deal with in such a manner this is about the worst that he could think of. It is absolutely essential when dealing with this matter, which is the closest bridge there is between a civilian and a soldier, that we should try to deal with it as objectively as we possibly can, and even if it may be our opinion that

  325
  from time to time silly party points have been made, we all ought to dedicate ourselves to forgetting them as quickly as possible and getting on with the job in hand.
  Mr. Ennals: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I appreciate also the statements that have been made by him and by others who have spoken concerning their anxiety to co-operate with the Government in making this Measure a success. When the hon. Gentleman criticises me for party political motives, he might perhaps have forgotten the tenor of the last debate, the censure debate, which certainly was a highly political debate. He may also have forgotten the tenor of the introductory remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I remember very well what my hon. and gallant Friend said. As I understood him, what he said was greatly conditioned by what the Under-Secretary himself had said just before. Perhaps we would have had a different speech from my hon. and gallant Friend had the Under-Secretary, in introducing the Bill, been, shall I say, a little more conciliatory.
  This Bill has to be considered in the context of the White Paper which has been referred to frequently throughout the debate, "Re-Organisation of the Army Reserves", Cmnd. 2855, published last December. Under the heading "The need for Re-organisation", paragraph 3 says:
  First, it is no longer realistic to maintain ground forces designed to fight another major conventional war of large armies in Europe. The risk of major war in Europe is now small hut if it did come it would involve the use of nuclear weapons. This is the basis of the Western Alliance's strategy."
  The only conditions under which I would begin to accept that this was true would be if the Government themselves were saying that we are going to continue as long as we possibly can to remain an independent nuclear Power, that we shall stop this nonsense of saying that it is in the interests of the peace of the world to bring about total nuclear disarmament, and that we ourselves are therefore not only going to be allies with the Americans upon whom we rely to remain a nuclear Power, but will be, so far as our economy
  326
  will allow, a strong nuclear Power, too. That is the only condition on which I could accept this proposition.
  I do not know how closely in touch with the state of play in Europe today the hon. Gentleman has managed to get himself since taking office. To the best of my information, at no time since World War II have the Russians been better trained and better equipped on a conventional basis than they are now. Why are they in that condition? Is it quite beyond the bounds of possibility that for the same reason, perhaps, as Hitler did not use gas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) suggested earlier, the Russians believe that, if they are ever to take any military action in Europe, they may have to take conventional action and only conventional action? We cannot be sure about it. There is nothing more certain than that.
  The six Field Marshals who wrote to The Times on 14th December, 1965, said in their letter:
  "Twice in this century the Territorial Army has been the framework for military expansion in dire emergency. Neither World War developed according to the original expectations of the political experts and their military advisers at those times. Nothing is more certain that any future war will develop along unexpected lines."
  The real trouble with this Bill and all that preceded it is that the Government themselves have considered only one set of premises and have neglected entirely to consider the other, and the likelihood of the other being quite as probable as the one must not be overlooked.
  All the hypothesis which is then developed in that passage of the White Paper is based upon the one assumption that, if nuclear weapons were used, then such-and-such would follow. At no point in the White Paper is it considered what would happen if nuclear weapons were not used and yet there was war in Europe. I happen to believe that the best assurance of there not being war in Europe is the continuation of nuclear weapons, because I believe that, so long as nuclear weapons exist, it remains just possible that man will have sufficient awe of the appalling power he possesses not to risk such a war.
  Yet we see what is happening in Vietnam. We have seen what happened in Korea during the atomic era. We have seen what is happening off South-East Asia now. Who is to know where next

  327
  there will be something which begins as a conventional dispute and then develops into something else far more serious? Who is to know? The Government are taking the most appalling risk if they assume that the only form of war in Europe which Britain might ever again be involved in would be a nuclear one.
  Whatever our hopes may be—I imagine that we are united at least in those—about another war ever happening anywhere in the world and about those wars now going on ending at once or as soon as we can possibly bring them to an end, hopes are all very fine, but they must at least be seasoned with a sense of reality. Hope needs seasoning also with a sense of humility as to man's capacity to prognosticate about the future. My biggest condemnation of what the Government have done on all this matter since coming to power is that they have become arrogant in their prognostications, and arrogance in prognostication is very dangerous indeed when one is dealing with defence matters.
  This is why I hope that the Minister will at least recognise that it is conceivable that even the Government, with all the military advice they have, with all the theoretical Socialism which they may have behind them, and with all their pious hopes, may have made a mistake or overlooked something which may happen as well as those things which they themselves have visualised.
  Hurt feelings are always a bad guide in debate in this place, just as they are a bad guide outside in one's private life, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that I thought that he was a little less than fair to those of us who did our best at a very early date to inform the Government on what was concerning the local Territorial Associations. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and I were approached by the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association for the county way back in June 1965, and, after receiving that letter, we conferred and in due course wrote to the then Minister of Defence for the Army. We wrote to him on 1st July, 1965, and I think it only right and fair to the Territorial Association itself to make one or two quotations from that letter. I shall not weary the House with all the points we made, but these are some of them. We said:
  328
  "Whatever the military requirements, a Territorial Army must attract volunteers and must pay regard to the fact that members of the Territorial Army should only be asked to fulfil commitments which they can reasonably afford to undertake."
  We went on to say:
  "The Territorial Army has been operating on a proven framework for expansion, and this framework should not be dispensed with until an effective alternative system has been assured. Were it to be disbanded, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to resuscitate it on a volunteer basis. This is not to say that the present organisation is incapable of further improvement and perhaps streamlining."
  I hope that those two paragraphs at least have shown the force of two points: first, we recognise that, if we are to have a part-time, volunteer army from civilian life, we must pay regard to what it is fair to expect a man to do; and, second, one of our principal anxieties was that, whatever else was done, it had to be ensured that we did not destroy a proven structure until we were certain that what we put in its place would work as well, if not better, in any circumstances which could be foreseen.
  We drew attention in our letter to a memorandum which had been prepared by the Council of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations on the rôle of the Territorial Army, and we went on to to deal with special points about the Territorial Army and Emergency Reserve. There is one point here which I ought to repeat now, because it has not been mentioned by anyone else in the debate and it is still relevant. Referring to the "Ever-readies" we said that,
  "One has to remember that these men are among the keenest and best of the volunteers, and if they were to be called up separately would leave a very serious gap on mobilisiation in the Territorial Army units who had recruited and trained them."
  I want to make one other reference to the letter in the light of the debate and the way that it has gone. We had received at that time information that the Government's financial adviser had submitted a paper recommending the disbanding of the Territorial Army. So we went on to express the hope that whatever was done would not be decided purely on the advice of a financial adviser. We did not know who he was—although we suspected whom he might have been—but at least we felt justified in suggesting that perhaps there were others who

  329
  were mere likely to be able to judge the true merits from a defence point of view than the financial adviser concerned, however important his advice might be.
  The whole history of the Labour Party's approach to the problem, going right back to my own soldiering days between the wars, has been "Get peace at the cheapest that you can." In fact, there were days—in 1927, I think—when certain Members of the Labour Party voted for the total abolition of the Royal Air Force, and 30 hon. Members supported the proposition. We have had it today from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). We have always had the pacifist case put.
  What worries me most is that I strongly suspect that underlying all the thinking of hon. Members opposite on this matter has been the idea that there is something desperately wrong about spending as much as, say, 6½, per cent. of the gross national product on the defence of this nation. I have never made any secret of the fact that I am not entirely in tune with my own party on this matter. I would always be prepared to spend, if necessary, 10 per cent. of the gross national product if by doing so I felt that peace would be reasonably secure and that if I had not spent it peace would not be reasonably secure. To fix a particular percentage as a magical figure which must always prevail as the deciding factor is totally irrelevant, and it is all too often dangerous as well.
  No party in this House is blameless on this matter, nor is the electorate. The electorate always like to think that when wars are over the nation need not bother about defence. The history of our nation clearly demonstrates this. I can understand the public asking "Why spend so many millions of £s a year on a Territorial Army designed to cover contingencies which we hope will never arise and which we do not believe will arise at the moment?" History cries out in that vein all down the ages, and I can understand that attitude.
  But the Government must do something better than that. They must have appreciations of the situation made at intervals in order to ascertain what the risks really are and what the capacity of this nation is to meet those risks if they should arise. They must evaluate
  330
  each risk. That is not a very pleasant task, especially for those who are dedicated to the great social revolution of Britain—and I sympathise with those who find that their ideals are impracticable simply because the money for them does not exist.
  Of all the things that it would be most unwise to overcut in defence, surely the most important is the link between the civilian in his daily life and the soldier who comes to the Colours in time of war. It is desperately dangerous to cut that link unnecessarily.
  Although, as has been said, the Bill is a great deal better than it might otherwise have been, I am still not satisfied that it is as good as it ought to be. I hope that it is still not too late as the Bill goes through this House and another place for us to make it better than it has so far become.
  I would point out to the Under-Secretary that it was through hon. Members such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, who wrote letters to the Minister at the time, that the view being expressed to us by our constituents was conveyed to the Government. It was our duty to do that. It is monstrous of him to condemn us for having done it. It is our duty as private Members to express the views conveyed to us by our constituents. My constituents, I am happy to say, include a considerable number of members of the Territorial Army. To accuse us of playing party politics because we passed on to the Government what our constituents said is to deny the right of private Members. I am sure that the hon. Member does not want to do that When he was on the back benches he was as vigilant as anybody to uphold the rights of private Members. I hope he will not deny us that right tonight.
  Mr. Ennals: Certainly nothing that I said was intended to be directed towards individual hon. Gentlemen who were putting forward their views, quite rightly, on behalf of their constituents or local associations. I was largely attacking the position adopted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in debates, when they made gross exaggerations and suggestions about the abolition and destruction of the Territorial Army when they knew

  331
  that that was quite untrue. That is the basis of the allegations that I made at the beginning of my speech.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman considers that to be an apology or an explanation, or both, but I do not find it wildly satisfactory. Let us hope that he will learn from experience in office that if he is to keep open those old sores he will, perhaps, do more harm to those for whom he is supposed to be responsible than he intends.
  It is not very often that six Field Marshals—Lord Alexander of Tunis, Field Marshal Auchinleck, Sir Francis Festing, Lord Harding, Field Marshal Lord Slim, and Sir Gerald Templer—write the sort of letter which they wrote in The Times of 14th December last year in which they said:
  "The present proposals for the future of the Territorial Army embody five serious weaknesses—a lack of appeal to attract potential volunteers, a danger of isolating the Regular Army from the civil populace, the destruction of any framework for expansion in emergency, the absence of any rôle for Home Defence"—
  that has been remedied to a great extent, and I am glad of it—
  "and the removal from our young men and women of one of the chief outlets for voluntary and unselfish service to their country".
  That is powerful stuff, especially coming from those men.
  I am delighted that the Government have thought considerably again before they introduced the Bill. I still believe that there is room for further improvement. That is what I seek to achieve. I am glad that the Minister has returned to the Chamber. If one makes a speech at this time of night, the Minister is always preparing his reply to the debate, and those who speak last from the back benches often do not have much notice taken of what they say. I am glad he has returned because, as he knows—he referred to this in the House the other day—he and I have been in communication a good deal on the point about which I interrupted the Under-Secretary of State, and that is the question of the United Nations.
  This is not the place for me to repeat what I said the last time we debated the future of the United Nations. I would
  332
  merely say this, that my thinking on the United Nations is based on the supposition that it is rarely that one solves a problem by bringing more people into it than are already involved. This is one of the troubles from which we have suffered ever since we set up the United Nations. I regard it as a thoroughly anti-British organisation. It has done us far more harm than good, and I hope that one day we shall have something better.
  It is clear from the Bill and the White Paper connected with it that there will be a liability for certain men to be called up to assist in the logistic backing of any United Nations force. The Under-Secretary of State gave me an assurance that before anybody was asked to join any of the new reserves created by the Bill it will be made clear to him that a liability would be written into his undertaking to serve in such a capacity for the United Nations. Some people—I would be one of them—would have a conscientious objection to serving under any United Nations force. I want to make quite certain that people who think like that will not be deprived of any right to serve their country in a voluntary reserve capacity.
  The Minister never really answered that question in the correspondence which we had last year. I hope that the conditions of engagement in any of these reserves will be so drawn up as to enable those who do not wish to be associated with the United Nations forces still to join in a capacity which will enable them to serve their country, which, to me, and to a great many other people, is more important. Although I was glad to hear what the Under-Secretary of State said when I interrupted him, I still want firmer assurances than he was able to give. I hope that the Minister will be able to give them when he replies to the debate.
  One aspect of the Bill which has not been touched upon during the debate is the extent to which the Regular Army relies upon the Territorial Army for the training of those who pass through the Staff College. I am told that an enormous percentage of, for example, gunner officers who pass through the Staff College act either as instructors in one way or another for the Territorial Army or as staff officers. The percentage, I believe, is as high as 40.

  333
  If we are to have this enormous reduction in the size of our reserve forces, what will happen to the Regular Army officers who have passed through the Staff College? Where will they get the opportunity of putting into practice what they certainly ought to be practising in the event of an emergency? Has the Minister thought this one out? If so, I would very much like to hear what conclusions he has reached.
  We also have to recognise that in their capacity of service with the Territorial Army, many of those Regular officers were themselves able to act very often as self-appointed recruiting officers for the Regular Army. They were closely in touch with the civilians in their job with the Territorial Army. Many such people have now disappeared from the civilian surroundings in which they have been working. What replacement does the Minister propose to introduce to compensate for this? What special drive does he intend to have in Army recruiting?
  I had not intended to speak at any-think like this length until I heard what the Under-Secretary of State said in introducing the Bill. I hope that in what I have said I have left three things particularly in the minds of hon. Members. The first is that it is genuine concern, regardless of party consideration, that has motivated those who have expressed anxieties about the Government's original plans for the future of our Reserve forces. Secondly, there must always be a very close link between the Regular Army and whatever form of Reserve forces we have on a part-time basis in time of peace.
  Thirdly, we must ensure very close liaison at local level between the Armed Forces, whether on a permanent or a part-time basis, and the civilian population. The great danger of this terrific reduction which is being made under the Bill and the White Paper is that we will diminish the ability to do that. It will mean some substitution or, perhaps, replacement to make good something which, because it no longer exists, will damage not only the Territorial Army or the reserve forces, and not only the Regular forces, but will damage something which is far more serious: that is, the ability of this country to defend itself in time of emergency.
  8.53 p.m.
  Miss Harvie Anderson: Like many other hon. Members I, too, have had a long association with the Territorial Army, and I feel strongly about certain aspects of the Bill. The purpose of my intervention is to refer to an omission from the Bill, to which I have already referred and to which the Under-Secretary was good enough to reply during his speech. I consider it right, however, that it should be put on the record, in connection with the point so ably put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), that when we are dealing with the reserve forces we are dealing with a reserve of manpower which can be used in time of need.
  We should remember that no fewer than 300,000 women served in our forces because there was a shortage of manpower. In my view, circumstances could arise in the realm of home defence particularly where it would be essential to expand the reserve forces in that way again, and it is appropriate that we should record the fact that there is no mention of the W.R.A.C. T.A., nor any mention of the considerable contribution which it has made over the last 20 years to the training, development and deployment of the forces that we have. I hope that, when it comes to a later stage of the Bill, very serious consideration will be given to further the opportunities which will be available to the women's corps.
  The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary was good enough to say that there would be certain categories of employment open to women in the new force, but the point that I wish to make is that the recruiting base for the categories that he mentioned is very limited, and opportunities which have hitherto been enjoyed have been on a very much wider basis. I hope that that wider basis will again be found acceptable, and that there will also be opportunities for greatly expanded and very different types of work from those which the Under-Secretary has mentioned tonight.
  The second point that I wish to make is about redundancy pay. Serving with our male Territorial forces at present there are many W.R.A.C. Regulars who will be as redundant as their male counterparts, and I hope that full attention

  335
  will be paid to their redundancy entitlement and alternative employment. I may say, in passing, that while I do not entirely agree with one point of view advanced by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), though to a great extent I share the views expressed in his speech, I hope that Clause 20 which makes reference to deputy lieutenants will be amended to read "he or she".
  I trust that one other anomaly will be put right, and that is that those serving in the new force will rank equally with those in the Regular forces for awards for gallantry. It has been a great disappointment to many of us who have known of the service given by Territorials in such places as Aden that awards which have been given for gallantry have not been those usually given to the Regular forces.
  So long as we can keep within the framework of the new force the spirit of the old, there is no doubt about its success. However, we shall not do that by sniping at each other in the House. We shall only do it if we all display unanimous determination to give the assurances to the men and women in these forces which will, from the outset, make them confident that their task is worth while.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My first and very pleasant task is to welcome the maiden contribution to the debate from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). Perhaps I may do so as a fellow one-time lance corporal; for, although lance corporal was not my final rank in the Army, certainly the promotion from private to lance corporal was the largest gulf that I have ever crossed in any part of my career.
  I remember that when I made my maiden speech in the House, over 16 years ago, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), in following me, was kind enough to welcome me to what he called the "Defence Club". There is a real bond between hon. Members on both sides of the House who have served in any of the Armed Forces in peace or in war which often transcends the two sides and our party differences. Tonight, the hon. Member for Mansfield has duly made his entry into that club.
  336
  The hon. Member was one of the few hon. Members who contributed to this debate from that side of the House, but no one could mistake the debate for a partisan or highly politically charged debate. Indeed, I am sure that anyone listening to it must have been struck by the earnest desire of everyone who contributed to bring something for a better and sounder future for our reserve forces. Therefore, I am sure that although he has risen on several occasions to defend and explain himself, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence realises by now that it was a mistake for him to begin and end his remarks as he did.
  This debate takes place against a background of admitted error, against the background of an admission on the part of the Government that the ideas with which they set out upon the task of remoulding the Territorial Army require to be substantially modified. It was quite absurd for Members on the Treasury Bench to attempt to pretend that the proposals in the White Paper as now modified by the statement of 2nd February and subsequent statements are what they had in mind all the time.
  If that is so, then the history of this business from last July onwards is absolutely unintelligible. If this is what they intended, then, by failing to disclose it by so much as a twitch of the eyelid, they caused immense dismay, irritation, dislocation and frustration over months. They made far more difficult that which was in any case a difficult task for the Territorial Army and for the Government.
  But, of course, we all know perfectly well, and they know perfectly well, what in fact happened. The first evidence, the first glimmering of recognition that there was a home defence rôle that had to be admitted, was a hastily-inserted paragraph—paragraph 4—in the White Paper of 15th December last, and it was when they saw that they would be within an ace of losing the debate on 16th December that the more forthcoming formula was used by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence in winding up.
  Then, on 2nd February, we had something which had been introduced as completely new into the discussions between the Government and the Council of the Territorial Associations. We had the proposal for a Home Defence Force, and the

  337
  recognition of a home defence rôle for the Territorial Army. But this admission, this acceptance of something hitherto ignored, which could be ignored no longer, was as limited, as grudging, and as reluctant as it could be made. Much of what we have had to say on this side of the house during the course of this debate has been an attempt to bring home to the Government how much damage this reluctance can do to the future of the Territorial Army and to the future safety of the country.
  When they now admit a home defence rôle for the Territorial Army, they still attempt to limit to the minimum possible what that home defence rôle is. They seek to say that it could only conceivably be a home defence rôle in the post-nuclear period when the nuclear catastrophe has already taken place. But it is not possible to limit it in this way. It is not possible to stop there. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in the Government themselves find that it is impossible. They keep talking about the post-nuclear rôle—the rôle
  "to assist the police in the maintenance of law and order, and to act generally in support of the civil authorities in the event of a general war."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1097.]
  —as a "primary" rôle. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) pointed out, if this is the primary rôle there must, upon the Government's own admission, be other rôes and other functions.
  It was more than a slip of the tongue when the Minister of Defence for the Army, at the end of the interchanges on 2nd February, said that this Home Defence Force
  "will also be used to engage enemy forces if they were in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1966; Vol. 723, c. 1101.]
  The hon. Gentleman felt bound to recognise that it is absurd to pretend we can artificially limit the tasks which a force for the home defence of this country might be called upon to perform.
  During the debate, from both sides of the Chamber—from both the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn)—it was pointed out that the nuclear hypothesis by no means rules out the danger of sabotage in all its forms. That, at any rate, is something which the advent of the nuclear weapon has not superseded or made out
  338
  of date. In a period of tension and rising danger there would be a threat to hundreds of vulnerable points throughout the country, and men would be tied down in guarding those points against all the various and complex forms of sabotage which are now available. So there is another aspect of home defence which it is idle and foolish to imagine can be ignored.
  But we cannot stop there. Much of our discussion, both in the earlier debate and today, has turned upon the question whether there is a function for a citizen volunteer reserve as the possible basis of an expanded Army or of expanded Armed Forces. Sometimes this discussion takes extremely academic and almost theological forms. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), in an excellent contribution to the debate, put the issue precisely and helpfully when he said that the question was: do we or do we not envisage the possibility of a conventional war which would make demands which were beyond the capabilities of the Regular Army plus the reserves, in the narrow sense of the term, to meet? The Government throughout have been denying that possibility.
  It is not necessary to go into all sorts of arguments about nuclear war in Europe and the opinions of the Russian general staff to realise what a risk is being taken, and what a grave decision is being taken by a Government who are prepared to lay their hand on their heart and say that they can exclude the possibility of a conventional war anywhere which would exceed the demands which the Regular Army, and the reserves we are at present envisaging, could fulfil.
  So there is much more still, beyond the limited and grudging concession which the Government have made hitherto, which requires to be recognised. Progress has indeed been made. For in December my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) was certainly justified in saying that the proposals in their then form amounted to the destruction of the Territorial Army. That was so. Under those proposals only a small minority of all the units in the Territorial Army would have survived.
  The Government themselves are now praying in aid and claiming as an advantage for their present proposals that, in some form or other, they make it possible to

  339
  preserve some kind of tenuous existence and continuity for the great majority of the major units in the Territorial Army. I should have thought that that mere fact was sufficient to justify what was said from this side of the House in the debate of 16th December last, and the Motion which my right hon. Friend then moved.
  Let us not, however, in accepting that progress has been achieved, fail to realise that the Government still intend to cut the actual strength of the Territorial Army from about 110,000, as it was when they began operations, to about 63,000, on the assumption that they succeed in recruiting to their intended targets. I am not talking here about establishments. I am taking the actual number of men who were serving in the middle of last year, who were voluntarily giving their services in the Territorial Army, and setting that against the maximum number that the Government envisage recruiting if they are successful. The change represents a reduction of those numbers virtually by half—from 110,000 to just over 60,000.
  We on this side of the House say quite plainly that we do not believe that to throw away almost half the voluntary citizen service in our reserve forces—this is what it means—to say to almost half the men who were serving voluntarily in the Territorial forces nine months ago, "You are no longer required at all in any rôle in any kind of force", is justified by an economy of £17 million a year in the year 1960–70—even if, peradventure, that intended economy should in fact be made. Like so many of the other figures which entered into the totals of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence, this figure becomes curiouser and curiouser the more one looks at it. For example, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, it depends upon the strength of the Territorial Army in the year 1969–70 being at a lower level than that envisaged in the White Paper. There are a number of other doubts which attach to this saving, quite apart from the fact that £3 million-worth has gone overboard already with the volte-face on the home defence rôle. However, whether it be £15 million, £17 million, or £20 million in the year 1969–70, we say that for
  340
  this sum, or for any sum like it, it was folly to throw away virtually half the voluntary citizen manpower in our reserve forces.
  The first claim which we make upon the Government, the first major point upon which we shall insist in the implementation of the Bill—for the Bill is only a framework—is that we should sacrifice as few as possible of the men and, incidentally, as we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), women, who were serving in the middle of last year and most of whom are still serving. That is our first anxiety—this avoidable, tragic and probably irreversible waste and jettisoning of a precious national asset.
  Our second major concern is that the manner in which the Government have executed their act of repentance has been such as to put the two elements in the Territorial Army which they envisage in the maximum isolation from one another—an isolation which will intensify and exaggerate the difficulties of each part of the force, which difficulties, goodness knows, are serious enough. This is a point to which hon. Members have returned over and over again in the debate. It was sounded very strongly and clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) at the beginning of the debate, and it has run right the way through—the tragic folly of tearing the Territorial Army apart into two separate forces with as little to do with one another as could possibly be contrived.
  Let me look briefly at the difficulties which those two parts of the force will have to face. Let me look, first, at the 23,000 men—establishment 29,000—of the "special force" as it is called in Clause 2. The units are to be companies of 75 men armed with rifles and with one Land Rover amongst them. They will have an eight-day camp, and four days and 27 periods of training otherwise than in camp, and their rôle is strictly that of home defence, assistance to the civil power, in the post-nuclear period.
  I know that for those who belong to the units which will be identified with these new home defence companies it has been an immense relief that in any form

  341
  there was a prospect of their units surviving. One can understand their relief, and on both sides of the House there would be a desire, however mistaken, however limited this function may be, to ensure that these units do retain their existence and their identity.
  But let no one underestimate the extreme difficulty over the years of maintaining the numbers and the morale, the recrutiing and the esprit de corps, of scattered individual units of 75 men apiece armed with rifles and equipped with one Land Rover, preparing for a post-nuclear rôle in aid of the civil power, if that were all—and in the intention of the Government that is to be all. We are asking a great deal of the associations, of the committees, of the commanding officers and of the men, by expecting them to recruit, to retain morale and to train as military entities in that kind of setting.
  Let us now look at the other half of the force, the A.V.R. Here—this has been recognised many times during the debate—the difficulty is presented by the onerous and unlimited commitment, in the sense of undefined commitment, which they will be asked to undertake. In the White Paper—this has several times been repeated from the Treasury Bench, and there is no question of arguing about the sincerity of the statements—the circumstances of their employment are when "major military operations are in progress or appear to be imminent and when a serious situation affecting vital national interests has arisen". But that is not what the Bill says. These are not the terms which will be the terms of their agreement. The terms of their agreement refer only to when
  "war-like operations are in preparation or progress,"
  Those will be the terms on which the men will actually have to sign. That will be the undertaking which they will be giving. Nor, unlike the case of the "Ever-readies", will there be any specific limit to the length of time for which they will be required to serve
  "… when war-like operations are in preparation or progress …"
  It will be very difficult indeed—and we might as well recognise this now; I am not trying to be discouraging by pointing out the difficulties, because this is the time for the difficulties to be seen, for them to be weighed and for remedies to
  342
  be applied, if they can be—over the years to maintain a force of the size envisaged when there are those large and unlimited commitments which have to be undertaken.
  Then there is the nature of the units—the independent units and, in many cases, the sponsored units, which are envisaged as reinforcements for the Regular Army and will supplement our forces on the Continent under our agreement with N.A.T.O. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes pointed out, dependent on the average length of service of a man in the A.V.R., one third or one quarter of these units at any one time will consist of raw recruits. It is a travesty to pretend that units of which one third or one quarter are virtually untrained can be regarded, or would regard themselves, as units capable of fulfilling the rôle which we are holding out to our N.A.T.O. allies and which we are professing under the Government proposals.
  The opposite, but equally acute, difficulties of the two kinds of forces, of the two rôles, are intensified by the isolation in which the two forces have been placed. After all, if we look at the summary of the existing reserve forces in the first appendix to the Government's White Paper we are reminded that the first of the rôles of the old Territorial Army was "to provide a source of 'Every-ready' reinforcements." It was from the Territorial Army that we expected to find men who would serve as "Ever-readies" and we see that what we need—what we have always had in the past—is, as Lord Montgomery put it, a "second tier to nourish the first tier". This applies just as much to the Regular Army as to the "Ever-readies", and just as much to the "Ever-readies as to the A.V.R.II.
  In the debate last December the then Minister of Defence for the Army, now the Minister of Aviation, was not exaggerating when he said:
  "We are … aware that in some parts of the country this"ߞ
  that is, the Government's proposals—
  "will make the task of Regular recruiting more difficult."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December. 1965; Vol. 722, c. 1501.]
  It will indeed, because there is a continuity between the Regular Army and the citizen reserve and between those parts

  343
  of the citizen reserve which can accept the more onerous obligations and those which can accept the less onerous ones. The more closely all three are in contact—the more they can be welded into the same units—the more they will mutually reinforce and support one another.
  Finally, there is the basic motive which brings a man into such a force at all, the reason why, at bottom, more than 100,000 men, as at last year, were willing to give their time as volunteer soldiers. This is the desire that these men have to be trained as soldiers, to be trained as fighting men, to be part of an armed force, to be soldiers with other soldiers, to take part—this applies not only to the officers, but to many of the N.C.O.s—in the stream of continuing military thought and practice; in short to belong to the Army. That is the motive, however it may be expressed in each personal case, which brings men into such a force as this and keeps them there. We do the maximum damage to that basic impulse by the rending asunder of the two forces which the Government still envisage.
  There are many ways in which this division could be healed. The damage is not yet irreparable. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, and others, have instanced different ways in which units of the A.V.R.II could be part of the same show—I deliberately use as vague and wide a word as possible—with those who at the time are only able to accept the home defence rôle.
  Let us, for example, imagine a case of the type that my Friend the Member for Chippenham instanced—a unit comprising a sub-unit which has an A.V.R.II rôle and a sub-unit which has a home defence rôle. Imagine how it would work. Men who join only able to accept the home defence rôle may well find that they are attracted by their experience, and that their circumstances permit them to go on to the A.V.R.II commitment.
  Conversely, a man who has an A.V.R. II commitment may find that, owing to change of job, promotion, change of circumstances, he can no longer undertake it. How naturally and easily he can carry his experience and background to help
  344
  in the training of the recruits in the other sub-unit. As these sub-units train together, so the effort, the challenge, of doing a difficult job helps to sustain the morale of both. It is an old Army adage that one always trains men for the job, or the job but one, beyond that which they are immediately required to do. We should apply the same principle to those units and men of whom initially we only require home defence service.
  I therefore urge the Government not to close their minds to this point, but positively to set to work to devise a system in which more men than they envisage at present in total, as many as possible of those 110,000, can be brought into a framework where both those accepting the home defence rôle and those accepting the A.V.R. rôle will be members of the same show, will train as far as possible together, and will be mutually supporting.
  It can be done. No doubt, the methods will differ with the different types of unit. They will probably be different in different parts of the country—I am not suggesting that for a moment that there is a sealed pattern that will work everywhere—but if the importance of this is realised, and it is the second great plea that we on this side are making in this debate, it can be done. The act of doing it may well mean literally the survival of the Territorial Army, of a citizen volunteer Army, in this country.
  This Bill is essentially only a framework. Within it, all that I am suggesting would be possible. There is nothing in the three graduations of liability which it lays down which would be adverse to any scheme that would be aceptable to the whole House. Therefore, we shall not tonight oppose the passage of this Bill, though there will be respects in which, in Committee, we shall seek to examine it more closely, and to amend it. But the burden of what we have been saying in this debate is that the framework of the Bill must be filled with something larger, more realistic, more hopeful, more practical, than what the Government are as yet envisaging, and that it has been our purpose to urge upon them tonight.
  Of their errors, some have already been repaired. Many remain. None is yet irremediable. There is still time within the framework of the Bill to make a Territorial Army which will retain all

  345
  that is valuable of the voluntary service of the old Territorial Army, which will enable it to fulfil a home defence rôle and an A.V.R. rôle, and also to serve as the basis, should we ever require it, of the future expansion of the Army—all within the framework which the House is laying down tonight. In a single sentence, the plea of the Opposition to the Government this evening is the old and celebrated plea to "think it possible that they may be mistaken".
  9.31 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has made a very different speech this evening from the one he led us to expect as recently as the period after Question Time when I made my announcement about the setting up of the Home Defence Force when, in asking a supplementary question of me, he more or less suggested that he would chase us all around the Chamber and when the Bill came it would be fought tooth and nail and opposed at every step by the Opposition. Therefore, this evening I make a very different speech from the one I thought I would make when I heard his remarks.
  Mr. Powell: I shall try not to interrupt the hon. Gentleman too much, but what I was saying then was that we should have a separate opportunity of debating the principle rather than doing it on the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Reynolds: Whatever the reason, I welcome the change in the right hon. Gentleman's attitude. "Beggars can't be choosers" in that particular respect. I very sincerely welcome the change in the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite and the fact that we shall get the Bill through tonight without a Division, which will enable us, once the Royal Assent has been given, to go ahead with our proposals in a much better atmosphere than would have been possible had we had a strong party political fight here today.
  I am also very pleased to be able to offer congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who made his maiden speech in this debate. He referred to his predecessor, who was very well liked
  346
  and loved in this House, and will be long remembered. He also referred to his constituency. One of the main industries there is the production of coal. I may be wrong, but I rather got the impression that coal miners like a game of poker and that this may be one reason for their joining the Territorial Army as it sometimes provides an opportunity for playing poker. I have heard of many good reasons, such as the opportunities for officers and men to attend convivial gatherings at different times, but poker as a reason is a new one to me. My hon. Friend's remarks were interesting, and we shall look forward to his taking part in many debates in the lifetime of this Parliament.
  I want to refer to the rather more correct history of the proposals put before the House than that in some of the versions to which we have listened. I also want to place on record thanks to members of the Territorial Association who have been assisting us in recent months in some of the many detailed discussions we have had at various levels to get agreement on the type of force which should be set up, the administration, training days and matters of that kind. Members of the Association have been very helpful.
  The Joint Working Party a week or two ago produced a tie and I am very pleased to be wearing one tonight. The heraldic description runs:
  "Sanguine over the letters T.A., a hatchet and carver in saltire, or."
  That means, poised over the initials T.A. on a red background. Unfortunately this has perpetuated one of the myths which have been mentioned. The idea seems to have got around that the Deputy Chief of the General Staff, General Hackett, and the Director of Army Staff Duties, Major General Carver, are the only persons responsibile for the proposals brought before the House this evening. I want to dispel that story straight away. The responsibility for these proposals is entirely and 100 per cent. that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, myself and the other members of the Government. We were not bamboozled into them by any one set of people. These matters were considered very carefully indeed and we are convinced that the proposals we are now bringing forward are right and proper for our reserve

  347
  forces in the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
  I myself first came into contact with the Territorial Army when I had the pleasure of being Mayor of the Borough of Acton at the time of the last reorganisation of the Territorial Army. One of the pleasant duties I had to perform was to assist in the adoption of what had previously been a regiment of artillery but which was then downgraded to a battery of artillery. I have maintained my connection with that regiment—the 254th City of London Regiment—every since.
  I have come to realise from many conversations that I have had with the officers of that regiment and of other regiments that during the last five of six years the main topic of conversation in any officers' or sergeants' mess of the Territorial Army has been, "What is the future of the Territorial Army?" I see one hon. Gentleman who has had experience until recently, and I think still, of serving in a T.A. unit nodding his head in agreement with me. This has been the main topic of conversation—"What are we training for? What are we to be equipped for, because if you want us to do anything it must be made clear that we have not got the equipment to do it? What is our rôle? "These are the main things they have been asking in the Territorial Army for a long time.
  I realised that T.A. officers and soldiers had a view on this. I therefore arranged in 1965—and I hope, if right hon. and hon. Members opposite will help to get the Bill through Committee and its other stages as quickly as possible, to do the same this year—to visit as many T.A. units as I possibly could during 1965. I think that I can claim that I probably visited more Territorial Army units, both their headquarters in the London area and elsewhere and at camp, than any previous occupant of my office did, no matter for what length of period they held the office.
  Those visits were of considerable use to me. I also ensured—this is something else which had not been done in the past—that on those visits I was accompanied by a Territorial Army serving officer who assisted me generally. This was necessary because I was thus able to pick up points of view which I other-
  348
  wise might have missed as to the impressions people in the Territorial Army had.
  This afternoon and this evening we have listened to several other prize versions of how these proposals came about. I want to mention what in fact the position is and how the proposals we are now debating eventually came before the House. As right hon. and hon. Members know, for two or three years before the 1964 General Election, I had been sitting on the Opposition Front Bench in what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West called the "Defence Club" so far as the House was concerned. I had spent a considerable amount of time looking at the position of the T.A., so it was no particular surprise to me to find, on coming into office in 1964, the actual position of the Territorial Army at that time.
  One hundred and ninety thousand men was the establishment, but right hon. and hon. Members opposite refused to allow them to recruit to more than 60 per cent. of that establishment, for a reason with which I am sure the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would agree completely—a purely financial one. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite were not prepared to spend more money than it was necessary to spend to provide an actual recruiting level of 60 per cent. A purely financial and arbitrary limit was placed on it—60 per cent. of establishment. That is all the Territorial Army could go up to—for financial reasons and for no other.
  In fact, the Territorial Army was only recruited on average up to 55 per cent. of establishment and for several years had not been able to reach even that arbitrary financial limit. It was perfectly obvious to any T.A. officer or soldier and to anyone connected with the Territorial Army that even that 55 per cent. figure was probably a little artificial. If one went through the units and picked out the ones who did not come along to do their quota of parades, if one examined birth certificates and medical certificates, one probably came down to considerably below 55 per cent. Whenever I went into a sergeants' mess, I was usually presented to the 66-year old sergeant who had been in the mess for 40 years. How he came to be there no one

  349
  quite knew, but he was on the strength. Most of I he units were still existing.
  This is the reason why the Territorial Army came to be regarded as a cheap reserve army—because it was getting by on Second World War equipment. The Territorial Army would not have been cheap at all if it had been provided with modern equipment in sufficient quantities. They had, for example, Second World War radio sets with instructions in Russian stencilled on the back. These radio sets had originally been manufactured during the Second World War to be sent to Russia. They had been sent there and on the cessation of war they had been returned to this country under Lease/Lend.
  Those in the Territorial Army had battledress but no combat kit. One of the main moans of Territorial Army officers and soldiers was that they were expected to use up the Army stock of battledresses and that there was no mention at all of providing them with combat kit. Most of the units of the Territorial Army were designated for home defence, the sort of rôle that we are now proposing for the Territorials, rather than the rôle for which they were actually trained. This is a fantastic waste of money to maintain 40 large regiments of artillery with 25 pounder guns, when there is no plan to use them in that rôle and when in an emergency they would put their guns in the drill hall, grease them up and take cover because they are for home defence. It is fantastic to maintain 20 regiments of yeomanry with no real rôle—simply earmarked for home defence.
  Nevertheless, this was being done quite deliberately by hon. Members opposite who were responsible for the Ministry of Defence for many years, because they knew these units were not required for the purpose for which they were equipped and trained. They were in fact required for a completely different rôle. Yet with a majority of 100 in this House for five years, they refused to grasp the nettle of reorganising the reserve forces of this country because politically they knew that it would cause quite a row, as indeed, it has caused quite a row, in the last 12 months.
  No one would have dared to prophesy after the election of 1964 that the narrowest majority in this House that a Labour Government would have would
  350
  be on a vote concerning the Territorial Army. Hon. Members opposite, with a majority of 100, funked the job of reorganising the Territorial Army because they knew that a row would break out and they knew that there were hon. Members on the benches opposite with honourable records in the Territorial Army who would kick over the traces if the Government decided to do anything which was not to their liking. At last we decided there was a nettle to be grasped.
  In November 1964, before the Defence Review was announced, before my right hon. Friend decided on the defence expenditure, the then Deputy Secretary of State and Minister of Defence for the Army asked me to look at the question of the Territorial Army and try to find out what reorganisation would be beneficial to give us efficient reserves. We knew that the present system was not efficient. I must stress this because people seem to think that the plan that we have brought forward is the only one that we have ever looked at. We looked at many alternatives in the following two or three months. We looked at the question of further amalgamations of the units. We considered whether we should cut battalions to companies, and cut regiments to batteries and squadrons. We considered whether it would be desirable to raise battalion group types of units stationed in various parts of the country. We looked closely at the idea, which hon. Members opposite are now proposing, of having a two-tier system, with one company for reserve for the Regular Army and another in a battalion for home defence, or rotating the battalions so that one battalion would have one or two years as a reserve battalion with the Regular Army and then three or four years in a home defence rôle.
  We considered all these different methods of reorganising the reserve forces. In many cases we found that the overhead costs which would arise would be far more per man at the sharp end than would be justifiable. We also found that not only would we save £17 million to £20 million by some of these methods, but that we would, in fact, he able to save up to £25 million a year if we were to reorganise the Territorial Army by one of the methods that we have suggested. But we were not trying just to save money. We realised that although we

  351
  could probably save £25 million in this way, none of the suggestions I have just mentioned would have given us the reserve units that we require to meet the commitments which the Regular Army might have to meet at any particular stage.
  So far as those commitments are concerned, I must make it clear that at that time and now, with the order of battle which we have put forward in the White Paper, the commitments for which we are providing are without any alteration at all—commitments approved by the General Staff and by Ministers in the years 1957–1963. The commitments were approved by the Government of which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, was one of the Ministers—a Government, a few of the members of which are left on the Front Bench opposite, who were instrumental in approving those commitments.
  A few minor alterations have been made so far as the Reserve Army units are concerned, but basically we drew up an order of battle which will give us the units needed to meet the commitments inherited from right hon. Members opposite, plus the units which would be required for new commitments which we have accepted to provide logistic forces for six battalions of a United Nations force if asked, and plus a certain number of units, not for the unforeseen—that is the wrong way to put it—but for such other possible commitments which were not deliberately provided for but which might in the event prove necessary to meet by the provision of troops.
  We did not want to make an announcement about the reorganisation we were planning, of course, until the investigations on home defence which were running parallel with it, in which the Home Office is vitally concerned, were completed and the outcome was ready to be announced, but, unfortunately, things kept overtaking us. There were Questions in the House. There were articles in the newspapers. The Bow Group published a pamphlet, and the T.A. Associations themselves published a pamphlet.
  Pressure built up and, eventually, we made the announcement on 29th July before the investigation into home defence had been completed. There was, in fact no change of mind on this matter on the
  352
  part of the Government, and, in fact, from July to December no decision had been taken on home defence. There was a lot of pressure on us in regard to home defence. I am not able to say how much that might have influenced the minds of the individual people dealing with it, but the fact was that no decision on home defence was taken till January of this year, and the announcement was made in February.
  That is the way in which we went about the job, and I believe that in the proposals we now put before the House we have provided for the units which are required, and we can provide them much better equipped and more easily available, while saving in total about £17 million at the same time. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) asked whether the Reserves we are now providing for were large enough. It follows from what I have been saying the last ten minutes that these Reserves are large enough for the commitments which right hon. Members opposite approved and the additional commitments which we have added so far as the United Nations is concerned, less the minor reductions which have been made in the requirement for Reserve forces as a result of the Defence Review.
  It has been said already that the Regular Army Reserve, because of legislation passed by right hon. and hon. Members opposite a few years ago, is gradually building up. The build-up of the Regular Army Reserve will go on at the same time as the run-down of the volunteer reserve forces, and we shall have the units we require to meet our commitments both at home and overseas.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked whether the conditions of service would attract. I believe that the conditions of service of the A.V.R. will attract reserves in sufficient numbers. The only way one can, as it were, compare this is by taking the type of liability and type of bounty in the A.E.R.I units, which are recruiting up to 80 per cent. The Territorial Army, on the other hand, has in the past been recruiting up to only 55 per cent. I think, therefore, that the terms and conditions of service in the A.V.R.II will attract recruits to it.
  As regards home defence units, I think that in the initial stages we shall have no trouble there in filling the vacancies.

  353
  However, in the long-term, the main source of recruitment for home defence units will be people who have joined A.V.R. units and then, because they have got promotion in their job, because they have got married, or for some other personal reason, find they are not able to accept that liability and will welcome transfer to a home defence unit with lower liability. I think that there is more likely to be movement in that direction rather than of people going directly into home defence units. I think that any young man who wants to be a weekend soldier is far more likely to join a unit with the bigger training liability and with modern equipment than he is to join a home defence unit. Therefore, as I say, I think that there will be movement from the A.V.R. type of unit to the home defence unit, although one hopes that movement will take place in both directions to meet the changing circumstances of the individual.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman's third main point was on equipment. He wanted to know what equipment the artillery regiments would have. The medium regiments will have the 5·5 towed howitzer the same as the Regular Army, and the air defence units will have the L.40/70. Full supplies of both radio sets and guns will be available to meet units' full requirements, hut, in fact, they will he only issued to drill halls only in the numbers required for training, the reason being that these items of equipment have to be maintained and this does require a certain amount of expert assistance.
  I was asked about the number of women who would be able to join as W.R.A.C.s in the reorganised Reserve Army. In the home defence units there will be 250 places specifically for W.R.A.C. volunteers. There will be another 700 vacancies for which we are quite prepared to accept W.R.A.C.s, but they will not be exclusively reserved for them; in other words, these vacancies could be filled by men or women. In T. and A.V.R.I and II there will be 400 vacancies for individual W.R.A.C.s. That makes a total of about 1,350 or 1,400 vacancies for women in the reorganised force.
  I was asked whether the secretariats will coincide with Army districts and Civil Defence areas. The reorganisation of the Reserve Army will have an effect
  354
  on Army districts, but so far as possible—we are looking at this with the associations—we hope that the reorganised Army districts will coincide with the reorganised secretariat areas and, as far as possible, also with the Civil Defence areas.
  The main point made by several right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite concerned the argument that one had to link together in some form the home defence units and the A.V.R. units. I find it exceedingly difficult to accept this argument. These two types of unit will have two completely different rôles. They will need, to a considerable extent, different training—more extensive training on the one hand. They will have two different rôles. In a situation where a home defence unit had to be used in its primary rôle—for home defence—it is almost certain that the A.V.R. unit, if it happened to be based in the same drill hall, would already have been mobilised and would already have gone across to the Continent.
  So we do not accept that it is possible to have in one unit elements of the two different formations with two completely different rôles. We thought that there must be two separate units with their own chains of command. They will have to operate completely separately. We did not think it possible to have two chains of command, one for peace time and one springing into operation as soon as an emergency was declared.
  But many of these units—home defence and A.V.R.—will be sharing drill halls. In other cases they will have their own drill halls, but probably be close to each other. We want the maximum co-operation between home defence units and A.V.R. units where possible. We want to make it as easy as possible for a man whose circumstances change to transfer from one type of unit to another. I think that this can be arranged between commanding officers and units without setting up an artificial unit which would never go into action as a unit.
  Complaints are made about equipment for home defence units. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said in moving the Second Reading, their primary rôle is to support the police in the maintenance of law and order after a nuclear onslaught, and they will be available, if required, to give aid to the civil power. If there were landings in this country, we should not tell them to go home to

  355
  bed. We should tell them to do something to assist in repelling the landing. But this is not one of their primary rôles. Their primary rôle is to aid the police. As to equipment, they will have one Land Rover per company.
  But hon. Gentlemen should realise what the circumstances in this country would be if we had to bring such forces into operation. It would be in the event of the possible outbreak of a nuclear war in Europe. Hon. Members will realise that one thing that we are not short of in this country is motor vehicles. Indeed, we have 9 million or 10 million of them. Plenty of vehicles will be available to make the home defence units mobile within the 50–60 mile area of the drill hall, which will generally be the area in which we think they would operate. One of the problems will be not the motor vehicles but the petrol with which to run them in that situation. We think that for administrative purposes they need a vehicle. Normally, in the event of such a need, there will be plenty of vehicles available which we can commandeer or requisition in order to make the units operational.
  The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Sir Richard Glyn) urged that we should make it compulsory for volunteers to tell their employers. We have looked into this carefully. We have consulted the T.U.C. and the new Confederation of British Industry. We came to the conclusion that there were many administrative difficulties about this, and that it would in any case be an infringement of the liberty of the individual to insist that he did something of this kind. But, with the number of people who change their employment, rapidly in some parts of the country and in some of our units, it would be almost impossible to keep track of whether they had told their employers that they had this liability. But we hope that individual volunteers—officers and soldiers—will tell their employers of the liability which they have voluntarily accepted.
  I was asked whether our proposals have been discussed with N.A.T.O. We have not discussed them with N.A.T.O., but we informed SACEUR and N.A.T.O. on the morning of 29th July when the announcement was made by my right hon. Friend in the House. We explained what would be done and said that it
  356
  would enable us to meet our commitments much better than with the present organisation of the Territorial Army.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) referred again to his pet hobby horse—putting British soldiers under United Nations control. This is something which can happen with any Army unit. We have them in Cyprus. It could happen with a reserve unit. In my view, if the United Nations is to mean anything, this is probably something which will happen increasingly over the years to come. I do not envisage a great deal of difficulty about it.
  The right hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton and Wolverhampton, South-West referred to the fact that there was no limit on the period for which individuals could be called up. We proposed in the statement made on 29th July—and this was quickly taken up by the Territorial Army associations—to continue the 12 months limit which at present applies to A.E.R.I volunteers. But the Territorial Army associations said that they felt that this would give the impression that we were asking people to undertake in T. & A.V.R.II a greater liability to serve for 12 months than the Ever-readies, who get more money and have a liability to serve for six months. It was on their advice that we proposed to get rid of the 12 months limitation and have no limit at all.
  We have considered this matter in some detail. I am prepared to consider it in Committee if hon. Members think that it would be of advantage. But the advice on which we have acted in making the decision is not to have such a limitation.
  The hon. Member for Dorset, North referred to the fact that there are no details of the reorganisation in the Bill. It is possible, as right hon. Members opposite found out, to reorganise the Territorial Army without having any legislation. They did it without introducing legislation.
  I was asked whether the Territorial Army Reserve of officers would continue. It will continue for the time being under Clause 23(3), but in future new commissions will go as land force commissions so that people, when they give up being active members of the Reserve Army,

  357
  will go on the Regular Army Reserve of officers, in the same way as the holder of a land force commission.
  On recruiting, we are making arrangements to counteract the disappearance of a large number of Territorial Army centres. But there is a converse argument. It can be argued that people who think of joining the Army would not consider it a good thing to see men in battledress- with ·303 rifles driving 15year-old vehicles. There are two sides to this argument, and I should not like to plump in favour of one side or the other.
  The main point which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made was that we should maintain a large citizen army because we could not he sure whether we should not at some time require Territorial Army divisions to train on Salisbury Plain for three months and be taken to France to fight in a Continental war. At present, among the 86 battalions of infantry in the Territorial Army there are not any mobilisation packs available which help them to do that. The vast majority of mobilisation packs are home defence mobilisation packs provided by right hon. and hon. Members opposite and not by the present Government, who have been in office for only a comparatively short time. The vast majority of the 46 regiments of artillery have only 15 per cent. of the radio sets which are required to enable them to operate effectively. There are no radio sets in stock to bring them up to the required percentage in the event of embodiment.
  As I said at the meeting in Taunton, there is this shortage of equipment in the Territorial Army. I did not condemn right hon. and hon. Members opposite for it because we knew that these units would never use that equipment. It is scheduled for home defence. Obviously right hon. and hon. Members opposite did not waste large sums of money in equipping units for a rôle which they knew they would never be asked to undertake. If the right hon.
  358
  Member is serious on this, to equip half the present Territorial Army up to operational standards would cost £189 million and would take many years of productive effort. If it was to mean anything, we should have to double or treble the size of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy to give it support and to make it operational.
  Our proposals will give us the Reserve Army which we need, and I hope that the House will accept them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingy read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

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

  RESERVE FORCES [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).
  [Sir ERIC FLETCHER in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to reserve forces, associations established for the purposes of the Auxiliary Forces Act 1953, the discharge of men of the regular army and air force and the qualifications for appointment as deputy lieutenant, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session; and

  (b) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of such moneys under any other Act.—[Mr. Reynolds.]

  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

  ARMED FORCES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.1 p.m.
  The Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill was given a Second Reading before the General Election. It is a Bill which has to be passed by this House every five years. Since it received a Second Reading a few weeks ago, we have taken the opportunity to make one or two minor alterations.
  Hon. Members will, I think, be aware that the procedure which is normally followed is that when the Bill has been given a Second Reading by the House it goes to a Select Committee, which can go into it in considerable detail, hear witnesses, go through the Clauses and ascertain why specific changes are proposed. The Bill then comes back to the House and goes through its normal Committee, Report and Third Reading stages.
  As the Bill was given a Second Reading shortly before the election, and is basically the same, in view of the late hour and of the procedure which is normally followed and which will be followed with regard to the Bill, I hope that the House will agree to give it a Second Reading tonight and allow it to go to the Select Committee and await discussion on the detailed points until we receive the Select Committee's Report.
  If, on the other hand, any hon. Member wishes to raise points on the Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy is present and will be prepared and willing to answer them.
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Minister of Defence for the Army tells us that the Bill is almost identical to the Bill which was debated at considerable length on Second Reading in the last Parliament. According to my researches, the present Bill differs principally in six lines, which, in the form of the Bill, seem to make neither grammar nor sense. Like everything else, however, that can be dealt with in Committee and I do not propose to raise any debate upon it at this stage.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee.—[Mr. Fitch.]

  LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee—[Mr. Willis]:—
  Question agreed to.
  Bill (deemed to have been read a second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

  RAILWAYS (GRIMSBY-PETERBOROUGH LINE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Tapsell: I am grateful to have an opportunity of raising a question which is causing considerable concern to my constituents in the Horn-castle division—the future of the Grimsby to Peterborough railway line.
  As the House will remember, when the Beeching Report was published in 1963 it recommended among its other proposals the closure of the passenger service between Grimsby Town and Peterborough via Spalding. All the existing railway stations in my constituency would have been closed under these proposals: on the coast, Skegness, Mablethorpe and their branch lines linking them with the main line; and, inland, Alford Town, Willoughby, Burghle-Marsh and Firsby, all on the main Grimsby to Peterborough line.
  If all those six railway stations in the Horncastle division were to be closed, it would have a serious economic effect on the whole region of East Lincolnshire and would cause serious hardship to many of my constituents, great numbers of whom would find themselves 40 or 50 miles from the nearest railway station.
  A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since the Beeching Report was published three years ago. The Grimsby to Peterborough line has not been closed

  361
  to passenger traffic. We are grateful for this. Yet complete uncertainty remains about the Government's intentions and about the intentions of British Rail. That uncertainty is extremely damaging and worrying for all those who live in East Lincolnshire. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to clear up that uncertainty when he replies to my remarks.
  It seems to me that four main considerations arise about the future of the Grimsby to Peterborough line. The first consideration is its profitability. I recognise that this may well be most unsatisfactory, but I would make two comments in passing about profitability. The un-profitability of the line is being exaggerated by a whole series of management decisions which have been taken by the Railways Board in diverting profitable traffic to other lines. The culmination of these administrative decisions was seen when, on 2nd May, all freight traffic was diverted away from the line.
  I am grateful, and I know that my constituents will be grateful as well, for the firm assurance which was given earlier today in another place by the Minister without Portfolio, Lord Champion, replying to a Question, when he said categorically that this series of decisions diverting profitable traffic, including freight traffic, from the Grimsby to Peterborough line is not an attempt by British Rail to establish a case for closure to passenger traffic on the grounds of insufficient profitability.
  My second comment to the Parliamentary Secretary about profitability is to quote to him the apparently inspired article by Mr. Colin Chapman which appeared on the front page of the Sunday Times on 24th April of this year. This read:
  "… the announcement by Mrs. Barbara Castle, the Minister of Transport, on Friday that she will agree to cuts only where they will not conflict with regional planning or cause social or economic damage, will mean the reprieve of a vast amount of the network doomed under the Beeching plan.
  The closures announced yesterday, will be the last which the Ministry will approve unconditionally.
  I understand that Mrs. Castle has made it clear to Mr. Stanley Raymond. Chairman of the British Railways Board, that although some pruning of the systm is still necessary the Ministry will not agree to closures of lines just because they do not meet certain profit margins."
  362
  I very much hope that the Parliamentary Secretary—and I am most grateful to him for coming to reply to this debate—will confirm that this apparently authoritatively written article accurately represents his right hon. Friend's policy in these matters.
  The second main consideration which seems to arise is the question of adequate alternative transport facilities should the railway line be closed. In 1963 we were promised by the then Minister of Transport that no closures would be authorised by him unless adequate alternative transport facilities were available. I assure the Parliamentary Secretary, who may not be personally acquainted with East Lincolnshire, that no adequate alternative transport facilities are available there. This cannot be seriously disputed.
  It would not be an exaggeration to say that we have some of the worst Class I roads in the country in East Lincolnshire. Perhaps I might cite as examples the roads leading to Mablethorpe and Skegness, where a large part of the population of my constituency live and earn their living. These roads are narrow and winding, and during the summer months, in particular, are absolutely choked by cars towing thousands of caravans to the coast and then back to the Midlands and elsewhere. Certainly, in the present state of our roads no one could fairly argue that satisfactory alternative means of transport would exist if this railway line were closed.
  The third main consideration is, I suggest, the general economic effect on the region as a whole which closure of this line would have. Already, East Lincolnshire suffers from seasonal unemployment, earnings well below the national average, insufficient light or heavy industry, and growing depopulation as a result of these factors. All these unsatisfactory trends would undoubtedly be accentuated and made more difficult to overcome if the region lost a link with the main railway system of this country.
  At a time when all political parties are, rightly, giving increasing emphasis to the problem of regional development, the clourse of this line would run wholly contrary to this general policy. It would create a situation where large sums of public money would eventually have to be spent to build up the prosperity of the region again. This at a time when the

  363
  South Humber bank, only a few miles to the north of the region about which I am speaking, has become the most rapidly developing industrial area in the country. Many believe that it can only be a matter of time before an overspill new town will be needed in East Lincolnshire to serve this South Humber area.
  The recent, and perhaps very important, discovery of natural gas, and possibly oil, just off the East Lincolnshire coast, which may have a most dramatic impact on that part of the country in the very near future is also relevant. So I think that I am entitled to ask on behalf of my constituents whether this is really the time to close the region's only link with the main railway system.
  The fourth and final main consideration is the undoubted hardship to individuals which would arise if this railway line were to be closed. I hope that I have said enough to convince the Parliamentary Secretary and, through him, the Minister, that closure, for all the reasons that I have given, would cause hardship to individuals which would be both widespread and serious.
  I started by saying that I hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would clear up the uncertainty about the future of this line from Grimsby to Peterborough, linking up to King's Cross—this line which runs through my constituency but also through the constituencies to the north and south of mine. He will recognise that a decision on a closure is a decision for the Minister herself and for no one else.
  The previous Minister of Transport—the right hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Tom Fraser)—promised a final decision affecting the services as a whole before the end of the summer of 1965. That promise was conveyed in a news release by the Transport Users' Consultative Committee for the East Midlands area dated, 15th February, 1965, a copy of which I have with me. In the final paragraph it said:
  "The Minister made it clear that, as the proposed review would obviously take some time, there could be no final decision affecting the services as a whole before the end of the summer."
  That was last summer and we are still waiting for that final decision affecting the services as a whole.
  364
  I hope that we can get that decision tonight. I do not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to go into great detail, but my constituents would like to have from him his firm announcement on three points: first, that the Minister will not give her permission for the closure of the Grimsby-Peterborough railway line to passenger traffic; secondly, that the branch lines linking Mablethorpe and Skegness to the main line will remain open; and, thirdly, that some, at least, of the railway stations on the main line in the Horncastle division will remain open for passenger traffic.
  10.17 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Morris): I am sorry that I missed the opening words of the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell). I rushed down as soon as I could. I take the opportunity of welcoming him back to the House. We are grateful to him for raising this subject. He asks me a number of specific questions.
  First, however, I ought to clarify exactly where we stand on the whole issue. The Minister is determined at the earliest possible opportunity to stabilise our railway system. She hopes in the course of the summer to publish her White Paper on transport, in which some of the ideas on which she is working as rapidly as she can will be set forth. It would be improper and also impossible for me to anticipate the contents of the White Paper, but everyone, including the hon. Member, will accept what an impossible task the 1962 Transport Act gave to British Rail. It gave it the duty of paying its way with the present financial structure. We have seen the figures as they have come out year by year, appreciating how impossible it has been, even if all the proposals for closure proposed by Dr. Beeching and accepted by the House and by the Government of which the hon. Member was a supporter were carried out—and if I remember rightly he voted for the Beeching proposals and for the 1962 Act—at the end of the day British Rail would still not be able to carry out the obligation imposed upon it by the 1962 Act.
  Mr. Tapsell: The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to my vote at the time. He will agree that we were then

  365
  given an assurance that the Beeching proposal would be made subject to satisfactory alternative methods of transport being available. My whole point is that those alternatives are not available in East Lincolnshire.
  Mr. Morris: I will come to that. My Minister is very mindful of the importance of the duty enjoined upon her by Statute, to ensure that before she agrees to any closure she has to be satisfied that there are sufficient and adequate alternative services. Be that as it may, as at the end of the day, the party opposite agreed to the Beeching proposals. Since I have been in this office I have seen —as did my predecessors—a large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House coming with their proper representations about particular railway lines in their own constituencies. I think that all this shows up the impossibility of the task which was given to British Railways. I think that the country now accepts that it would be impossible to carry out the Beeching philosophy, because it would have meant, at the end of the day—this is what hon. Gentlemen must accept—a railway system for this country of about 8,000 miles.
  This would be impossible to achieve, in view of the representations made by hon. Gentlemen. As regards alternative services, I have indicated that the Minister must ensure that these are available and she will insist upon this before she agrees to any closure. We now have the advice of the Economic Planning Councils. This was not available when the original 1962 Act came into operation. The councils have been set up under the present Administration. Before my Minister decides on any closure, she now has the advice of the planning councils about the future probable use of a particular railway line.
  This is very important. A particular line is not now considered in isolation. Much more than that is done. The railway system in that part of the country is considered as a whole and we have the benefit of the valuable advice of the planning councils before we come to any decision. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this is an important step forward, looking at this non-politically—that we are moving away from the concept of considering one railway line
  366
  towards looking at the needs of a whole area.
  As regards the particular line to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there has been a great deal of speculation in the local press in recent months and I am glad to have the opportunity to tell the House what the present position is, although I am afraid that I cannot at this stage make predictions about the future. I should, first of all, say that the Minister has no locus over the Railways Board's plans for freight services on the line. We understand that some freight depots are being closed and services concentrated at the remainder as part of the Board's freight rationalisation scheme. But it is free to go ahead with such schemes on the basis of its own commercial judgment and, under the 1962 legislation, the Minister has no power to intervene.
  Passenger services, of course, are a different matter. Here again, the Board is free to adjust the timing or the frequency of such services but it cannot close a service altogether without the Minister's consent. Hon. Members closely concerned with this part of the country will know that the Railways Board published its proposal to close the passenger services on this line about two years ago and at the same time published proposals to close two short branch lines running off it to Mablethorpe and Skegness. Some months before, they had also published a proposal to close the passenger service between Lincoln and Firsby. Altogether, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, there were four closure proposals affecting the network of passenger services in East Lincolnshire.
  All these were formally published under Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962, so that the statutory procedure for considering such proposals was set in motion at that time. Under this procedure, as the hon. Gentleman knows, users of these services exercised their right to lodge objections to the area T.U.C.C. He will know also that these area committees are independent bodies appointed specifically to represent the interests of users. Under the Act they are required to consider objections made to closures on hardship grounds and to report their findings to the Minister.

  367
  The East Midland Committee considered objections relating to the Lincoln-Firsby proposal first and reported to the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), on the hardship aspect. He accepted the Committee's view that this proposal was closely linked with the other three and he therefore deferred his decision so that all four proposals could be considered together. In fact, the Committee's report on the Grimsby-Peterborough proposal and the two branch lines was made to the new Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), who, after examining it, came to the conclusion that he could not accept the Board's proposals for East Lincolnshire as they stood. But he recognised that the present services were uneconomic and he thought that it might be possible to withdraw services on some parts of the local network without serious difficulty if proper alternative arrangements were made. He therefore asked the Board to review their proposals on the basis that the withdrawal of the whole of the services which they had proposed for closure was unacceptable at that time.
  Since then the Railways Board have been examining their services and the use made of them in considerable detail. Their problem has been to produce new plans which would achieve some economies and be operationally practicable. A good many miles of line are involved in the East Lincolnshire network and this has necessarily been a long and complicated task. They have not yet completed their revised proposals, but we understand that they hope to do so quite soon now.
  When they are ready the Board will announce these proposals locally so that the people who are most concerned will be properly informed. Users of the services will be able to make representations to the area T.U.C.C. if they wish and the Committee will consider the Board's proposals in the light of these representations and any objections still relevant which were lodged to the original proposals.
  As I have said, the Minister will take the first opportunity of asking the regional economic planning councils concerned for their views on the Board's proposals. She will take these fully into account when considering the future transport
  368
  needs of the area as a whole. The T.U.C.C. will also make a further report to the Minister on any hardship which they may find would be caused. Until we have seen the revised proposals, I cannot say what other particular features will call for special consideration by the Minister. But I can assure the hon. Member that she will study the representations made by hon. Members, including the letter which the hon. Member wrote to her, and local authorities about various aspects of the original proposals with particular care. We know, for example, that a great deal of concern was expressed about the effect of these proposals on the holiday trade at the coastal resorts which were affected and about the employment prospects in the area. These, again, were matters referred to in the hon. Gentleman's letter to us. As I have said, we do not know whether these same factors will arise in connection with the revised proposals, but the Minister will look into the whole question in detail before deciding whether or not to allow the Board to go ahead.
  Mr. Tapsell: Am I to understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is repeating a definite assurance that the Minister will not permit the closure of the passenger services on this line unless and until satisfactory alternative means of communication are provided?
  Mr. Morris: Yes. I can give that categorical assurance that it is the duty of the Minister under the Statute. When she examines all closures she has to be satisfied that there are adequate alternative services. This is a matter for her judgment. Indeed, after the closure has taken place she has the duty placed upon her to consider how the alternative arrangements are working, and in many cases where there are changes—maybe there has been an error in the estimate of the passengers, maybe too many, maybe too few—she can vary the terms of the consent order which was made to the closure. Over the months I have been in this office this has been so. This is the duty imposed upon her. I would go further and say that she has asked me to pay particular attention to the working of alternative services. We look with some care at the whole issue of the adequacy of alternative services whenever a proposal comes to my right hon. Friend for decision.

  369
  As I have explained, that is not the end of the matter. This is constantly under her observation and my right hon. Friend has the power to vary any consent order she might have made. I regret that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any further details at this stage. He will understand the position. I am grateful to him for making the representations he has so quickly after his re-election, and I am sure that his constituents will be grateful to him.
  We are at present awaiting the Board's revised proposals. When these have been completed and considered by all concerned—and we must, as I indicated, allow full opportunity for all concerned in the area to ventilate their views—they will eventually be submitted to the Minister. I cannot at this point give any indication to the hon. Gentleman about the future of this line or the others associated with it.
  Although a great deal of time has passed on this issue, I am sure he will agree that it is important that all the railway lines concerned should be examined together. It is important that these proposals—the original ones and whatever revised ones come from the Board—should be considered together and not in isolation. In this way the views of the economic planning council and the whole matter can go as a whole to my right hon. Friend. I am confident that a far better picture of the whole of the transport services in the area will be obtained if that attitude is taken, rather than looking at the subject piecemeal.
  I regret that I cannot give further details to the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that I will keep him informed and be in touch at the first possible opportunity. I am sure that he will be making further representations when the revised proposals come from the Board. I am grateful to him for raising this matter tonight.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: In the two minutes that remain I must, though it is deprecated by the Chair, raise a matter relating to education in Bristol. I have not given notice that I would do this but the hon. Member for Newark (Mr.
  370
  Bishop) who knows all about Bristol, is here on the bench—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Speaker has deprecated the raising of matters without the Minister being present. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
  Mr. Cooke: Yes. I do so. I do this because it is the only way I can raise this matter. The Labour Party in Bristol has withdrawn all support from the direct grant schools in the city and has made the allegation that this will not make any difference to the number of free places available in these schools. This is a damned lie. [Interruption.] At three of the direct grant schools—
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: On a point of order. Is that type of language in order in the absence of the hon. Members concerned?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it is in order.
  Mr. Cooke: If I may continue, this is a lie, because at three of the direct grant schools—
  Mr. John Morris rose—
  Mr. Cooke: I will not give way.
  Mr. John Morris: On a point of order. I am concerned about this. Has the hon. Gentleman given notice, in accordance with the custom and courtesy of the House, to a Minister as regards the matters which he is now raising with the purpose of ensuring that someone would be here, representing the Government, to answer any points he may make in the course of his statement?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TECHNOLOGY
  Power Stations (Construction Time)
  Power Stations (Construction Time)
  Computer Technology and Application
  Computer Technology and Application
  Departmental Organisation (Chart)
  Departmental Organisation (Chart)
  Ford Motor Company
  Ford Motor Company
  Departmental Regional Staffs (Consultation)
  Departmental Regional Staffs (Consultation)
  Automation (Studies)
  Automation (Studies)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation (Research)
  Taxation (Research)
  Income Tax (Professional Advisers' Charges)
  Income Tax (Professional Advisers' Charges)
  Building and Roadmaking Industries (Sub-Contractors)
  Building and Roadmaking Industries (Sub-Contractors)
  Penny Pieces (Value of Copper Content)
  Penny Pieces (Value of Copper Content)
  Betting Duties
  Betting Duties
  Gratuities (Tax Liability)
  Gratuities (Tax Liability)
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Estate Duty (Dollar Assets)
  Estate Duty (Dollar Assets)
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Hotel and Restaurant Industry
  Hotel and Restaurant Industry
  Investments (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa)
  Investments (Australia, New Zealand and South Africa)
  Temporary Import Charge (Abolition)
  Temporary Import Charge (Abolition)
  Finance Bill (Publication)
  Finance Bill (Publication)
  Computers (Government Departments)
  Computers (Government Departments)
  Import Duty (Safety Matches)
  Import Duty (Safety Matches)
HOUSING
  Tenanted Property (Powers of Local Authorities)
  Tenanted Property (Powers of Local Authorities)
  Town Expansion Areas (Council Loans)
  Town Expansion Areas (Council Loans)
  Council House Rents (Control of Local Authorities)
  Council House Rents (Control of Local Authorities)
  Rent Act, 1965 (Essex Registration Area)
  Rent Act, 1965 (Essex Registration Area)
  Building Starts (1965 and 1964)
  Building Starts (1965 and 1964)
  Rent Officer, Carlisle and Cumberland Areas
  Rent Officer, Carlisle and Cumberland Areas
  Slum Clearance Orders, South Kilburn
  Slum Clearance Orders, South Kilburn
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Coast Protection Act 1949 (Grants)
  Coast Protection Act 1949 (Grants)
  Rate Poundages (Average Increase)
  Rate Poundages (Average Increase)
  Royal Commission
  Royal Commission
  Rating Act 1965 (Manchester Ratepayers)
  Rating Act 1965 (Manchester Ratepayers)
RHODESIA
  B.B.C. Programmes (Jamming)
  B.B.C. Programmes (Jamming)
AFRICA
  Commonwealth Countries (Famine Relief)
  Commonwealth Countries (Famine Relief)
ELECTRICITY
  Surplus Supplies (Storage)
  Surplus Supplies (Storage)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Steel Industry (Management)
  Steel Industry (Management)
  Power Stations (Capital and Generating Costs)
  Power Stations (Capital and Generating Costs)
  North Sea Drilling Operations
  North Sea Drilling Operations
COAL
  Domestic Coke (Price)
  Domestic Coke (Price)
  Distribution Costs
  Distribution Costs
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Cybernetics
  Cybernetics
BOARD OF TRADE
  Finished Manufactures (Imports)
  Finished Manufactures (Imports)
LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
  Water Supplies (Nationalisation)
  Water Supplies (Nationalisation)
ROADS
  One-way System (Sleaford)
  One-way System (Sleaford)
TRANSPORT
  Transport Holding Company (Acquisitions)
  Transport Holding Company (Acquisitions)
  Motor Vehicles (Reflectorised Number Plates)
  Motor Vehicles (Reflectorised Number Plates)
  Three-Wheeled Invalid Carriages (Driving Tests)
  Three-Wheeled Invalid Carriages (Driving Tests)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Fumes)
  Motor Vehicles (Exhaust Fumes)
RAILWAYS
  Great Central Line (Closure)
  Great Central Line (Closure)
  British Railways Board (Structure)
  British Railways Board (Structure)
  Intermediate Stations (Closures)
  Intermediate Stations (Closures)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  R.A.F. Airfields, North Lincolnshire
  R.A.F. Airfields, North Lincolnshire
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SPECIALIST COMMITTEES)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SPECIALIST COMMITTEES)
  THE PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  THE PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PROPOSED SEAMEN'S STRIKE (ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES)
  PROPOSED SEAMEN'S STRIKE (ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  DRUGS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  DRUGS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE) COMPENSATION ACT 1965
  HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE) COMPENSATION ACT 1965
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Middle Schools
  Middle Schools
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Vietnam (R.A.F. Beverley Aircraft)
  Vietnam (R.A.F. Beverley Aircraft)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Service Industries (Disabled Persons)
  Service Industries (Disabled Persons)
  Non-Craftsmen Operatives (Training Cost)
  Non-Craftsmen Operatives (Training Cost)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Pinewood Hospital, Wokingham
  Pinewood Hospital, Wokingham
  Police Force, Cleveland
  Police Force, Cleveland
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  S.T.D. and Prepayment Call Offices
  S.T.D. and Prepayment Call Offices
SCOTLAND
  Agricultural Lime
  Agricultural Lime
  Agricultural Industry (Selective Employment Tax)
  Agricultural Industry (Selective Employment Tax)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter
The Lord Layton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL
2.38 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the authorities concerned are proceeding with plans for an underground access to the West London Air Terminal from Gloucester Road Tube station.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, not at present. The possibility of more radical improvements to transport facilities between Heathrow Airport and Central London is being studied in the Transport Co-ordinating Council for London. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is asking them to look also at the noble Lord's suggestion.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful reply. But would not the Government agree that, with the high traffic density at peak hours in the Cromwell Road, the Underground is the only reliable way of making a quick passage to the air terminal, besides being the most economical? If that is so, would the noble Lord endeavour to expedite the improvement of the conditions as they are to-day?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I imagine it is the recognition of the facts which the noble Lord has given to the
550
House that has caused the Minister of Transport to ask the Co-ordinating Council to look at the matter. I think all of us who use that route must realise the difficulties the noble Lord has mentioned.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why, since Underground trains pass right under the main building at the West London Air Terminal, consideration was not given to providing platforms there and having certain Underground trains stop there?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, there are all sorts of considerations which come in here—financial reasons, quite clearly. All these will have to be looked at by the Council concerned, and eventually, perhaps, by the Minister.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that this question was under very careful consideration when I was a junior Minister ten years ago and had to reply to a debate on this very subject?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am also aware of the fact that the Government of the day, because of financial reasons, which I imagine still exist, did not go on with this proposal.

IRISH SALMON DISEASE
2.42 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: 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 a satisfactory diagnosis has yet been made of the disease now affecting large numbers of salmon entering certain rivers in the South of Ireland; whether this disease is in any way infectious, and if so, whether any steps are being taken to prevent it from spreading into rivers in Great Britain.]
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the disease is bacterial in character and is therefore likely to be infectious, but the specific bacteria responsible has not yet been identified. The authorities of the Republic of Ireland have arranged for all affected fish to be destroyed, and have introduced a systematic inspection of the

551
premises of all licensed dealers exporting fish. Exports by persons other than licensed dealers are not permitted.
The importation of live salmon and trout into Great Britain is prohibited by the Diseases of Fish Act 1937, and no licences are being issued for the importation of live freshwater fish of other species, or of eggs of any species. These measures should effectively prevent the transmission of the disease to this country through imports of fish or their eggs. The possibility of its transmission by natural means cannot, however, be ruled out, and river authorities have therefore been informed of the symptoms so that any appearance of it in this country will be immediately reported.
My right honourable friend is watching the situation closely and keeping in touch with the Irish authorities.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the salmon get this disease when they are still in the sea, or only after they have entered fresh water?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the scientists who have been looking into this question cannot be absolutely sure, but their examination of fish at the estuaries tend to make them think—and I must be careful here—that it is a disease which they contract in fresh water and not in sea water.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, since an outbreak of this disease is absolutely devastating where it occurs, and ruins a river, will the Minister consider applying to the subject the same strict rules as are applied in the case of foot-and-mouth disease and other animal diseases, in order to avoid the possibility of English, Welsh or Scottish rivers being contaminated?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, so far as is humanly possible, this is being done. The Irish Republic, of course, are very worried about this problem because their trade to this country is nearly £1 million a year. In order to prevent diseased fish from being exported from there to here, they have increased their inspectorate by some 35 additional inspectors. But, as in the case of foot-and-mouth disease, we cannot be sure that we can stop it from
552
coming in on birds' feet or in some such way; but that is by natural means.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Yes; but we ban the entry of animals, do we not, when there is a threat?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, of course the fish imported are dead fish which have been carefully inspected. Those concerned feel reasonably sure that this should provide an adequate control.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government this. Is it not a fact that there is overwhelming evidence that this disease is known as columnaris, and that is has been known as such in the Republic of Ireland since the autumn of 1964? Further—and I fear this is not a question —there is overwhelming evidence that it is spread in the estuaries and rivers and not in fresh water. Should Her Majesty's Government wish for evidence of this kind, I shall be quite happy to supply them with it.
LORD CHAMPION: I am not sure that that was a question, but certainly it contained a lot of information which we shall consider. The question as to whether it is columnaris is, of course, one which is being investigated. The scientists are not quite sure that it is, but it appears to be closely related.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that question, would the Government take steps to ensure that progress reports on the investigation of the disease are made public, through the technical angling papers and the fish industry's papers in this country?
LORD CHAMPION: Well, my Lords, I will of course bring the noble Lord's point to the attention of my right honourable friend. That is all I can do at the moment.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government like the evidence, which I have at my disposal, that this disease is spread in estuaries?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are concerned about any information that can be given in this matter and of course we shall be happy to receive it.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any

553
truth in the statement I saw in the Press the other day, that salmon now entering at any rate the Blackwater River are less diseased than they were a month or two ago?
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords. I should not like to apply it to a particular river, but the disease does seem to have a peak and then a trough. I think that in the river mentioned by the noble Lord we have now reached a trough.

RAIL FREIGHT TRAFFIC: GRIMSBY-PETER BOROUGH
2.47 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: 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 from May 2 British Railways are diverting freight traffic away from the Grimsby—Peterborough line; and, if so, why.]
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, decisions to reorganise freight traffic are matters for the Railways Board. If the noble Lord cares to address his inquiries to them, I am sure they will be able to explain changes in freight facilities and the reasons behind them.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware that this failure to give more information will feed the rumours which are circulating in the district, that this movement of freight traffic away from this railway line is designed only to increase the loss in order to strengthen the case for closing it by British Railways?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, on the first point of the noble Lord, there has under Statute to be advance notice, and this was given in the appropriate newspapers, The Times and the Daily Telegraph on April 1, 1966. The second point is one to which I cannot really give a reply, but I would hope that no Railways Board would act in such a manner suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is it a fact that the Minister of Transport has so far refused leave to close this railway?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, that is a separate point. But up to now of course if a closure affects passenger transport the Minister has power to intervene; but the Minister has no such power in relation to freight, as I suggested in my original reply.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that his last answer is going to deepen the suspicion locally that the one act which the railway can take to increase the loss on this line seems to be about to be taken.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I cannot answer for the suspicion locally, and I hope that no Board would act in the way suggested by the noble Lord.

RACE RELATIONS
2.50 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the activities of the Race Relations Board.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Race Relations Board, which came into being on February 17, have been giving close attention to the duty imposed on them by the Race Relations Act 1965 to set up local conciliation committees for the consideration and investigation of complaints of racial discrimination in contravention of the Act. They have provisionally decided that some 14 or 15 of these committees should be established to cover the whole of Great Britain, and they are now considering the appointment of suitable persons to serve on them. They hope to appoint the first committee, which will be for the Greater London Area, in the course of the next few weeks.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while I express appreciation of what is being done in the establishment of conciliation committees, is it not now becoming clear from experience that the powers of the Race Relations Board should be extended to employment, promotion, housing and credit? May I ask

555
the Minister whether he would consider doing three things? First, to follow the example of the Federal Government of America in insisting that in all Government contracts there should be no discrimination on the grounds of race or colour; secondly, to encourage local authorities to do the same; and, thirdly, to follow the American example of a joint declaration by employers and trade unions against discrimination in industry?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with regard to the first part of my noble friend's question, I do not think that it can be argued that at this very early stage there is any real evidence that there is need for further legislation. Up to a few days ago there had been just four complaints for consideration by the Race Relations Board. Since then there have been six more from C.A.R.D., five of which are outside the terms of reference and one of which is doubtful. My right honourable friend is certainly watching the matter very closely, and he has not ruled out the possibility that some amendments to the Act may prove necessary. But he wishes first of all to see how the Act works and to get experience of it.
With regard to the three points that my noble friend put to me afterwards, on the first two, regarding colour discrimination in the award of contracts by central or local government, I should have thought, on first hearing, that the question of such discrimination is quite inconceivable. But we will consider the matter and also his suggestion for a joint declaration, which might have some value, but which, again, I should have thought was unnecessary.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that reply, may I ask my noble friend whether he will give particular attention to the school leavers? Coloured children are now passing out of school, and there is evidence both from the Manchester youth officers and from North Kensington that they are finding it very difficult to get opportunities of employment commensurate with their competence both in English and in education. I wonder whether he would look at this matter?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I will most certainly look at it, but, again as
556
my noble friend must be aware, it does not appear to arise directly out of a question related to the Race Relations Board, nor indeed to their responsibilities. It is a matter of considerable importance which my Department and particularly my honourable friend, Mr. Maurice Foley, are looking at very keenly, and I will let him know the noble Lord's views.
LORD BROCKWAY: I thank the noble Lord very much.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in view of the first supplementary question by the noble Lord, can the Government say whether they think the United States have been more successful than this country in dealing with the problem?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord would not expect me to express an opinion on that question.

THREATENED SEAMEN'S STRIKE
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:—
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the situation with regard to the proposed shipping strike?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope that it will be convenient to the noble Lord and to the House if my noble friend Lord Champion gives the answer to that Question at about 3.30.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I have permission to raise one question before we start on to-day's Business? To-day a Government Bill is down for Second Reading and we are then to have the Second Reading debate on two further Bills, on one of which there are ten or eleven speakers, and on the other—which is an important Bill on which feelings run strongly—no fewer than twelve speakers. I raise this with the Leader of the House, to whom I have not, I regret to say, given notice, but it seems to me that neither here nor in another place would it be in accord with the general wishes of Members that two such Bills should be taken on the same day.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: The second of the two Bills, on which there are twelve speakers, is bound, whatever noble Lords' views may be, to provoke an acute debate. It will mean that the Division is taken very late indeed and will, I submit, not be representative of the feelings of the House because other noble Lords beyond those who are down to speak have many engagements, public and private. I submit that it is trying the House too far to ask that both these Bills should be taken to-day. May I suggest that some other course might have been followed—a Monday Sitting, or one of the Bills might have been considered on a day when Business was lighter. It is not for me to say when such occasion would arise, but I do say to the Government—and I trust that I voice the views of many noble Lords in this House: please reconsider to-day's Business and do not take the second Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, as the noble Lord was good enough to say, he has not given me even five minutes', or indeed five seconds', notice of this matter before raising it. He and I are old friends, and he will not mind my reproaching him for not giving me any notice, but I cannot see why he could not have brought the matter up earlier.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I must, of course, apologise to the noble Earl, as I do gladly, but, like other noble Lords, I have a good many things to think of, and this occurred to me only when I saw the list of speakers and realised that the House would be placed in an intolerable situation. Therefore, while I apologise to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for not giving him notice, I make no apology for raising this subject.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has just said about myself, but I have been in touch with the Chief Whip and I thoroughly endorse the action he has taken, and indeed I take full responsibility. I should make it plain that this Business has been on the Order Paper for about ten days. There has been plenty of opportunity for
558
anyone who did not like the procedure to raise it, and I cannot help feeling that something which was arranged through the usual channels was implicitly endorsed by the House in advance, as nobody raised it. As always, we are in the hands of the House and there is no question of the position being different from that, but I should have thought that we had taken all the proper steps. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not feel that this is a criticism which should be pressed.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should say that this procedure was agreed through the usual channels, as all the Business in this House is. I think it would also be true to say, and certainly it was my understanding, that the debates on these two Bills were expected to be rather short, because we have been through them both before. But it so happens that we are to-day faced with a very long list of speakers on both Bills, and I must say that this comes as something of a surprise to me. I had no idea that the House would want to go through these two Bills again in such detail, and, that being so, I think that the situation has rather altered. It. seems to me that the House is asked to take these two Bills through when there are a large number of speakers and I wonder whether, during the passage of the first and second Bills—that is, the Guyana Independence Bill and the Abortion Bill—there might be discussions among Members of the House about whether or not we could take some other action.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, of course one could not possibly refuse discussions, and therefore, no doubt, they will take place. But I ought to explain that these are not Government Bills. I do not think anybody is under that impression—certainly the Leader of the Opposition is not. These are Bills which have been put down by agreement with their proposers and, obviously, we should have to discuss the matter with them. At any rate, I cede the point that a much larger number of speakers have put their names down than was expected by anybody, and no doubt discussions will take place. But I must emphasise, once again, that as the noble Lord agrees, every possible step was taken in advance by the Chief Whip and others to make sure that the convenience of the House was suited;

559
and I should not like anyone to suppose that for any reason whatever—and there are many cross-currents here—there was a desire to push these Bills through at some awkward time.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as regards the discussions, may I take up what the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has said, and urge that there should not be a Monday sitting for the third Bill. One of the reasons for the long list of speakers to-day is that the Second Reading of the earlier Bill took place on a Monday, and I think the Committee stage was on a Friday morning.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, all these points will be borne in mind.

ROYAL ALBERT HALL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate (with corrections and improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949) the Sea Fisheries Regulation Acts 1888 to 1930 and certain other enactments relating to the sea fisheries of England and Wales. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a, and to be printed.

GUYANA INDEPENDENCE BILL
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second 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 Guyana Independence Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the attainment by British Guiana of fully responsible status as an independent nation. It marks yet another step along the road on which we have been moving with increasing firmness, confidence and speed since the Second World War—a road along which we have led some 750 million people to independent nationhood. I am sure that everyone in the House will welcome, genuinely and sincerely, this new nation of Guyana, as the country will be called from May 26. At the Independence Conference, the British Guiana delegation expressed the wish that on achieving independence Guyana should be accepted as a member country of the Commonwealth. On behalf of the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State willingly undertook to support a formal request for membership, and it is in the belief that Guyana will be accepted into the Commonwealth family that this Bill has been drafted.
It is noteworthy that Guyana will be the first Commonwealth country on the continent of South America. The first British connection with this area dates as far back as the late 16th and early 17th centuries, although it was not until the end of the 18th century that we became directly involved in the affairs of what is now British Guiana; and a Colony of that name was formed only in 1831. There will be many in this House who will have a much more direct and intimate knowledge of the country and its peoples than I have, but I know enough

561
to be able to speak with conviction of the real friendliness of the Guianese people, and the genuine interest and regard which they have for this country and for the British people. Indeed, in many interesting ways it seems to me that some of them have held more tenaciously than we have done to British customs and attitudes, which they have come to know over the last 130 years.
It has been said that to some extent the Colony of British Guiana has suffered from too great a dependence upon one industry, and certainly this factor of a one-crop economy can hit with severity the territories which are in this position. Some efforts have been made to secure diversification, and more must be done. Over the past 100 years the population of the Colony has increased from an estimated 150,000 people to around 640,000 to-day. This can be taken as a mark of the considerable development which has taken place in the economy under British colonial rule, but when one reflects that this also means that a country the size of England and Wales has a population only the size of Manchester, one can see what an enormous potential there is for the future.
I recently had the privilege of meeting Mr. Thomas, the Minister of Economic Development, and it was stimulating, and indeed exciting, to listen to his hopes and plans for the economic development of his country. Especially did he emphasise the opportunities which could be made available in the thinly populated interior, for peoples from Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean area whose population densities are so strikingly higher. There are considerable resources in the area, modern knowledge and techniques have done much to reduce the diseases, such as malaria, which have afflicted these tropical countries, but what is now needed is more capital. Provided that development capital is forthcoming, there is no doubt that an expanding economic future can be assured for this country. I should add that the total aid from the United Kingdom for the year, if Parliament approves, will be about £3 million.
Guyana will move into independence under the leadership of Mr. Forbes Burnham, and there is no doubt that Mr. Burnham and his Coalition Government have made a great impression, both at home and overseas, by the way they have
562
tackled the financial and economic problems with which they have had to deal. Mr. Burnham, like Dr. Jagan, of the People's Progressive Party, is well known to many people in this country. I am sure that we all accept his ability and integrity, and will wish him well in the tasks that lie ahead.
I do not intend on this occasion to dwell upon the less happy aspects of recent years, but we are all aware of the most unfortunate difficulties and disturbances, many of them racial in character, which have marked the last few years of progress to national independence. It is a fact, on which both we and others in the world may well reflect, that in British Guiana, and in so many other territories of the world for which we have had or still have responsibility, a formidable obstacle to the achievement of independence has been not the clash of interest between the territory concerned and the United Kingdom, but the frictions and the antagonisms—although not, I trust, irreconcilable hostilities—between one section or group of peoples within the same territory. We must all regret there has not, as yet, been complete reconciliation in British Guiana between the different racial groups, but violence now is almost completely behind us, and we must hope that it is a phase that is finished for ever.
Clause 1 of this Bill, my Lords, provides for fully responsible status for Guyana from May 26, and it is in accordance with the agreement reached at the Constitutional Conference. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with nationality matters, and follow the normal pattern. By Clause 2, subsection (1), Guyana is added to the Commonwealth countries listed in Section 1, subsection (3), of the British Nationality Act 1948. This will secure that any person who, under a law in force in Guyana, becomes a citizen of Guyana will also, by virtue of that citizenship, possess the status of a British subject or Commonwealth citizen in our own country and under our law in the United Kingdom.
Clause 4 validates certain defective certificates of naturalisation with effect from their dates of issue. This makes valid a number of certificates issued between 1958 and 1963 which we now find were previously technically invalid. Clause 5, together with Schedule 2, deals

563
with the modifications of various United Kingdom enactments consequent upon the grant of independence. They are on the usual lines, except that, at the suggestion of the British Guiana Ministers, certain sections of the Army Act 1955, and the corresponding sections of the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, will continue to apply as if Guyana were a Colony, in order to facilitate the implementation by the Guyana Government of certain undertakings given by them relating to the retention of British troops for a limited period after independence.
Clause 6 provides that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council made before May 26, 1966, provide a Constitution for Guyana to come into effect at that date. It has been agreed that the Independence Constitution should contain provision to enable Guyana to become a Republic, should it so desire, on the passing of a resolution by its National Assembly not earlier than April 1, 1969. But Guyana will enter independence as a Monarchy, and I confirm that Her Majesty has graciously agreed to become the Queen of Guyana on May 26. Clause 7 enables the Order in Council containing the Independence Constitution to provide for the jurisdiction of Her Majesty in Council to hear appeals from Guyana to pass to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, should Guyana become a Republic. Clause 8 contains interpretative provisions, and Clause 9 contains the Short Title.
It only remains for me to say again that we welcome this development in the affairs of a people with whom we have had such close associations. We are happy to think that Guyana is of her own wish applying for membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. We shall be ready and proud to support, in any way in which we are asked, her application to take a place in the United Nations. We look forward to a future for Guyana of economic development and political harmony. My Lords, I am pleased to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Beswick.)
3.15 p.m.
THE EARL. OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must all be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his
564
remarks on the development of British Guiana towards independence within the Commonwealth. We on this side of the House welcome the Bill, which was, of course, foreseen and prepared some time ago by my right honourable friends in another place.
Unlike some of your Lordships, I have never myself visited this most interesting country, although I spent some days in the neighbouring island of Trinidad, which has also achieved independent status within the Commonwealth. But I have read a great deal about the new Guyana in the Press, and, of course, about the regrettable political disturbances there in the past—very serious disturbances indeed. But, fortunately, under the wise Government of the present Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes Burnham, these disturbances, and what one might almost describe as the James Bond atmosphere in the territory, are all, I think, things of the past. I trust that the country will now live in peace and prosperity for many years to come, that her economic development—which, as the noble Lord has said, stems from bauxite, diamonds and gold as well as sugar, rice and bananas—will proceed apace, and that the 1965 record output of rice will be surpassed in coming years.
Much has been said about these racial conflicts which the noble Lord has mentioned and which have led to terrorism and people being detained under preventive detention powers. As I understand it, however, only 13 out of the original 44 now remain in custody, and it is clear that these 13 are not held for political reasons but for their acts of violence. I think it must be remembered that virtually all the other Commonwealth countries that have achieved independence in recent years have unfortunately had to retain such powers in order to maintain internal law and order. As your Lordships know, an independent tribunal of inquiry, comprising three non-political and, I know, just and sincere men, has been set up, and I hope that more of the prisoners will make use of this impartial body. In any event, I do not think that by delaying independence we shall assist in getting these men released. I am rather inclined to the view that they will achieve their freedom more rapidly when independence has been granted on May 26.

565
In regard to the stationing of British troops, which the noble Lord mentioned, am I not right in thinking that they will remain there until at least October of this year, by which time the Guyana defence forces should be fully trained and able to take over responsibility for internal security? I am glad to see that we have agreed to the secondment of men from Britain during the next few months, perhaps even years, to assist in the training of forces there.
Racial tensions have certainly been reduced, and last year the political and economic climate continued to improve under the Coalition Government of Mr. Forbes Burnham and his People's National Party and Mr. D'Aguiar's United Force Party. We regret, of course, that Dr. Jagan's Progressive People's Party declined to accept the invitation to attend the Conference last November, and we also regret that the present Government there, in the interests of law and order, still has to make use of the emergency powers of detention. But, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, implied—at all events, I am sure he will agree with me on this—we hate these powers of detention; but it must he agreed that they rest not with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom but with the Government of Guyana itself which already has the responsibility for ensuring public safety and order.
Moreover, I do not think it can be seriously contended that the records of these men are other than those of involvement in violence and terrorism. Some, I believe, were trained abroad: some in China, others in Cuba. It would in my view be mad to release all these men unconditionally before independence is granted. Despite the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, the Amendment to the Bill tabled in another place, that the Act should come into operation only on condition that no persons continued to be detained, was emphatically negatived; and I hope that no similar Amendment will be put before your Lordships.
I do not think I have any observations to make on any specific clauses of the Bill. There was a very full discussion on the Second Reading and on the Committee stage in another place. The Bill follows the general pattern of previous
566
Bills granting independence to other territories. I think we must all be glad to learn that Her Majesty has agreed to become Queen of Guyana on Independence Day. I should like to join with your Lordships in congratulating Guyana on the great constitutional advance which will take place later this month and also on that country becoming, as the noble Lord said, the first Commonwealth country on the Continent of South America. I am sure your Lordships would like to congratulate, too, those who played so important a part in achieving this independence, not only the wise Mr. Burnham and Mr. D'Aguiar—I am told that they are both doing splendid jobs—but also successive British Governors, Sir Ralph Grey and Sir Richard Luyten. We all know that Sir Ralph bore the heat and burden of the troubles with amazing courage and endurance, and that Sir Richard has been equally dedicated in discharging his duties. I am sure that we also greatly welcome Sir Lionel Luckhoo as the first High Commissioner-designate for Guyana in Britain. He was, as your Lordships know, recently knighted by Her Majesty on her last visit to Georgetown. Mr. Burnham, I believe, has achieved considerable success in breaking down the strong racial differences. It is no longer correct to regard one Party as representing one race.
I think now, in conclusion, that we should concentrate our efforts on assisting Guyana in her economic development. Geographically, she is the size of Great Britain, yet there are only 60 miles of road in the country. The country certainly has an important economic future. Despite the internal troubles, she has managed to maintain—a remarkable thing to maintain—a favourable balance of payments by keeping her imports well under control. Her mineral wealth is not at present being fully exploited. Although her people have achieved considerable success with the 40 per cent. exports of sugar, it is hoped that with the aid of outside investment they will derive considerable further revenue from their mineral resources. I am glad to learn that a sum, perhaps amounting to some £3 million, will in the present financial year be provided in the form of technical assistance and development loans.

567
My Lords, who knows what limits may be set on their development? It is interesting that French Guiana, now a Department of France, and which lies beyond the Netherlands Guiana and is known as Surinam, may soon become a great international space station so that spacecraft may be placed in equatorial orbit, making it possible, with the same rockets, to put up larger payloads than even those from Cape Kennedy. Who knows what the future has in store for these three territories, the three Guianas? I am sure it is the wish of us all that the Guiana with which we have had such close links will remain for many years to come a happy member of the Commonwealth family and also of the Caribbean Free Trade Area in the creation of which Mr. Forbes Burnham played such an important part. On this side of the House we warmly welcome Guiana's independence.
3.25 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sorry to strike a somewhat discordant note in these harmonious proceedings; but I am not so optimistic about the future of Guyana as either of the previous speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, with his usual realism, gave some of the factors of this country's situation—he mentioned, for example, that it is the size of England and Wales. It is, in fact, the size of England, Wales and Scotland, with a population of 100,000 less than that of the City of Liverpool. In view of the objection and the backpedalling that both the Government and the Opposition have displayed to regionalism in this country—they will not give any sort of self-government to Scotland or Wales or parts of England—it is odd that they are now prepared to hand over to such a country full government, with United Nations membership—and will, moreover, give them £3 million. As a Welshman I only wish that some charity started at home.
As we have heard, the economy of this country is narrowly based on sugar, rice, bauxite and timber. In fact, the population, small as it is, is not scattered over the country, but is concentrated in the capital, Georgetown, and in the narrow coastal belt. The remainder of the country is left to nature and to a few wandering aborigines, of whom we have heard not
568
a word to-day, from either speaker. When a country is given independence, we in this House are usually told a great deal about those who were the original inhabitants; but to-day not a word has been mentioned about them; whether they agree with independence; whether there are any of them left; or in what sort of conditions they will live. We do not know. All the people we are speaking about are either immigrants or the sons or grandsons of immigrants. It is an immigrant community. And no word has been said about the original inhabitants.
I have had a good deal to do with the economic problems of Guiana, and I know the difficulties. That is why I have now done what I have never done before. I have been talking on Independence Bills, either in this House or in another place, ever since the first one in 1947 when I carried the Ceylon Bill through the House of Commons, but I have never previously made a speech like this. I think that the House ought to know the great problems that this country will have to face in the future, with such a small population: such an enormous amount of harness on such a tiny horse. The instability of the country, the fact that it has these two main immigrant communities, either from Africa or from the East Indies, affects the whole of the situation, politically, militarily, socially and economically. We have seen the result of this to-day. So far as I am aware, this is the first time that we as a Parliament have been asked to grant independence and to leave our troops in the country. Why is that? Why are we to leave our troops in the country?
I should like to have from the Government an answer to a question which, so far as I know, has never been put, either here or in another place. To whom are these troops to be responsible? If an officer gives an order to shoot, to what authority will he look, either for his superior order or to protect him in the case of action, civil or criminal? In my young days, when in the Colonies, we used to have a lot of training in operations in aid of the civil Power, in what we used to call "mob fighting". One of the things we were always told was: "Don't give an order to fire, if you can help it; and, if you do, hand in your resignation straight away, for no Government will back you up at home." This is a very serious problem. If British troops are

569
operating in Guyana and it is an independent country, what will be the position of the officer or other rank who takes action? Who will be responsible? Are we in this House, and Members of the other place, Parliament as a whole, to be responsible for British troops?
Another example of this instability is that we know that under the new Constitution which is coming into operation there will be detention without trial. It is an odd thing that a democratic society should put these people off into the brave new world and give them the right to detain people without trial. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, knows that at this moment there are thirteen people in detention who have not been tried. He said—on what authority I do not know—that they are all very bad fellows and ought to be detained. How does the noble Earl know that they are bad fellows, or what offences they have committed? Has he gone through their papers? They have never come to trial. No court has decided what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has decided. We have now the position that a noble Lord on the Opposition Benches can condemn thirteen men unheard. I think that is a very odd situation for this House of Parliament.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I cannot allow the noble Lord to go unite so far as that. I have not condemned any one. The information we have, I am told—no doubt the Minister replying for the Government will say something on this—is that it is quite clear that these men are not there for political reasons, but entirely due to the acts of violence which they committed.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl says that it is due to the acts of violence which they committed. How do we know? What evidence have we got, or has the noble Earl got, that they committed any acts of violence at all? What evidence have we got, or has he got, that these men are there not because of political reasons but as criminals?
This state of affairs seems to me highly unsatisfactory. The noble Earl may be right. I do not know whether he is right; nor does he know. That is the whole point. I guarantee that the noble Earl does not know. He has made statements in this House—and presumably the Government will support him—for which
570
neither he nor they have any authority. The fact is that at this present moment, with the blessing of Her Majesty's Government, thirteen people who have never been tried are detained. We say enough about Rhodesia and South Africa, when the authorities there detain people without trial, but what about this country? Why are we at this moment giving all this power and authority when these people are doing the very thing which we rightly condemn when it is done in Rhodesia and South Africa?
My Lords, I do not like making this speech. I would rather make the sort of speech which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, made, quite frankly—the sort of speech I usually make. But your Lordships know me well enough to know that I always say what I mean, and I feel that it is time we looked at the realities of the situation, instead of passing these pious platitudes on this sort of occasion.
For instance, there are in Guiana 640,000 people, who are poor people: as we have already heard, they will have to provide Embassies all over the world. They will have to provide High Commission offices in London and elsewhere. Their Ambassadors and High Commissioners will float around in Cadillacs and Mercedes cars. Her Majesty's Government will introduce them to the United Nations, and they will need an expensive establishment in New York, as well as an establishment at Washington. Again, they will have to have cars there. Where is the money coming from? Of course, £3 million of it is coming from Her Majesty's Government, but what about the people? It is the people with whom I am concerned. Time after time we have produced these Constitutions and ushered countries off into the brave new world, and we have seen money go into the pockets of the leaders, of the politicians, and the people have been no better off. In fact, to my certain knowledge, and to the knowledge of your Lordships, the gap between poor and rich countries is getting wider the whole time; partly due to the fact that the richer countries are exploiting the poorer countries in so far as they will not pay the proper market price for their raw materials.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble Lord?

571
Have not we given to this country proportional representation, which is the policy of his Party?
LORD OGMORE: Yes, my Lords; a Conservative Government gave them proportional representation, because they said —Mr. Sandys himself said it—that the ordinary British system which they had previously had led to chaos. If that was the Conservative Government's view of the situation, I am surprised that they did not suggest putting proportional representation into operation in this country.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. You have two important measures to consider, or one, at any rate, if we can manage to persuade the Leader of the House to give way on that score. But this is an important question. I feel that we are embarking on a voyage into the unknown. We are pushing these people, or are agreeing to their going sailing off, in their very frail barque, into the unknown; and I think that before we give a Second Reading to the Bill, or at all events before we pass the Bill as a whole, we should realise what are their chances and what are the circumstances of a country which we are now proposing to make a fully paid-up member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
3.36 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate but I have been to British Guiana. I am sorry that Lord Campbell of Eskan is not present to-day. He is a great expert on British Guiana. I had the privilege to he present at the inauguration of the Caribbean Federation by Princess Margaret and I visited British Guiana. The current Constitution was then being operated. There had been troubles, and Sir Patrick Renison, the Governor, had appointed his nominees under the Legislative Chamber at that time.
We know that British Guiana has sugar and bauxite and rice in the Macciviony area, and there is green heart timber which is worked by our Colonial Development Board in the jungle. The difficulty in Guiana which we have to recognise is that around Georgetown there are the blacks, and in the Macciviony area, where the population is vastly increasing, there are the Indians who, in the main, support Dr. Jagan. I wish to
572
say frankly to this House that it will take a long time to get a viable economy in British Guiana, but that is no reason why we should not give them the independence which they have sought for so many years.
In the context of racial strife as I have seen it, I am pleased that Guyana has decided to remain a member of the British Commonwealth. The greatest problem I see—and I support the Bill—is this. While there is no tension now, will that situation continue under independence? The Indian population is increasing fast, and the population ratio of the two races is about 51:49. That is the difficulty we have to face. Years ago there was a split between Dr. Jagan and Forbes Burnham which I remember very well. Forbes Burnham continued in Opposition for many years till we had the last trouble, and then Duncan Sandys brought in a Constitution which they have been operating up to now. I believe that Constitution was greatly responsible for reducing the tension since the last uprising. I disagree with the previous speaker. I think the Government are right to help the new independent State with its Coalition Government, whatever may happen in the future, and to give them a period to consolidate their Government.
Again, in the context of the racial tensions that I have seen, I think the Government have done right in the Act of Independence to say, "While you have independence we will see that the lawful Government is upheld, and help in all ways to reduce the potential trouble that can take place between the Indians and the blacks". It is my honest desire today, knowing the country as I do, that our every endeavour within the Commonwealth should be to help to break down this terrible tension that has occurred between the Indians and the blacks in British Guiana, and to get a geophysical survey of the whole country, with its diamonds and gold by the Kausher Falls up the River Potaro, its bauxite, its sugar and bananas. Small as the population may be, I believe that there can be a future for them if we can get them living together harmoniously.
3.41 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, and my noble friend Lord Blyton for the welcome they have given

573
to this Bill. I am sorry I cannot equally thank my noble friend (if I may still call him my noble friend) Lord Ogmore. Knowing his great interest in the Colonies, I expected him to take part in this debate, but I was not expecting him to take the sort of line he did. I must tell him that all three Parties in British Guiana want independence. Who are we to say that they should not have independence? Since when has the great Liberal Party been against the granting of independence to these colonial territories? Is the noble Lord prepared to stomp the country and say that he is no longer in favour of independence for these people? One reason that he seemed to have against their being given independence was the fact that the majority of the people in British Guiana are immigrants. So are the majority of people in Wales immigrants. I do not think he can seriously hold that against them.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, my noble friend (if I may call him that) has rather misconstrued what I said, no doubt owing to my lack of putting it clearly. What I meant was that I do not see how one can really call it independence when the Government has to be supported by British troops, and has to have a provision in the Constitution which enables them to detain people in custody without trial. If those two points are present I do not think you can call it real independence, quite apart from the fact of viability.
LORD BESWICK: I propose to come to the point about the British troops in a moment. As I understood the case which the noble Lord was making to the House, it was that British Guiana was unfitted to be independent by virtue of its size. It is a small country. The noble Lord rather derided it on that account and the fact that the majority of the people there are not indigenous people, or, at any rate, their connection with the country did not go back over infinity.
The 28,000 Amerindians are a separate people. They can, I suppose, claim that it is their country, in the same way that the Indians in the United States can claim that the United States is their country. Special provision will be made in the new Constitution for this separate group, and I understand that their welfare will be
574
I protected in the new Constitution. I do not think that because they have these emergency powers, on that account alone we should deny them independence. There are many countries in the world today, unhappily, which have emergency powers. If all the countries in which there are now people held without due process of trial were to be denied independence, the membership of the United Nations would be considerably smaller than it is at the present time.
In this particular case we did have a most unhappy period. There were racial tensions, to which the noble Lord referred; there were something like 200 people whose lives were lost, and about 1,000 houses which were destroyed. During that period it was, I think, difficult to bring anyone to trial; it was difficult to get witnesses to come forward. There was a good deal of terrorism. There was a period when the ordinary processes of law could not be maintained. But I think the record shows that the action which was taken under the Emergency Regulations has yielded results. The terrorism has been overcome; the violence, as I said earlier, is now behind us. Although at one time there were 41 people held under the Emergency Regulations, the number is now 13, and I hope that by May 26 it may be even less. The Prime Minister, Mr. Forbes Burnham, has said publically that it is not his intention after independence to use these Emergency Powers. He does intend to introduce fresh and more liberal legislation, and I think the undertakings he has given in this regard ought to commend themselves to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
The noble Lord raised a particular point, which I think is most interesting, about the presence of British troops in Guiana. It is significant that this same point has not been raised in earlier discussions in another place. But I think I can give the noble Lord some reassurance on this point. The troops are there at the request of the British Guiana Government, and they are there for a limited period. It is intended that, with the exception of a few officers, they will be withdrawn in October of this year. They are there for the purpose of assisting in the training of local defence forces. I f they were required for any other purpose than this training then the order would come not from the British Guiana or the Guyanese Government, as the noble Lord

575
suggests, but through the High Commissioner, who would not issue an order without the express consent of Her Majesty's Government here. I should have thought that the position was perfectly well covered so far as this is concerned.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the position of the High Commissioner is really an ambassadorial one. He is the representative of the British Government in a diplomatic sense. Is it right to give him the authority and the serious responsibility of ordering troops out at the request of Mr. Forbes Burnham?
LORD BESWICK: I thought I had made the position clear. It is not intended that he will order British troops out. I am saying that the agreement is that these troops will be there for the purpose of assisting in the training of local defence forces. If the question arises—we hope that it will not, and we have no reason to think it will—that the use of these troops is required for any other purpose, then consent would have to be given by Her Majesty's Government in this country. That consent would be given not through the Government of Guyana, but through the High Commissioner. So the British troops, I should have thought, would know perfectly well what their position was.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, would a request for the use of the troops have to be made by the Government of Guyana? I do not think that is quite clear.
LORD BESWICK: We are dealing with a hypothetical situation. I have no reason to believe that this request will be made, but if the matter did arise there would be a request, presumably from the Guyana Government; but that request would have to come to Her Majesty's Government here, and any orders for the operational use of British troops would have to be channelled through the High Commissioner in Georgetown. As I have said, I think this will cover the doubts which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
I would just add, in conclusion, how much I agree with the words of con-
576
gratulation used by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I think we are indebted to all those who have come together to make this development possible, both British and Guianese. With his words of congratulation and appreciation, I think we might well spare a moment to consider all those in the Colonial Service who have given their lives in previous years and in the previous century, and who have helped to establish this nation and make possible the conditions in which I move the Second Reading of this Bill to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THREATENED SEAMEN'S STRIKE
3.50 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if I now answer the Private Notice Question which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked at the beginning of Business. If I may, I will use the same words as my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour:
"I have seen representatives of the Shipping Federation this afternoon and I shall be seeing the Executive of the National Union of Seamen to-morrow. In this situation I would prefer to say nothing more."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for having repeated the Minister's Answer. In view of the delicacy of the situation and the importance of the issue to the nation, I, for my part, should not like to say anything which might in any way prove to be untimely or harmful. All I would ask the noble Lord is whether he would be so good as to keep the House informed of any developments, favourable or unfavourable?—and, of course, we all hope they will be favourable.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his understanding approach to my somewhat limited Answer. We will certainly endeavour to keep the House informed of anything which we think it would be of advantage to the House to know.

ABORTION BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The terms of the Bill are identical with the terms of the previous Bill which was passed by this House at the end of the last Session of Parliament, on March 7. In these circumstances, I do not propose to go through the Bill in the usual way and deal with all the clauses. As your Lordships will remember, there was a very full discussion on the Bill which lasted over seven full days, and I think every aspect of it was threshed out, some might say almost ad nauseam. At any rate, there can be no excuse to-day for anyone who took any interest in the Bill not knowing what the terms of it are.
During the seven days it was under discussion, it had rather a chequered career, and the Bill which was finally passed by your Lordships was very different from the amateurish one—I freely admit that—which I originally introduced. Since introducing the original Bill, I have had the advantage of hearing the views of noble Lords in this House, and I have had the benefit of the services of Parliamentary draftsmen, which I had not at the outset, who put forward in proper form the revised ideas as they came through this House. As I have said, this Bill is exactly, word for word, with all faults, in the terms of the Bill which passed your Lordships' House on March 7. As your Lordships will know, although it passed through this House, it did not go to another place. It therefore fell with the end of Parliament, and it became necessary to introduce this Bill afresh, and that is what I am now doing.
At this stage I do not propose to deal with the details of the Bill, or even the merits of it, though I would say this. The issue before your Lordships is not whether abortion should or should not be permissible. It is already being carried out on a large scale, legitimately, as most would say, although there is an element of doubt. Since the Bourne Judgment, some twenty years ago, it has been regarded as permissible to carry out abortion where the life of the mother is involved, or where there is danger to her
578
health, physical or mental. A large number of abortions are to-day being carried out, quite safely and properly carried out, in pursuance of that judgment. But there are also a very large number of illegal abortions. I am not sure whether or not they are more numerous than the legal abortions. I myself estimated that there were something like 100,000 illegal abortions carried out every year. Sonic may say that that figure is too high. I saw recently an article by Professor Goodhart, who thinks that that is a gross exaggeration. On the other hand, a gentleman has recently written a book in which he thinks I am understating the number, and his view is that it is more like 200,000.
Whatever the facts may be—and there is some evidence for the figure of 100,000 that I have put forward, although I do not propose to pursue it—a very large number of illegal abortions are being carried out to-day. It is comprised partly of pregnant women who have the means and are able to go to Harley Street, or to a corresponding place in other provincial cities, and get an abortion in what I might call quasi-legal form. They go through all the motions, they get their abortion, and all is well. Those who cannot afford that are still able, if they know their way around, to go to the back streets and get an abortion, from a totally unqualified person, for a very much smaller sum. But in the aggregate this defiance of the law goes on to a considerable extent, and it is, in my view, most undesirable and dangerous to the life and health of the pregnant mother that this should take place.
There is only one other thing I should like to say about the Bill itself. From the enormous correspondence which I have had since I first began to take an interest in this matter—running into several thousand letters—it would seem that the vast majority of women who are concerned with this are not, as I might have expected originally, single women, but married women, of an age approaching forty or more, with a number of children, who have become pregnant again, very often unexpectedly, and who for one reason or another find themselves unable to cope with an additional child at that age. Some of them are women whose families have grown up and have children of their own. There is a feeling almost of

579
humiliation in such a woman who has to give birth to a child, when she has grandchildren who will be older than the child she is bearing. Those are some of the facts we have to face, and these are the prospective clients for abortion. As I say, if they can afford it, or they know their way around, they can get an abortion through a doctor. If they do not, they go to the back streets. But, in my view, there are something like 100,000 women a year actually getting an abortion.
I have said that this Bill is word for word the Bill which passed its final stages on the 7th March. But I do not want to mislead the House: there are one or two Amendments I shall certainly wish to put forward for the consideration of the House at the later stages. The first is one which has aroused a good deal of controversy. It was first passed by the Committee and at a later stage was rejected by the Committee. Looking through the personnel who voted, I find there was a big change in those who voted in the two Divisions. But, be that as it may, I feel that the House ought to have, with this Bill, another opportunity of expressing its views on the difficult question of what I call the inadequacy of the mother. It may be that I did not formulate this provision as happily as I might have done. I have given much more thought to it now. It is a difficult conception to put into an Act of Parliament, but what I am groping for, and I hope I shall eventually reach something which will be acceptable, is the case of the prospective mother who really is unable to cope with having a child, or another child, whether she has too many already or whether, for physical or other reasons, she cannot cope, but about whom it cannot be said that her life would be endangered or that there would be serious injury to her health. That is the kind of person I want to cater for, and I should like to inform the House that in the course of the Committee stage I will put down an Amendment in an effort to give the House an opportunity of considering it once more.
There is one other, less important, point. The House may remember that in the final stages of the Bill I accepted an Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, widening the definition of a defective. Originally the defec-
580
tive was the abnormal defective; a very high-grade defective. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, was anxious to widen the definition so as to cover particular distinctions in the Mental Health Act, I accepted that, but I warned him that I might have to think about it again. It might be that on consideration I should find that to try to cover all defectives was going a bit far. I have not yet concluded my inquiries into this question, but it may be that I shall put down an Amendment on that point in order to narrow the definition of a mental defective. May I say, in passing, that we have all heard with deep regret of the serious illness of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who will not be here to vote, although he did look in for a moment. He is on his way to convalescence and I am sure we all wish him well. I miss him as a good friend to this Bill.
I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, preferably without a Division. We may all have our ideas as to what we want to do eventually, but I am sure the vast majority of your Lordships will once more accept the principle of taking some step to deal with the law on abortion: first, with the object of clarifying the law; secondly, with the object of a reasonable extension of the cases where abortion is possible; and thirdly, and in my view by far the most important, in the name of compassion for the large number of women who are going through a most harassing and agonising time and for whom I hope this Bill will give a measure of relief. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Silkin)
4.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill on this occasion, said he thought every issue had been threshed out. I would say to him that if ever there was one issue on this Bill which had been thoroughly threshed out it was the question of whether special provision should be made for the mother whom we define as "inadequate". I will not deal with the argument now. If the noble Lord is going to table an Amendment to make us consider the issue again I will deal with it on that occasion, but I am sure your Lordships are aware that if a mother was inadequate in the

581
sense described by the noble Lord, if a mother really could not cope with another child, then another child would be likely seriously to affect her mental or physical health; and such a case would be covered under paragraph (a) of Clause 1 (1).
I do not intend to deal with that kind of point today. It is, I think, the fact, that even if we pass this Bill it will not follow that illegal operations cease to take place —the "back-street abortions" to which the noble Lord referred. The precise number of these abortions in the course of a year is anybody's guess. I do not think there are any grounds for assessing the number at the figure given by the noble Lord, or indeed at any higher or any lower figure. I am sure we should all like to see those abortions, with all the risks entailed, put to an end, but I think we shall be deluding ourselves if we believe we shall do that by passing this measure.
I am in favour of a Bill on this subject and in favour of giving this Bill a Second Reading, but I am very disappointed by this second—or I am not sure whether it should not be called the third or fourth—edition of the noble Lord's measure. I hoped the noble Lord would have amended it in some respects to meet the points made in the debate, or that at least in the course of his speech he would have said that he was proposing to do so during the Committee stage of this Bill.
When the noble Lord moved the Second Reading of this Bill on a previous occasion he put in the forefront of his argument (it was not, of course, his only argument) the need to make the law clear and certain. That is a desirable objective and one which I support. At the present time what is taken to be the law permitting abortions depends on directions given by judges to juries in criminal cases. I doubt whether the full extent of what is now permitted is sufficiently realised, but there are some, I believe, who feel considerable doubt about how far the law permits them to go. I think there is a strong case for putting in a Statute what the law is and what we think the law should be, giving clear guidance as to the circumstances in which abortion is lawful and as to the conditions which have to be complied with.
I think it followed from the noble Lord's argument that Statute Law should
582
replace the Case Law. In my opinion it certainly should, but this Bill does not provide for that. If this Bill is passed in its present form, Case Law will still also apply and there will be two different codes for lawful abortion. Under the Bill, except in cases of emergency, two doctors have to certify that the prescribed conditions exist. The treatment must be given in a hospital and by a doctor holding the appointment of registrar or a higher appointment, and the Chief Medical 011lcer of the Ministry of Health has to be notified. Under Case Law all that is required is that two doctors should agree that the continuance of the pregnancy involvesseriousrisk to the life or grave injury to the health of the pregnant woman. They can then lawfully perform the operation. There is no requirement that one of them must have held an appointment of registrar at least. There is no requirement that the operation must be performed in a hospital under the National Health Service. There is no requirement that the Chief Medical Officer must be informed.
If, despite the passage of this Bill, the Case Law is to remain in force, I wonder whether we are not wasting our time in considering this Bill and in considering under what conditions and in what circumstances the operation may lawfully be performed. You will have the curious position that although under the Bill a pregnancy may be determined on account of the likely condition of the child, or because the woman is defective or the prospective mother a girl under 16, it will not be lawful for two doctors to perform the operation on those grounds under Case Law, and if they do they run the risk of prosecution. I raised this point in our debates last Session and I was then under the impression that the noble Lord recognised and appreciated its importance. I thought then that he was prepared to meet it and to amend the Bill to make it clear that this Bill when enacted would replace the Case Law. I was very disappointed when he did not indicate that this was one of the Amendments he proposed to make during the course of the Committee stage.
As I have said, this Bill does not provide for it, and I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he will say why it does not and will give an assurance that he will table an Amendment to

583
provide for this. It may not be easy to draft, but he has, as he said, the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen, and I feel sure that a satisfactory Amendment can be devised. But if this Bill is not amended in this way I feel I shall have to vote against it on the Third Reading, for I believe that this Bill loses all point, or nearly all point, if the Case Law is allowed to remain in force, and this I regard as a major defect in the Bill.
There are two other defects to which I should like to draw attention. I have spoken of them before, and I propose not to say very much about them this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred already to the width of the definiton of a "defective", and the Bill makes special provision for the termination of the pregnancy of a defective woman. No question of her health is involved, no question whether there is any substantial risk that the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to deprive it of any prospect of reasonable enjoyment of life. All that has to be established is that the woman is defective within the meaning of Section 4 of the Mental Health Act 1959. As the noble Lord knows, it is an extremely wide definition. In my view, in this respect the Bill goes far too wide. I hope that on further reflection the noble Lord, will appreciate that. I am very doubtful indeed as to the wisdom of making any special provision for a defective woman. If there is a risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman it would be far better to leave out this special provision and just to rely on Clause 1(1)(b).
I should like to know what justification there can be for the destruction of a potential human life when there is no risk of injury to the health of the pregnant woman and when there is no substantial risk that the child will be so abnormal that it will not have a prospect of reasonable enjoyment of life. It is certainly not the case, if I understood the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, correctly in the last debates, that defective mothers always produce defective children. I should like to know, too, what steps will be taken to provide for the defective woman's application for abortion. At the lowest end of the scale the defective woman may be nearly, if not quite, in-
584
sane. If so, will she be in a fit state to make the application? In such a case should not the Bill provide that some responsible persons should have power to make the application on her behalf? I should like to know what the noble Lord has to say about that. In the case of a girl under 16 the Bill does provide for the consent of her parents or guardian.
Now I come to what I think is the third defect in this Bill. It is the making of a special provision in relation to the termination of pregnancies of girls under 16. I know that what I say about this may well be misrepresented. I have spoken of it before, and the last time I did so the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—I am sorry not to see her in her place to-day—delivered a violent attack upon me, having prepared her speech in the Library in anticipation of what she thought I was going to say. Despite the fact that I did not say what she thought I was going to say, she nonetheless delivered the speech. I really cannot complain about that, but I felt it was a little hard. I would say myself that the right test, the right approach, in all these cases of young girls is to consider what is best for her, for her health, mental or physical. In some cases it may be better for her to have the baby and to have it adopted forthwith, rather than to undergo this operation. But if the strain of bearing the child is likely to involve risk to her life or serious injury to her health then the Bill already makes provision for termination.
What I think is wrong about this Bill is that it gives the girl under 16 a vested right to termination, and to termination even if she is found to be pregnant immediately before her 16th birthday and the child will be born many months later, and without any regard to considerations of health. I think this is wrong, and in every case the health of the pregnant woman or girl and the probable condition of the child are the right criteria. No doubt we shall discuss these matters more in Committee, but they are in my view of such importance that I felt it right to draw attention to them again now. I hope these points will be met, but if they are not I am afraid the noble Lord will not be able to rely upon my supporting him on the Third Reading of this measure.
4.18 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, much has been said both for and against the proposal to liberalise the law in regard to the performance of abortion. I have my own views, but I do not propose to present them to your Lordships, because they are no less nor more important than those of any other man possessed of average intelligence and of knowledge of the ways of the world. As a surgeon, however, I feel I have a definite duty and responsibility to comment on certain practical implementations of this Bill, should it become law, as seems likely.
When the Bill, in its earlier forms, was presented to your Lordships in the last Session, I was very uneasy about certain omissions. There was, in fact, very little in the earlier stages to ensure that any woman who had an operation to secure an abortion would not be exposed to unnecessary risks. The omissions were especially serious because one of the objects of this Bill is to protect woman from the dangers of the unskilled and illegal abortionist; it is also devised to prevent abuse. The earlier clauses of the Bill were certainly not strong enough to give women the degree of protection which the law desires and which they must have. I was therefore both pleased and relieved to find that in the later amended form, and in the form we are considering this afternoon, two further provisions have been included.
One of these is in Clause 1(2)(a), which states that the operation must be done by a gynecological surgeon holding an appointment as registrar or in a superior capacity in a National Health Service hospital. The other is in Clause 1(2)(b), which states that the operation must be done in a National Health Service hospital or in a place approved for the time being by the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State. And I presume that such an approved place will be a registered and approved nursing home or private hospital equipped with proper surgical, medical and nursing facilities.
As a surgeon, I know that the operation necessary to terminate pregnancy requires skill and experience, especially in the case of a first pregnancy. The procedure used for self-inflicted abortion or by the illegal abortionist, the so-called illegal operation, usually fails to produce a complete abortion. It commonly initiates
586
a process that has to be completed by a trained gynecological surgeon. It is for this reason that a woman who has had an illegal operation is so often admitted to hospital critically ill. To terminate a pregnancy as a definitive procedure requires a more complex operation attended with definite dangers, a fact that does not seem to be generally known and taken into account. It is for this reason that a properly accredited gynecological surgeon should alone be permitted to perform it.
These two extra provisions should inflict no hardship, need offend no one, and they do away with any loophole for activities or for abuse that I am sure we all desire should be prevented. I am therefore pleased and reassured that these two important safeguards have been included in the Bill, and I congratulate those who have had the wisdom and foresight to include them.
4.23 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I am happy to be the first to express your Lordships' pleasure at the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Brock. During the eight years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, some of the most distinguished speeches that I have been privileged to hear have come from eminent members of the medical profession; and we are all delighted that the ranks of that profession in the House are now to be strengthened by the addition of the noble Lord, Lord Brock. We hope that there will be future occasions upon which he will place at our disposal his expert knowledge, in such delightfully simple language as he has used to-day.
When I put down my name to speak in this debate I was under the impression that the Bill which was to be introduced was to be in the form of the original Bill that my noble friend Lord Silkin introduced into the previous Session of Parliament. I am, therefore, in the happy position of being able to throw away the speech that I had felt it would be my reluctant duty to make, and instead to come a great deal nearer to the proposals that my noble friend Lord Silkin has made.
The merit of the present Bill is that, unlike its predecessor, it is a genuine Abortion Bill; and it does not attempt, as its predecessor did, in its original

587
form, to insinuate eugenics under the cover of a measure of reform of the law of abortion. I am certain that it is extremely important that we do not do this. It is important because, in the present state of our knowledge, we cannot do it successfully. As a community we are not agreed on the kind of qualities that we wish to reproduce in the population; and, even if we were agreed on that, we do not have, in the present state of genetic science, the knowledge of which parents are likely to produce offspring that possess those qualities. All we do know is that, in the case of certain limited grave mental or physical defect, there is a high probability that a child born to certain parents will be severely abnormal; and the Bill does take care of that particular case.
So I greatly hope that, in the Amendment which my noble friend has threatened to introduce on the Committee stage, he will not again lay himself open to the objection that he is introducing pseudo-eugenics under the form of a reform of the abortion law. I also hope that, if he is going to take the line that it is undesirable that children should be born into a bad material environment, he will give a great deal of thought to the possible alternative that we should improve the material environment, rather than prevent the birth of the child.
I am glad to see that another of my objections to the previous Bill is met by the provision that the woman concerned must make an application in writing. I know that it may be said that this provision is unnecessary, because no surgical operation can be performed without the consent of the patient. But I would remind your Lordships that consents from people who are in a distressed, emotional state, or who may be of low intelligence, can sometimes be obtained only too easily. I should like to remind your Lordships that if a perfectly normal housewife, in good health, is so foolish as to sign a contract for hire-purchase over the doorstep, she is allowed by law three clear days to revoke her consent. I imagine that consent to an operation for the termination of pregnancy is a good deal more important a matter than, say, signing a contract to purchase a television set or a washing machine.
588
I also find myself in agreement with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on two remaining points. The first is the automatic provision that a girl under 16 shall have the right to the termination of pregnancy. Girls on the verge of the age of 16, as many of us know, are now sometimes quite surprisingly mature; and I think many of us could quote cases in which they have borne children, and have done so quite successfully and happily for all concerned.
Then I hope that my noble friend will consent to modify the definition of "defective", so that it does not cover the subnormals, but covers only the severely subnormals, in terms of the Mental Health Act. Unless that is done, I shall feel it my duty to bring forward a good deal of evidence of the extraordinary range of intelligence and quality of people who are at present registered as subnormals. The severely subnormals, however, are in a quite different category. I greatly hope that my noble friend will consent to make that Amendment. With those qualifications, I find myself in the happy position of being able to give my noble friend much more wholehearted support than I did on the previous occasion, and I do this with great pleasure.
4.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Baroness in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on a distinguished maiden speech. I would pay him the highest compliment that I can pay to a maiden speech: I would say that it was a useful speech. We in this House are here to be of use to our country, and we do not value oratorical flights so much as useful contributions, those made from experience, to our debates. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, will often be heard again in your Lordships' discussions.
When the previous Bill received a Second Reading in the last Parliament I moved a Motion of rejection. That Motion was overwhelmingly defeated. That defeat I must accept. It is not my intention to divide against the Bill this afternoon. To do so would, I think, show disrespect for your Lordships' judgment. I can rely on the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who has behaved perfectly fairly by his

589
opponents, and I can rely on his supporters, not to claim that the Bill passed the House of Lords without a Division. That would be mis-stating the position. My objections to the Bill in principle remain as they always were.
As regards the speeches of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, I find myself in general agreement with all they have said this afternoon. I hope that in Committee and on Report they will be able to make their views prevail, and I can promise them my support. I must, however, make my position clear in this matter. I object to abortion in principle, and I object to the legalisation of abortion, even though I know that a great deal of abortion is, and always has been, practised. To give the force of law to a course of action which I consider unethical is, to me, a very terrible thing. I must make my position, and the position of my friends, clear on that, although your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I am not going to talk theology. I think it might be more profitable to say a word on the scientific angle.
As I understand the teachings of biologists, they have discovered that all our individual qualities spring from the interaction of two sets of chromosomes which meet at our conception. That interaction sets the pattern of our individuality. What follows may be summed up in the two words, "development" and "growth"—growth which continues till we have reached our full adult stature, development which continues at least until puberty. I can find no point between conception and adult status at which we can properly say that human life begins or that what preceded it was not human. Aristotle, whose thinking greatly influenced the general view of the matter among civilised Europeans, considered that such a point could be found at the quickening, but I understand that very few medical men and embryologists would agree with that view to-day. The quickening has not the importance which Aristotle ascribed to it. It was not in fact the first movements of the foetus; it is only the first discernible movements.
The noble and reverend Lord, Lord Soper, had another and very interesting view. He held on philosophical grounds, into which I will not enter (I am sorry
590
he is not here), that a point could be found with the coming of self-consciousness. That is a very interesting view, and one which deserves exploration, but I should imagine that it would be exceedingly difficult for practical purposes to find the point at which self-consciousness arises. That being my conviction —and I have studied the matter as best I can—I cannot resist the conclusion that abortion does mean the taking of human life: a thing which may be done in some circumstances, but only with every conceivable safeguard, and very reluctantly. Therefore, I would claim that my resistance to the principle of this Bill is compatible with the reverence that I hope I have, and which we all ought to have, for human life as such.
I am well aware that the reverence for human life animates all your Lordships, and not least those who have supported this Bill. I can only say that we see things differently, that we approach the question from different angles. To some who are complete pacifists, reverence for human life forbids participation in any war; to others the atomic bomb is the last horror; and to others reverence for human life forbids capital punishment. All these points of view I respect. I ask only that respect should be paid to the point of view of those who think with me and who consider that reverence for human life should forbid abortion. Having said that, I must submit to your Lordships' judgment and hope that the Bill may receive the Amendments which have been adumbrated by the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Baroness.
4.35 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, on the last occasion we discussed this Bill, I gave voice to some thoughts (I was speaking to an Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strange), and I want to clarify two points which I then made. First, I said that I did not think we could legislate to meet the situation while abortion remains a crime. Perhaps I can best explain myself if I point out to your Lordships that this Bill states that
"a person shall not be guilty of an offence or crime of abortion if"—
and so on. This, to my mind, is like saying, "Stealing is a crime, but in certain circumstances we shall allow it, and even encourage it."

591
It seems to me that, according to this Bill, the answer to the question, "When is a crime not a crime?" is, "When it is not against the law." I get a very strange sensation when I examine this proposition. I think that it comes from standing on my head trying to make the thing look the right way up. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will kindly explain to me later what logic he sees in it, and why it should not be changed. I suggest to your Lordships that the way to go about things is to enact that abortion is a crime if certain safeguards similar to those in the Bill are not complied with. This will mean rewriting the Bill, but if that is done our law on abortion will be written from what, I submit, is the correct standpoint.
Secondly, the Bill, as it stands, saddles the doctor with a responsibility which I think it is not at all proper he should have. He is to be made arbiter as to which foetus should be removed and which foetus should survive to be born a child. For a sensitive, sympathetic doctor, who has taken great trouble to inform himself as well as he can about a woman and her circumstances, this could be a miserable decision to take, even if in his mind the mother comes first. One doctor could refuse an abortion where another would grant it. What then of the woman and the intolerable, and very likely pitiful, position she may be put into? The only person who can properly decide whether a woman should have an abortion is the woman herself. The doctor's job is then his proper one of advising, perhaps advising against it, and persuading against it, if he thinks right, and the woman is given her rightful responsibility which at present is usurped by out-of-date custom and tradition, and by social stigmas of one sort and another. I am very worried indeed about this responsibility which is to be given to the doctor under this Bill, but I will support the Second Reading of the Bill, and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will take account of my criticisms.
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I should like in his absence to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on his maiden speech, and for having renounced not only controversial matter, which is his traditional duty, but even the expres-
592
sion of his opinions on a matter where he may be something of an expert. I think he almost achieved his aim—and very difficult it is.
During the last Parliament I was associated, mostly with others, in moving several Amendments to this Bill. In regard to a minor one, of which I was the sole mover, it behoves me to-day to thank the noble Lords, Lord Stonham and Lord Silkin, for having embodied, so far as I can detect, the substance of my Amendment in the revised version. It had regard to allowing the under-16 girl the right to retain her baby if she wished; and as it was the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who asked me not to press my Amendment, as it would be considered, I to-day offer to him, particularly, my thanks. To-day I move no Amendment and I seek no Division, but I hope to move your Lordships in a short speech focused upon paragraph (b) of Clause 1. I think I shall take about four minutes.
On an earlier occasion we debated the degree of unacceptable risk. I listened to an impromptu dialogue between the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I thought they seemed to be quite near to agreement on the basis of "odds-on". But the medical profession, from the documents I have seen by doctors in positions of authority, are most unlikely to make an inference of "odds-on" from the word "substantial"—the substantial risk of a severely deformed child. The healthiest of parents run a risk which they tell me is 40 to 1 against. We all run it when we produce a child, however healthy we are, and we accept it; and if the odds in certain cases drop to 20 to 1 against, most of us, I think, accept that, too. But I am reasonably certain that when the odds shorten to 10 to 1 against, some consultants regard the risk as substantial. That is my inference from the papers I have read, one of which I brought to your Lordships' notice during one of the earlier debates. When the risk, as in rubella, is 5 to 1 against, I think many doctors regard it as a very substantial risk; but it is a long way from odds-on to 5 to 1 against.
From what I have heard through listening to your Lordships, I think that most of you are agreed that the monster, if I may call it that, shall not live. My concern to-day arises not from the sentence

593
of death which we are passing, or are proposing to pass, on one afflicted baby, incapable and with no chance at all of enjoying life, but from the fate of the nine healthy babes whom this law will deprive of life which all nine of them would be capable of enjoying. It seems to me that monsters, if that is the right name, look like becoming the hard cases which make bad law. Not all the afflicted will be monsters. Only a small minority of those exterminated will even be afflicted at all. There is no regular ratio of gravity between the affliction and the risk.
This clause authorises the therapeutic or mercy killing of one babe totally incapable of enjoying life. It does so, not in the interest of the mother or society or the State, but in its own interest. Death is prescribed in its own interest. I do not know that there is any other legislation which could be compared with that. But this is not the provision which I am to-day calling in question. The clause as it stands authorises the sacrifice of nine—it may be more, it may be less—good lives, in order that one bad life may not be born. If all ten were allowed, say as a public liability, to go to term from the date of diagnosing grave risk, the correct labelling of all ten would be highly probable instead of being as inaccurate as one chance in ten. Nine healthy infants could be offered to adoption societies, subject to the parental option if they wished to take it. The tenth, if not a monster, could be offered to some other benevolent society. The monster, if such it was, could he certified as such with almost absolute certainty before being consigned to the chloroform tent. If your Lordships are as perturbed as I am about sacrificing so many unquestionably healthy babes in order that one gravely deformed may not be born, I hope you will say: "It shall not be. We must think again."
4.47 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it falls to me from these Benches to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on his maiden speech, which was precise, clear, audible and brief. We hope we shall see and hear more of him again.
I rise to support this Bill, which is terribly important and urgent compared with the Bill which is to follow. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will carry his Second Reading, and will carry
594
the Amendments which he foreshadows to replace what I regretted was removed in Committee last Session. I am not satisfied, for instance, that the Bill as drafted covers the type of case which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has particularly in mind, and I look forward to seeing an Amendment in that regard. With due respect to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I disagree with him that the point has in fact been thoroughly thrashed out.
There is only one opinion which I propose to put forward to your Lordships and which has not to my knowledge been mentioned in any of the debates so far—and I sat through most of them last Session. I am one of those who believe that, under God, a baby is the mother's and, to an important extent in holy matrimony, the father's until it is actually born. My four children were born abroad. There were three British doctors concerned in attending to my wife at various times, and it was agreed in each case between the doctors, my wife and myself that if the baby was manifestly imperfect, it would not survive the birth. The doctors—they are all dead long since—appeared to regard this arrangement as natural and usual, and I therefore do not imagine that it was or is uncommon. Indeed, I mention the point only to sketch in, as it were, the background of why I support this Bill and the other measures which it envisages. It follows that I believe that properly regulated abortion must have a great measure of support and, in my view, legal sanction, such as that provided by this Bill. Moreover, my Lords, as one who has never tired of warning against the population explosion, I believe it is necessary for us all to bear in mind that this step is one of the lines of escape which are open to us-escape from a destruction which may come our way sooner than we like.
4.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I ask your indulgence for, I hope, not more than three minutes to say only three things. The first is to have the privilege of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on what seemed to me an admirable maiden speech. If, on the twentieth occasion of my talking to this House, I could say as shortly, as clearly and as usefully what the noble

595
Lord has said on his first, I should be very happy, and your Lordships would probably be a good deal happier.
The second thing I want to say is that I feel I ought not to allow this occasion to pass without stating, as shortly as I can, my position on the general principle of this Bill. I am in a minority, in that if I had been present on the occasion of the Second Reading of the previous Bill, when there was a Division, I should at that time have felt that I had to vote against the Second Reading. If there were a Division to-day I should feel the same, although I have no intention of calling one. I can give my reasons most shortly by saying that they are substantially the same as those given by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh. That is to say, I do not take the view I do because I am a member of the Roman Catholic Church, because I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church; and I do not take it because I think that abortion is against nature. In one sense of the word, all operations, including a Cæarean operation, are against nature.
I do not know what is the technical term for abortion. To call it a Herodian operation would perhaps be unfair, but to my mind it does express the difference between the two, in that the intention of one is to give life whereas the intention of the other—with the best intentions, in many cases—is to take innocent human life. That, as the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said, is a thing that has to be done sometimes. I think that the more seldom it is done the better; particularly the more seldom it is done legally. And the fact that it is always easier for people who have a great deal of money to get away (if I may put it in that way) with breaking a law (this applies, I think, to robbery with violence, to the law against Sutteeism in India at one time, and so on) is not, to my mind, a valid argument for abolishing that law if one believes that it should exist.
I believe that there should be a law against taking innocent life. It has been modified, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, to a great extent by Case Law. There are now circumstances, which are not nearly well enough known by the public, in which a woman can get an operation perfectly legally performed if only she knows of
596
the fact, and if only the doctors with whom she is in touch tell her so. That is not, as the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, said, or as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said, going to do away with back-street abortion; but the more widely the present law can be known the better.
In the meantime, I should like to associate myself very closely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, said, when she mentioned that she was very glad to see that in its present form—and I emphasise the words, "in its present form"—this Bill does not attempt to do too much in the way of introducing eugenics under the cover of either clarifying or liberalising the law. I think that the ideas both of clarifying and of liberalising it are excellent. My objection, so far as the clarifying is concerned, is that (as I believe it will be found later) the Bill does not clarify it and so far as liberalising is concerned, I do not believe it is a liberal action, except in very rare emergencies, to take innocent human life. I will not go into the question of whether a foetus is innocent, because I think that is obvious; whether it is life, because I think that is also obvious; or whether it is human, because I have already asked. "If it is not human, what is it?" But I hope that, in the course of the debates on this Bill, some answer to that question will be forthcoming which will satisfy me more than any of the answers that have been given previously. My Lords, that is all I have to say.
4.57 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two. It is quite clear, I think, that it is the intention of the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, but I very much doubt the wisdom of that decision, because the situation has materially altered since the debates in the last Parliament. The situation has been altered, as I see it. by the publication of a Report by the Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynæcologists. It is extraordinary to me that no mention of this Report has been made by any noble Lord who has addressed the House this afternoon. I hope very much that, before we come to the next stage, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in particular—and, indeed, all of

597
your Lordships who propose to vote on the Committee stage—will give this Report very careful consideration. Perhaps I may give your Lordships the briefest possible outline of its contents.
First, the Report asks for clarification of the law, which it says is desirable but not urgent. Next, it considers that the normal calculations of the extent of criminal abortion are almost certainly grossly exaggerated. One of the arguments advanced in support of that statement is that the number of deaths which are known to follow unsuccessful abortion is so small that, if there is this vast number of criminal abortions of which we have heard, then the only possible conclusion is that the risk incurred in a criminal abortion is infinitely less than the risk incurred in an abortion under the best possible conditions in a hospital.
Thirdly, the Council are very anxious that:
"The indications for legal abortion should not be defined too exactly lest they impose restrictions which do not apply at present, and lest they militate against the flexibility which is necessary to ensure that practice keeps abreast of the ever-advancing medical knowledge and rapidly changing opinion. For example, it would be unwise to mention maternal age specifically as one of the indications"—
particularly reference to the age of 16 years. Again, they are insistent that the decision whether or not to perform an abortion should be made only by two doctors of consultant status, one of whom should be the consultant gynæcologist at the hospital where the abortion is to be performed and by whom it is to be performed. They expressly say that the qualifications of a hospital registrar are not necessarily adequate for the making of a decision of this importance. Finally, they stress the importance of this decision, and what disastrous consequences it can, and very often does, have upon the woman, both physically and mentally.
For these reasons, I hope this Report will be given every possible consideration, and that great sympathy will be given to the Council's final demand that we should not rush into legislation in this country before we have made far greater inquiries into the social effects in other countries of the widening and extending of their abortion laws. They particularly ask that a departmental committee, or a committee of some such kind, should be
598
set up to collect the necessary information, so that Parliament may be adequately informed before rushing into what is, on any showing, legislation of immense social importance.
5.2 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I would join with all those noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Brock, on his maiden speech. I am sure it was a special pleasure to all of us that he, a particularly distinguished surgeon, should have chosen this Bill as a subject for his maiden speech, and I personally was most grateful for the welcome he gave to the fact that we have inserted in the Bill a provision that operations for abortions must take place in recognised hospitals or their equivalent, and must be performed by fully qualified surgeons.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for his reference to the Report from which he quoted. But, in my reading of it, the report certainly did not deny the need for legislation: it counselled careful consideration and emphasised that legislation should not be rushed. Since this House has already been through this Bill and has spent seven days on it in the previous Parliament, and since we are now going through all the stages again, I think that, so far as we are concerned, we are likely to discharge our full responsibilities. I, for one, would give to my noble friend Lord Silkin my thanks, and indeed congratulations, on the fact that he has wasted no time in bringing this Bill forward for consideration at the earliest possible stage in a new Parliament.
I think it would be fair to say that there is in this House overwhelming support, and in the country majority support, for the reform of the present laws on abortion. Indeed, listening to this debate, and having heard virtually every word of the debate and the Committee stage in the last Parliament, I would say that support in this House seems more universal, and the opposition certainly less militant, than it was when we last discussed this subject. I think also that the supporters of reform (who include, apparently, most noble Lords) can he divided between those who believe that it should be possible for a pregnancy to be legally terminated, at the request of

599
the mother, and those who express genuine concern lest we should make it too easy to deprive an unborn child of life and who wish to impose conditions.
Within the whole field, such a wide range of views is sincerely held that the Government feel that their attitude must be one of neutrality, so that all Members of this House may feel completely free to express their personal views. While remaining neutral as to the principles, we are ready to give whatever help we can by way of drafting assistance and by comment and advice on the practical implications of the proposals. On this, as briefly as possible, I would wish to draw your Lordships' attention to some aspects of the Bill which still call for careful consideration, and I shall include one or two comments on points that have been raised during the debate.
The first of these is a point made by the noble and learned Viscount about the extremely important question of making the law clear and certain, and making it clear whether or not this Bill, or Statute, as it will be when it is enacted, replaces the Case Law. I should like to express my own personal gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount, in that when he raised this important issue in the last Parliament he forbore from pressing it, because he knew that it was a very complex issue which would take a long time to work out. But we agree with the noble and learned Viscount that the Bill should be so drafted as to make it certain that in future abortion would be lawful only if the provisions of the Bill were complied with. I can assure your Lordships that this matter has been very carefully considered, and I would say at once that we accept the principle that this Bill, if enacted, will take the place of Case Law. There is, in fact, I am advised, a case for arguing that the present Bill achieves this; but I will not argue it now. But I will, on behalf of the Government, give the assurance that if it should prove necessary to introduce an Amendment to put the issue beyond all doubt, we shall be very pleased to assist the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in its drafting.
The next point is one to which my noble friend Lord Silkin himself referred in his speech, and which was also re-
600
ferred to by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger and the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington; that is, the question of mental defectives. This is a matter that we have previously discussed at some length. I am glad to know that my noble friend is having second thoughts on it; because the present position is very unsatisfactory. Clause 1 of the Bill allows the abortion where "the pregnant woman is a defective" and in Clause 3 "defective" is defined as meaning, in England and Wales:
"a person suffering from subnormality within the meaning of section 4 of the Mental Health Act 1959".
and in Scotland, as
"a person suffering from mental deficiency within the meaning of section 6 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960."
In the 1959 Act "subnormality" means:
"a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind (not amounting to severe subnormality) which includes subnormality of intelligence and is of a nature or degree which requires or is susceptible to medical treatment or other special care or training of the patient."
It was to such a person that the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, was referring when he said that this Bill, as it stands, would permit an abortion even if it was thought that the child, if born, would be susceptible to medical treatment. Section 6 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960 reads:
"In this Act 'mental disorder' means mental illness or mental deficiency however caused or manifested."
This definition is inadequate because, in relation to England and Wales, it should be made clear in the Bill as it stands that it includes "severe subnormality"; and because, in relation to Scotland, the definition goes round in circles and never gets there. Therefore, on technical grounds alone, the present position is unacceptable. But, my Lords, in any case, I agree with those who have suggested that this attempt to define the term "defective" goes too wide. In Scotland it seems to include any form of mental deficiency, however caused or manifested. In England and Wales it would include persons who are susceptible to treatment.
It is fair to ask, therefore, what the Bill as it stands is intended to achieve.

601
Even more pertinent, what is the justification for regarding the defectiveness of the mother as a ground for abortion? Do we want to cover merely the case where there is a real risk that a child will be defective? If so, that is already covered by Clause 1(1)(b) of the Bill. Or is it in mind that a defective might be unable to cope with children and might prove an inadequate mother? I am aware that there are those who think that abortion should be permitted for this reason. But when the Bill was considered last time there were many who disagreed, and I think my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger summed up the matter in a way of which only she is capable. She could not accept an attempt to insert eugenics in the guise of abortion. I therefore think that we cannot in this way admit the principle of permissive abortion by subterfuge.
My Lords, I have thought a lot about this matter during recent weeks, because for so many years I have been interested in the problems of mentally handicapped children and their parents, and I have come to the firm conclusion, with my advisers, that there is no practical definition for "defective between the definition of subnormality at present in the Bill, which I suggest is demonstrably much too wide, and the definition of severe subnormality which was in the earlier versions of the Bill, and which we would recommend, when we come to the Committee stage, as the right criterion to adopt.
One other point I wish to raise briefly is the point to which my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger referred, namely, the written application or the consent provision. The Bill as at present drafted provides that before treatment for the termination of a pregnancy there must have been an application in writing by the pregnant woman or, for a girl under 16, by her and one of her parents or guardians, for the termination of the pregnancy. This provision was, almost by accident I suppose, inserted in the Bill virtually without discussion, and I submit that it is unnecessary. I know my noble friend anticipated I should say that. I also submit that its inclusion in the Bill will lead to difficulties which we should avoid.
602
I wish to make perfectly clear that I am in complete agreement with the view that in no circumstances should abortion be carried out against the will of the patient—that would be quite unthinkable. Think, for a moment, of what would be the position were there no written application provision in the Bill. It is the standard practice in National Health Service hospitals—and all therapeutic operations under the Bill would be carried out in such hospitals or their equivalent—that the written consent of the patient, or in the case of a girl under 16 of the parent or guardian, is obtained for any operation, unless for exceptional reasons (for example the need to save life or some such emergency) written consent cannot be obtained. There are also certain positive difficulties about having a statutory provision of this kind in the Bill. Surely it is undesirable to require a woman to make a formal application for an abortion before the doctor has reached an opinion on the matter, because to do so might cause needless disappointment if the application had to be refused, and might make it more difficult for the doctor to persuade her that the pregnancy should not be terminated, if that were the conclusion to which he finally came.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:My Lords, surely my noble friend is not suggesting that the only applications ever to be made will be applications which will be successful? We are always making applications for this, that and the other thing, knowing that they will be unsuccessful.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was in fact discussing the statutory requirement now in the Bill for a written application before anything could be done, and I was considering the effect of that so far as the doctor and the patient are concerned. I submit to my noble friend that there is a further objection to this provision, namely, that it can, and in some cases would, result in the premature disclosure to a woman that she needs an abortion because she is suffering from another serious complaint which cannot be treated until there is a written application for an operation for abortion. I appreciate that these are matters which we can go into in Committee, but I thought it right to warn your Lordships, and that it would perhaps be helpful to

603
my noble friend to say now, that there seem to us to be great difficulties in attaching to the Bill a condition which is in no sense a safeguard against the abuse of Clause 1(1)(a). This is seen if we consider what happens if a doctor fails, perhaps for very good reasons, to comply with the precise provisions of the Bill relating to an application for consent. Under the Bill as it stands, such a doctor, however responsible, would be liable to prosecution for the offence of abortion and the maximum penalty of life imprisonment. I am quite sure that none of us wants to allow that to be a possibility. Somewhat similar arguments apply to the condition in paragraph (c) of Clause 1(2) in respect of certificates.
My Lords, I have said that the Government have adopted a neutral attitude on this Bill. We have given, and will continue to give, all the assistance with regard to drafting that is required. But as the Government are neutral, and we are free to express our own views now, I am free to express my own personal thanks to my noble friend Lord Silkin and my congratulations to him that he has gone thus far, and to promise at least my personal support for the Bill.
5.18 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is very satisfactory to me that the House seems to be minded to give this Bill a Second Reading without a Division. From the speeches which have been made, I am under no illusion that the same will apply to the Committee stage. It is quite obvious that a great many Amendments will be put down. Indeed, I forecast some of them myself. A number of noble Lords have gone even further than forecasting Amendments: they have made speeches justifying the Amendments which they are going to put down. I am very tempted to endeavour to reply to those prospective Amendments, but I am not going to do so. I shall resist the temptation and listen to the speeches made after I have seen the actual terms of the Amendments.
One point was made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on which I should like to comment. I was a little surprised to hear that there is any difficulty about the position of Case Law
604
once an Act of Parliament is passed. I should have thought that Case Law settled before the Act of Parliament would be superseded by the terms of the Act. That may be pure ignorance on my part. If the noble and learned Viscount, who speaks with far greater authority than I on this matter, says there is a real danger that we may be faced with a conflict between Case Law, under which a doctor can carry out an abortion if he is satisfied as to the danger to the life and health of the patient, and the terms of the Bill it will have to be dealt with. But, subject to that, I think we had better wait for the Amendments as they come, and deal with them then.
I should like to say one word to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter, who spoke unexpectedly, but whose speech, nevertheless, was welcome. I think he was the speaker who least welcomed this Bill.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: Oh!
LORD SILKIN: I think that is so. I do not complain of his views. I recognise that there is a genuine, sincere conflict of views about the desirability of a Bill of this kind; and I am grateful that the right reverend Prelate does not propose to divide the House. I was aware of the views of the gynæcologists and the obstetricians; I have considered them. I have even met a number of them. I was with a number of them in Winchester on Saturday, and we spent the day discussing this Bill. I give them full credit for the honesty and sincerity of their views. But I was not impressed at all with the six reasons they gave, and which they elaborated at my meeting with them, against a Bill at the present time. When they say that we are being rushed into legislation—well, really! There was an inter-departmental committee set up in 1937, which reported in 1939. Since then the British Medical Association have been considering the matter, and the Churches, and we have had their Report. This matter has received an immense amount of consideration in the 27 years since the Report of the inter-departmental committee. To say that maybe we are being rushed into legislation, whatever may be said about the nature of the legislation, is really quite untenable.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, the point that I had in mind was that there are certain countries which since the war have extended the range of abortion. So far as I know, there is little information in this country about what the social effects of that legislation have been. It is the result of an inquiry into that kind of thing, and information as to the extent to which this has been effective in diminishing the number of criminal abortions and so on, that I should like to have before we legislate in this country.
LORD SILKIN: Every speaker has stressed the extreme difficulty, if not the impossibility, of getting really accurate and reliable information of the nature of which the right reverend Prelate is seeking. Though we do our best, and we have all given some kind of estimate or evaluation, I do not think that if we delayed the introduction of the Bill for another 25 years we should be any wiser on the particular aspects to which the right reverend Prelate has referred. I hope that the House, as a whole, will accept this not only as a timely measure, but as one which is really urgent if we are to have in mind the welfare of a large section of the community.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SEXUAL OFFENCES BILL [H.L.]
5.25 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. Let me start off by saying that I am sorry we have started late. It was not my wish that this Bill should come last on to-day's Business, but we are starting a little earlier than I thought we might. I am sorry, too, because I am reintroducing a Bill which has already had the approval of your Lordships' House by a large majority. We have discussed these matters fully. On the other hand, I must make it absolutely clear that I in no way take your Lordships' fresh approval for granted. Anyone who took the House of Lords for granted would be a foolish man indeed.
606
I may well be wrong in thinking that the ground has been fully covered. I know that noble and distinguished Lords will speak to your Lordships in opposition to the Bill. It will be interesting to hear what new things they have to tell us. Once again we have the much respected noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and once again we are confronted by two former Lord Chancellors. I am comforted, however, in the thought that six other noble and learned Lords, including the present Lord Chancellor, have either voted in favour of the Bill at one stage or another, or have signified their approval of it in letters to the newspapers. Furthermore, the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, has authorised me to say that, though he is far from certain what the age of consent should be, he broadly approves of homosexual law reform so long as there is no question of corruption. Perhaps, while I am speaking of noble and learned Lords, I may say that I am personally glad that we are once again being addressed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, on the many and varied things which come before your Lordships' House. He has, of course, written his name into this Bill by the Amendment he moved into it; and he is a man of high achievement and distinction.
But since we are again to be opposed, I imagine, in principle, perhaps I may say shortly why I think reform is necessary, and why I think this Bill is right. Of course, it is a Bill based on the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee. It is estimated that there are between 500,000 and one million homosexuals in this country—a substantial minority. To some, they are sad men; to some, they are ridiculous; to many, they are morally evil; and to the law, they are criminal. The arguments for law reform are that these men do not choose to be homosexual; that no man would deliberately and obstinately forgo the choice of loving women—that no man, let along 500,000 or one million, would be so stupid. The argument is that nature makes her mistakes with human beings, as with animals: she makes some of us physically deformed; she makes some of us mentally deformed; and others she makes emotionally deformed.

607
I agree most wholeheartedly that we have to guard against nature's deviation. We have to respect the welfare of the majority of society. Though we do not believe—and, please God!, we never shall—in the Nazi theory and practice of human stud farms based upon perfect human specimens, we have to see to it that our race, the British race, is not vitiated and degenerated. In particular, we have to see to it that our youth is not twisted and depraved. And the ultimate instrument for this purpose is, of course, the law.
The Wolfenden Committee were concerned, and rightly concerned, with these things. They recommended that penalties for offences against minors, against boys, should be made more severe: and this recommendation is incorporated in the Bill. But they also felt that there comes a time in a man's life when he must be allowed to decide for himself and to act according to what to him are his natural inclinations. This is what this Bill is about. We are saying that a grown-up man should not be a criminal because he is what he is, and because he may find someone else of like tastes and indulge in them privately. We are saying that such a man is evil, if you wish, but that he should not be sent to prison. We are against the persecution of a minority, just as we are against the persecution of Jews or Negroes—people who are born what they are, not of their own choosing.
This is a case of reform. It is strengthened by a desire to remove, or at least to lessen, the blackmail to which so many homosexuals, because of the present law, are subjected. It is strengthened—and to some of us this is the most important argument of all—by the knowledge that homosexuals or cryptohomosexuals can, and do, endanger the safety of this country. The case for reform is simple but formidable, and it has already had your Lordships' approval.
May I trace the history of this Bill since it left your Lordships' House? I fear I must do this. It has had a chequered career, and the present position is complex. Your Lordships will recall that, at the end of the last Session but one, the Bill, not having been enacted, disappeared off the face of the earth. It was as though it had never existed. But
608
in the last Session Mr. Humphry Berkeley, who was lucky in the ballot, picked it up and introduced it in another place. It was, incidentally, your Lordships' Bill, with not a single word altered. He had a considerable success. The voting on Second Reading was 164 in favour and 107 against. My Lords, I was not surprised. Two opinion polls had already shown that 63 per cent.—the figure tallied in both the polls—of those asked were in favour of reform. And though I heartily dislike opinion polls, they have a way of being right.
All seemed set for the further progress of the Bill when the General Election intervened and Parliament was dissolved. Once again the Bill went into limbo. It was then necessary to start all over again from, if you like, square one, but what I call square nought. It was not my wish to introduce it in this House. Personally, I should have preferred that the proposed legislation started in another place. But it appeared at the beginning of the new Parliament that there was to be no ballot until November, and therefore I thought it best to attempt to get the Bill through your Lordships' House first, so that we might have a prepared instrument, approved by your Lordships, against the day when someone in another place would be willing to take it up by one means or another.
Since First Reading, however, there has been a change of Government plan. There will, after all, be a ballot in this Session, and accordingly it is now quite possible that a Bill on these lines will be introduced in another place in the near future. If this happens, I promise your Lordships that I will gladly and gratefully abdicate until such time, of course, as a Bill comes up to us from the Lower House in the ordinary way. But since there can be no certainty that any of the winning M.P.s will be prepared to take the Bill on, it seems to me wise not to chance it, but to proceed in this House. For I am determined, in so far as it lies in my feeble powers, that in one way or another this reform shall come about.
At this point, may I take up the question raised earlier on about the popularity or unpopularity of this Bill, or this reform, in terms of votes. I should like to say that, so far as I can detect, it carries with it no great electoral risks. It is true that Mr. Humphry Berkeley, that brave man

609
who introduced the Bill in another place, lost his seat at the General Election. But it is also true that Mr. William Shepherd, perhaps the strongest opponent of the Bill, also lost his seat, to a Liberal. But the percentage against them was not very different. Further, it is a statistical fact that, of those who voted in favour of the Bill in another place, 7 lost their seats, whereas of those who voted against, 20 lost their seats. I do not believe that this is, or was, or ever will be, a political issue. I do not believe that anyone anywhere need funk it any more.
So much for the procedural or, if you like, the constitutional question. How do we stand in terms of fact? We have this extraordinary state of affairs that there are to-day men in prison whom Parliament has decided, in the Upper House in detail and another place in principle, are not criminals—men who, in the terms of this Bill, which is not yet law, have committed no crime. It is difficult to estimate how many of them there are: it has been suggested to me that there may be as many as 100 souls. Are we going to allow those fellows to remain there indefinitely? Is it right? Can we face such men? Can we say to them: "Look, you are here because the Government are busy with other things at the moment and have not the time to let the law be changed, even though both Houses of Parliament have said on principle that it should be changed"? I can only say that for myself I should be rather shamefaced if I had to talk to them, and somehow I do not think they would be very impressed with the argument that there was not time for them at the moment, but that sooner or later their turn would come. We should remember that on Second Reading in another place thirteen Members of the Cabinet voted in favour of the Berkeley Bill—your Lordships' Bill; none against; and that the Home Secretary spoke most movingly in favour of reform. It was a splendid operation: the patient died.
I apologised at the beginning of my speech for wearying your Lordships, and I fear that I may have done that. I have spoken too much on this subject for too long. I apologise again, but not over much. This Bill has had the approval of a majority of your Lordships' House. In this House it has been supported by a right reverend Prelate, noble and
610
learned Lords, doctors, sociologists, schoolmasters, dons, elder statesmen, by young men and noble Ladies. It was not approved by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein; but I am glad to be able to say, with permission, of course, that the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Mountbatten of Burma "approves most strongly of homosexual law reform." I deeply hope that, if the House is divided tonight—which I hope it will not be; though I know there are many noble Lords who feel strongly on these things—your Lordships will feel able to endorse your previous decision. The happiness of many men depends upon it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Arran.)
5.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My Lords, may I take up the spirit of my noble friend Lord Arran's approach, and say that we have discussed this subject so often, and at such length, that I hope no one will hold it against me if I confine my remarks to the headlines of our position, and do not go into great detail. There is only one point which I would take up in my noble friend's speech, and that is his reference to those who are (and, of course, I accept it from him) in favour of homosexual law reform. But that may mean very different things. It may mean that they want the Labouchère Amendment, which went into the Act of 1855, but not with regard to gross indecency, whereas they would still be opposed to the legalising of the full offence of sodomy. That is a point which I think one can fairly bear in mind.
But I thought (and I am glad to see the most reverend Primate here) that we could find a common starting point. I have in mind that in our first debate, which my noble friend originated on May 12, 1965, the most reverend Primate said this—and I have read his words many times:
"I believe that homosexual acts are always wrong in the sense that they use in a wrong way human organs for which the right use is intercourse between men and women within marriage."
And he went on:
"There is a region where moral responsibility must certainly enter into the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 266, col. 80: 12/5/1965.]

611
That was what I hoped might be a common starting point to our discussions—and the most reverend Primate has been good enough to nod. He said that that applied both to the commission and to abstinence. I will add to that my own experience as Home Secretary, if the House will bear with it once more, that out of 96 cases in prison for homosexual offences that were reported to me, only 15 were cases of genuine inverts, and the others included those who committed the act from motives of sensationalism or for money, or for reasons of that kind.
I accept that the vast majority of those supporting the Bill desire to keep the moral condemnation which I have just quoted. I think it is fair to say that few would agree with a powerful article in the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago which, while predicating that the change in the law was probably right, asserted that those supporting the Bill really wanted a relaxation of moral standards, and should say so. I do not impute that, as I think my noble friend would not expect me to do. But that still leaves one important question which must be considered: the effect on the moral view of making the change from the acts being prohibited by the sanction of the criminal law to lifting that prohibition and making them legal.
I would again remind your Lordships that the lifting of the prohibition applies to the whole act of sodomy, and not only to the gross indecency covered by Mr. Labouchère's Amendment. I believe we are bound to consider the dangers of proselytising in this field, but it is my view that if we are lifting a statutory bar which has existed for over 400 years in regard to the full offence, we cannot do so without lightening the moral opprobrium with which the act is regarded. And it is the fact that there has been for over 400 years this prohibition which distinguishes the effect that the present proposals would have in this country, where that has been the law, from conditions in other countries which my noble friend could quote, and with which we are both very familiar, and also from the position of Lesbianism, which was raised in the course of our debates. That is my first point, and I ask your Lordships to consider it again. Can we lift that prohibition and criminal sanction and still keep the
612
moral condemnation of the act of sodomy, which I accept is in the minds of most of your Lordships, however you vote on this Bill?
I will only say one word about blackmail, because that aspect has been discussed so often. I would remind my noble friend, and I know he has considered it, that in paragraph 111 of their Report Sir John Wolfenden and his colleagues said that the amount of blackmail was considerably exaggerated. I know that I shall be stamped on as a "square" for making this point, but I venture to make it again: that one method of avoiding blackmail is not to commit homosexual acts.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I wonder whether I might, with respect to 'the noble and learned Earl, mention the question of blackmail for one moment. It has been said in your Lordships' House that the late Lord Jowitt said that when he was Attorney General 95 per cent. of the blackmail cases with which he had to deal were between men who had committed homosexual offences.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My Lords, I have heard my noble friend refer to that, but I have a great suspicion of comparative statistics. Ninety-five per cent. of what? My recollection—and the noble Earl will no doubt check it—is that something like eight cases a year were homosexual cases. I always hesitate to speak from memory but, if my noble friend will forgive me for introducing a slight touch of levity into so serious a matter, the classic example of the danger of comparative statistics occurred in World War I, when, as my noble friend may remember, somebody said that such had been the casualties in the Somme that 50 per cent. of the teetotallers in the famous Highland Regiment had been killed. The man said, "I know it is true; the survivor told me". There is always a danger in comparative statistics, which I think is worth remembering.
I come to the next point which is the question of discipline in the Services. A number are not covered by the provisions of the Army Act, the Air Force Act or The Naval Discipline Act, which are referred to in the Bill. I would, very respectfully, warn your Lordships that the words in the Army Act are "indecent and unnatural conduct". How long will

613
this he considered "indecent and unnatural conduct" if your Lordships have changed the law and legalised sodomy, as is proposed? But, as I say, there are disciplined services to which those acts do not apply. Your Lordships will probably have seen (because there is a document in the Printed Paper Office) the views of the seafarers' and shipowners' organisations on this Bill. I do not think this point has been made, so perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make a short quotation from this document. It states:
"The Merchant Navy will face considerable problems if homosexual conduct between consenting adults on hoard ship is no longer an offence. Seafarers on board ship live in closed communities, which are almost exclusively male, for considerable periods of time, and these conditions tend to favour the development of homosexual conduct among some crew members. Such conduct can cause dissension among members of a crew, and has on occasions led to serious violence. Dissension among members of a crew, by its effects upon discipline and morale, can prejudice the safety of a ship. If the present legal sanctions against homosexual conduct are relaxed"—
and that covers the position that the captain of a ship can discharge for such conduct—
"the conditions of shipboard life will deteriorate with consequential adverse effects upon safety and upon the attractiveness of the Merchant Navy as art occupation. Moreover, there might well develop a reluctance on the part of parents to allow their sons to enter the Merchant Navy as a career."
I wanted to quote this, because they are not my words but words stated by a responsible body. I put the point to your Lordships again. Imagine a disciplined service, imagine the police, the fire service or the Merchant Navy. If it is known that officers are sleeping together and committing sodomy, what possible respect can they have from other ranks who look to them for guidance?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble and learned Earl will forgive me, may I ask one question? Is there anything in this Bill which prevents, or would prevent, a captain of a ship from discharging members of the crew on any grounds he likes?
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: I did not want to go into it in detail. That is the starting point of this paper. I think it would be clearer if I read it:
"The present legal position appears to be that buggery, which is a Common Law felony, is an offence if it is committed on board
614
a British ship. The position of other homosexual acts, which if committed in England and Wales would be misdemeanours by virtue of Section 13 … is less clear. It may be that such acts if committed on a British ship would also be offences. The master of a British ship has a Common Law power to arrest and confine in a reasonable manner for a reasonable time any seaman or other person on his ship if he has reasonable cause for believing, and does in fact believe, that the arrest and confinement are necessary for the preservation of order and discipline. … The master also has the ordinary Common Law right to dismiss a seaman from his ship but"
he must obtain the consular sanction.
"These powers may at present be exercised by the master in respect of a seaman who commits a homosexual offence. But if both the Common and Statute Law is changed in respect of homosexual conduct between consenting adults, the master's Common Law powers will no longer be available in respect of such conduct on hoard ship."
I think that answers my noble friend's point.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Earl has reached that point, may I intervene to say that the Government are advised on this matter and I will reply to it later. The noble Earl will be aware that this Bill does not apply to Scotland—he has quoted the regulations applying to British ships—and, in any event, a Master could still, under the law of Scotland, do all the things that the noble Earl has just read out. But I shall be dealing with this point in detail later.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: I do not think the noble Lord would go so far as to want all ships to sail from the Clyde. Certainly as a Liverpool ex-Member of Parliament I should not want that.
LORD STONHAM: That would be quite unnecessary. It would be somewhat absurd if they were English ships citing this law, as they are perfectly entitled to do as Scotland is part of Britain, and never went near the Clyde. But we will look at this and will be able to bring a solution forward later.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: I am glad the noble Lord will look at this. But that is the reason on which the Seafarers' and Shipowners' Organisations have put forward these views. It is most important and reinforces the point that I have made with regard to services other than the Armed Forces of the Crown.

615
I wanted to say to my noble friend that one of the real difficulties that I have had—I have never disguised my views on this matter—is that I have a very great respect (I hope he will take it from me) for the compassion which animates so many of his views and actions. I hope he will believe it of me that it is not an easy matter to oppose something that has the strength of compassion behind it. But we in Parliament are responsible for the law and order of a country, and there are certain things which it is only possible to deal with on the basis of the sanction of the criminal law. This is not confined to repressive matters. It was the action taken by one of the greatest humanitarians in the history of this country, Lord Shaftesbury, when he introduced the Factory Acts. It was, I am almost sure, taken by Mr. Disraeli in his social legislation. Therefore, social advances have sometimes depended on applying the criminal law. The same thing applies to social decline.
We are, I say again, and it is becoming more evident to more people every day, rolling more quickly down the slope of the permissive society. Unless we stop that, the position may indeed be serious; and I say that one should draw the line, one should use the criminal sanction to deal with—I use the words I quoted—an "undecent and unnatural" offence, to deal with something which is disgusting, to deal with something which has immense power of corruption over the young and that does not cease to have that power when they come to 21.
These are the reasons why I feel strongly. I hope my noble friend will agree that I have tried to put my views with moderation; but I am bound to express the views that I hold so strongly. I ask your Lordships to reject this Bill, and for that purpose I shall ask the House to divide at the appropriate time.
6.2 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I share the admiration that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, has expressed for Lord Arran's initiative in this matter, and I greatly respect the tenacity and resolution of the noble Earl in fighting for this Bill, for the reasons he has given. I should be grateful if the
616
Government would consider amendine legislation so that your Lordships' House need not, in future, return to debating a Bill in regard to which the great majority of your Lordships have already, I suspect, made up your minds.
Since the last debate in your Lordships' House I have considered whether there are new matters that have arisen in relation to this Bill that should receive special attention here to-day. I suppose it can be said that the murder trial that ended last week has some bearing on it, for it has disclosed again the dangers of blackmail where an alleged homosexual was concerned. I read last evening the Hansard report of the debate on the Sexual Offences Bill in another place, and I noted what was said by Mr. Humphry Berkeley, the mover of the Bill. He said:
"All of us who are Christians, and probably many who are not, regard homosexual acts as morally wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons: Vol. 724, col. 786; 11/2/66.]
Much has been said already about the general principles underlying this Bill by the two previous speakers, as by many of your Lordships on previous occasions; and if I do not repeat what has been said to-day, it is not that I wish to do anything other than support what I have said on the previous occasion. The supporters of this Bill do not want any relaxation of moral standards. That is my clear impression. The supporters of this Bill desire to keep moral condemnation for homosexual acts. Frequently though this statement has been made, it needs to be said again and again. I hold this conviction strongly, and I am certain that Christians who think in these terms must be alive to the problems of homosexuals, and do their part to see to see they are reasonably and justly treated. I continue to support the Wolfenden proposals.
My attention has been drawn to one or two points that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, has already mentioned—to the position of seafarers under this Bill. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, speaks with great authority on this subject, but I have been asked to raise this matter and I do so with the noble Viscount's goodwill. In paragraph 144 of the Wolfenden Report, which deals with offences in disciplinary services, the Committee observed that

617
within services subject to a disciplinary r…gime it might be necessary, for the sake of good management and the preservation of discipline, to regard homosexual behaviour as an offence, even by consenting adults in private.
Mr. Adair made certain reservations to the Report, and in one of them, in paragraph 11, he asked about the wisdom of increasing the number of differentiating offences, for differentiations were bound to provoke in service members a sense of injustice. But Mr. Adair went on to conclude that if there was a prescribed age when certain homosexual acts were no longer penalised, then the feelings of grave injustice, as between those under and those over the prescribed age in a service, would seriously affect the morale of members of the services and this could lead to corruption. These two paragraphs refer to offences in the disciplined services, but in Clause 1(5) reference is made only to the Navy, the Army and the Air Force.
I understand that in the Merchant Navy the opinion has been strongly expressed that seafarers should be excluded from Clause 1(1), as members of the Armed Forces are excluded. I have been given three reasons why this exclusion is desirable. First, publicity. If seafarers with homosexual tendencies indulged in them at sea, even though they were adults and the offences were supposedly in private, their activities would become known on board and the results can be imagined. Secondly, example. The average crew of a ship contains a high proportion of young men, and they live together in a closed community. The knowledge that unnatural acts were committed on board and that they were no longer an illegal offence when done in private between consenting adults would have damaging effects on the characters of these young men. Thirdly, opportunities. Seafarers are away from their home bases for considerable stretches of time. Homosexuals, it is argued, in these circumstances would have greater opportunities of corrupting young people. I cannot claim to know the Merchant Navy, but these representations have been made to me by some who know it well.
I am told that these points have been sympathetically considered by the Board of Trade and that the Board has agreed to have discussions with the Home
618
Office. If Clause 1(5) can be redrafted, if this point can be considered on the Committee stage, I shall be grateful. I realise that some may argue that if seafarers in the Merchant Navy are to be excluded from Clause 1(1), other categories, such as the police or firemen, should be considered. But I submit that the case for the exclusion of seafarers is a case on its own: the circumstances of their working days set them apart, for the reasons that I have indicated. I thought it would be worth while just to refer to the position of seamen in the Merchant Navy. I have. For the rest, I have pleasure in supporting Lord Arran's Bill.
6.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not intend to repeat the arguments I advanced in the earlier discussions on this Bill. They have been put most powerfully and persuasively by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for his kind observations. I am afraid that they leave my attitude to this Bill completely unaltered. I think this is a throughly bad Bill.
I realise that my noble friend's approach arises largely from compassion. He believes that the homosexual is born, and his argument is that after a certain age the homosexual should be allowed to decide for himself what he does in private. But the noble Earl does not carry that argument to its logical conclusion: that those who have the misfortune to be born with incestuous tendencies should be allowed to do the same, or indeed to other forms of vice. But it is not the case that all homosexuals are born. The very figures which my noble and learned friend gave show that many people develop homosexual tendencies through being approached and corrupted; and the speech of the right reverend Prelate recognised the special needs in relation to a Service where men are living for some time in a closed society. If I understood him aright, he does not for one moment suggest that all homosexuals are born that way.
There is one question that I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I should be grateful if he would give me an answer. I hope he will forgive me for putting the question after he has

619
already replied to a question which I put in an earlier debate. He referred, rather to my astonishment, to the suggestion that the master of an English ship sailing, say, from Southampton with an English crew could, if this Bill is passed into law, apparently rely on Scottish law for dealing with homosexual conduct on board ship. Perhaps we shall have an opportunity of hearing that, to me, astonishing argument. But the question I want to put to him is a more simple one than that, and it is this. If a number of people engage in promoting acts of homosexuality between consenting adults, will that be a criminal offence? Will that he a conspiracy to effect a public mischief, or will it not? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could answer that question.
I do not at this stage intend to say very much about this Bill. I was glad to hear it said, with all the authority of the right reverend Prelate, that the supporters of this Bill do not want any relaxation of moral standards. But I would say to him that if the supporters of this Bill get the Bill passed, they really do not know what they do; because, in my belief, if this Bill is enacted there will inevitably be a relaxation of moral standards. That is absolutely inevitable. They may not welcome it; they may not think it is right. But it will flow from their support for this measure that we shall have that relaxation. The right reverend Prelate referred to a recent trial. I must say—and I say this in conclusion—that I had hoped my noble friend Lord Arran, even though he has the support of the most reverend Primates and the right reverend Prelates for this measure, would have thought twice, after recent events, before reintroducing this measure to legalise one form of vice.
6.12 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I do not intend to go again through the general principles behind this Bill. They have been argued at great length during Second Reading, the Committee stage, and indeed the Third Reading of the Bill when it was introduced in the last Parliament. If T may, I will try to meet some of the points which have been raised by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir.
620
He began, I think, by saying what a tremendously evil effect it will have on moral standards if this Bill passed; that the removal of a statutory bar on homosexual conduct must inevitably lead to a decline in moral standards, and that it was this statutory bar, the sanction of the law, which in fact preserves our moral standards in this respect and deters people from becoming homosexuals. I tried to meet that argument in the speech which I made on the Third Reading, my maiden speech, when I asked whether it was not possible that the effect of the Labouchère Amendment, which was passed without any debate in Parliament, and which led to trials—of which the most notable, the most remarkable, the most highly publicised and which still lives in people's memories to-day was the trial of Oscar Wilde—was that the publicity given to that trial led to a tension in society about the problem of homosexuality. It led to much of the excitement, the foetid talk about the subject, and in fact, so far from the law's preventing people from indulging in this vice, it may well have had the effect of promoting excitement and of inducing people to break the law lust "for the hell of it". That is the first point I should like to point to in the speech of the noble and learned Earl.
I should like to come now to his next point about the particular crime of sodomy. I take it from the noble and learned Earl's speech that he was particularly concerned with this aspect of homosexual conduct, because he used that term not as a blanket phrase for any kind of homosexual conduct but as an actual description, a legal term. If that is so, I think this question which exercises him so much, the fact that under this Bill sodomy would be legalised, could he met by arguments which were raised in the Committee stage of the Bill; that is to say, that if Parliament legalises homosexual conduct between consenting adults it is impractical to try to exclude sodomy from that permissive law. In other words, in order to prove sodomy, the police would then have to be enabled to make a medical examination of anyone who, in their view, was likely to have been engaged in homosexual conduct with another person. This, it seems to me, would lead to an absurd

621
and impossible position in the administration of the law.
THE EARL OF KILMUIR: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him, because he is developing an interesting point? Until the Labouchère Amendment in 1885, sodomy was a statutory offence, so for nearly 350 years these difficulties of which he has spoken were faced and dealt with by the police in proving an offence.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I wonder if the noble and learned Earl would feel it reasonable to say that the conditions in which cases are judged to-day differ from the pre-Victorian era. I think that if, in fact, sodomy were excluded from this Bill—in other words, if sodomy remained a crime—I would still maintain either that it would be very difficult indeed to get any proof that it had been committed; or, if proof were sought that sodomy had been committed, this would make complete nonsense of the provisions of the Bill to allow homosexual conduct between consenting adults. I do not see how one can get round that procedural difficulty, which must afflict the police if they have to face this problem.
Then there has been a reference, I think both in Lord Kilmuir's speech and in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, to the fact that this Bill will encourage male prostitution. Here again, it seems to me that we must face the practical consequences of this Bill. If I may go back to the previous debates, it was, of course, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who in the Committee stage, and indeed on the Third Reading of the Bill, chided those who were in favour of it for not sticking to the Bill. He criticised those in favour of the Bill for making speeches which were in terms of general principle. He paid tribute to their compassion, but he said that they did not address themselves to the clauses of the Bill. May I try to address myself to the clauses in the Bill which do not mention the exchange of money, prostitution, as being a crime?
An Amendment was, of course, moved to the effect that it should be a crime, but the reason why it is impossible, in my view, to introduce into the Bill clauses which would penalise male prostitution is, again, simply because of the difficulties of proof. It may well be said that, where it can be shown that money changes
622
hands in consideration of which a homosexual act takes place, this is good enough proof. But how do we expect that the police would be able to enforce such a clause if it were added to the Bill? I think, again, that they would find themselves in conditions of great difficulty. Moreover, another principle is involved here; and that is whether one believes there should be no difference in the laws between men and women. To introduce yet another discrimination against men for sexual offices would, I think, produce just the kind of injustices and confusions in the law which this Bill is tring to remove.
Finally, if I may move to the point of the social decline which is forecast for our society if this Bill becomes law, I would say that in my view this is a very difficult thing to prognosticate. I realise, of course, that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, speaks from the bottom of his heart when he says he genuinely believes that, when this Bill becomes law, this country will start—or, perhaps he may feel, will continue—to roll even faster down the slipperly slope of disintegration and moral ruin. But, if I may speak here as a social historian, these things are very difficult to predicate. I do not myself believe that there is any justification for holding this view, because there are too many causes in history ever to be analysed to show that a decline of this kind occurs. We all know the famous misstatement in history that the decline of the Roman Empire was due to its sexual laxity. I can assure your Lordships that the decline of the Roman Empire, in the view of historians, was due to very many more causes than that; indeed, there is no evidence that this was one of the main causes of the decline.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Is it not true that the reason why the Athenian Empire fell was because the Athenians were beaten in battle by the Spartans, who were ten times as wildly homosexual as the Athenians themselves?
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Earl's elucidation of history, and I am glad to accept it. But if I may return to the point, there are many changes of a cultural nature which I believe are taking place in society to-day.

623
Great changes have taken place since the war—and I hope that the noble and learned Earl will not in any way feel that this is a criticism of his outlook on life—which make our society to-day markedly different from that in which he grew up as a boy. These changes have come about through the impersonal forces of history. They have come about by the greatly increased standards of living in our society. This has meant that whole sections of the population which in Victorian times were really outside society, because they were so poor, although they were objects of consideration by the governing classes, are now within society; and, apart from certain pockets of poverty, the whole of our inhabitants in this country are genuinely part of society. This has led to a great variety of moral standards. And in saying this I am not referring to moral standards in terms of sexual standards. I mean a great variety of values which different sections of the population accept.
It is no longer true to-day, I think, that the values professed by the upper classes and the learned classes, for instance, are necessarily accepted by the rest of society. We have moved into a much more pluralist society, and I have a feeling that when the noble and learned Earl asks whether we are not moving down a slippery slope of social decline, he does not fully envisage what has taken place—namely, that many different sections of the community assert their right to live in the way that they see fit, and not to take instruction from those who in days past would have been called their betters.
These differences in moral standards are bound to increase as time goes on, as our society becomes pluralist. This, I think, is what this Bill is trying to give effect to. It is trying to make it possible for those who, physiologically and psychologically, do not fit into the normal pattern of sexual behaviour to live, without persecution, without prosecution, without blackmail, in the way they choose. Blackmail is one of those things which have been mentioned frequently in the debate. I should be the last to argue that if this Bill is passed blackmail for homosexual offences will become a thing of the past. Of course it will continue; but it will be reduced, and that reduction is part of the compassion which the noble
624
Earl, Lord Arran, has introduced into our conception of the law. That is why I very much hope that this Bill will be passed by your Lordships' House as it was in the last Parliament.
6.28 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if the law had been precisely the reverse of what it is to-day, I should myself be very averse to any desire to change it. If the proposals made in this Bill formed an insignificant part of a general Statute dealing with all sorts of other moral questions, then I do not know that I should oppose it so strenuously. But as it is to-day a Bill devoted to this particular subject, it is bound to have a harmful effect and it is bound to give the whole British public a feeling that conduct which before was very reprehensible has ceased to be reprehensible and is now under public countenance. It is not the smallest use the people who support this Bill saying that they wish to preserve existing moral standards, if at the same time by supporting this Bill they do something which is going to have the very effect which they profess to deplore. That point has been made by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, and by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, very much better than I can make it, and in accordance with your Lordships' practice I leave it, having just said that.
There are only two other points on which I should like to touch, which have already been made in this debate. I think the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in introducing this Bill laid some stress on the way people were made and the nature they were born with. I think that is correct. I do not want to mistranslate him. We are all born with a nature which we have to correct. I do not know whether I was born a liar, but I am perfectly certain that I became one at a very early age. Your Lordships know me very well, and I hone you do not think that I have continued the practice. We all have to learn to discipline and control our natures, and I do not think that it is a very strong argument for a Bill to assume that people are born in a way which cannot be altered. I have in mind one man, for whom I have an enormous respect, who became a very great man and a very great poet, who, if his biography is true, was subject to these desires at a comparatively early age

625
and mastered them with great difficulty and produced, as a result, great poetry. I do not think, therefore, that this business of controlling the nature you were born with is insuperable.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, turned to the Roman Empire. My Lords, there are two theories about the Roman Empire. One very learned man, Mr. Bussell—I do not know whether or not he is a professor—said that the Roman Empire fell because there was one class which paid all the taxes, one which collected all the taxes and one which spent all the taxes, and that that was the end of the Roman Empire. I do not think that most of us who have read about the Roman Empire would altogether agree with that. The Roman Empire seems to me to have fallen because Roman families ceased to produce children. At the end of the Republic it was a problem, and it went on in the Empire. The only people who had children were slaves: so much so that later on one man of no particular parts, who happened to be the only man that they could find of the Julian family, was made Emperor simply because he was a Julian. That fact shows that the Roman Empire fell because it ceased to produce Romans. I think it ceased to produce Romans, as anyone who has read Horace or Juvenal will know, because it ceased to he interested in the production of Romans. For that reason, I still feel that this is a Bill which ought not to pass.
At the next stage I shall produce the very same Amendment as I produced on a former occasion, or a very similar one—that is, if this Bill goes to the Committee stage—and I hope very much that your Lordships will support me in that Amendment because I not only have the reasons which I gave then but I also have other reasons which have affected me very greatly.
6.33 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, taking part once again in a debate on a Bill which sets out to reform the law for adult homosexuals, I am conscious that to repeat oneself is to subtract from the strength of any arguments. During the course of the debates we held on the same subject six months ago I several times wished to ask the question, "Is there a psycho-analyst in the House?" He might have been able to evaluate
626
some of our arguments. There were some striking features about those debates, not least the views that the right reverend Prelates expressed and the severe approach of some noble and learned lawyers to what for them must have been a familiar problem. I noticed that they expected a restraint from homosexuals that they could not possibly get from heterosexuals. I can more readily understand the anxieties and fears of those noble Lords who are active in youth organisations, but there is nothing in the Bill which weakens the law with regard to the corruption of young people.
I have always been of the opinion that magistrates and lawyers could benefit from a short course of psychology, but when it comes to the question of the homosexual and the law I think a compulsory course in physiology would be beneficial to them. A knowledge of the nervous and vascular system in human anatomy would considerably enlighten them, and would demonstrate to them how easily diffused sexual pleasure can become. This would perhaps make them less certain of the boundary between what they call "natural" and what they call "unnatural" behaviour. It might even dilute some of their feelings of disgust. The law, it seems, accepts practically all sexual behaviour between members of the opposite sex as "natural" and the merest sexual expression between males as "unnatural". This irrational view is carried over after a man is convicted. What do we do, my Lords? We send him to a male prison. It might perhaps be more beneficial to send him to a women's jail.
As for the argument that the law as it stands is a good law because it is an old law, this is a sad reflection on our times and the need we have for progress. I myself do not share the prevalent and pessimistic views about young people to-day which were expressed in the last debate. I believe that a more frank approach to sex will guard them against corruption from older homosexuals. I do not think their moral fibre is so feeble. But all this exaggerated talk of moral weakness seems, ironically enough, to thrive in peace time. During the last two world wars, and particularly during the First World War, we sent them to fight like lambs to the slaughter, but we spoke of them as lions. Of course, we know

627
that everything is not right with the morals of our society—not for the young or for the old—but would anyone really get up and seriously suggest that the world was a better place fifty years ago? I cannot believe this.
LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Lady's pardon, but I do.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I respect the noble Lord's views. Of course, wherever the sexes are segregated—in defence organisations, schools, prisons, et cetera—there are always dangers that the powerful sex instinct will find some means of expression. Perhaps a good drive for coeducational schools and universities would make the position better. We should try to deal with the problems of homosexuality in every way we can. The Armed Forces, in any case, have their special laws and safeguards. I am of the strong belief that it is not the function of the law to legislate for the private behaviour of the adult citizen, be he heterosexual or homosexual, and that we should not build our laws upon the capricious feelings of disgust.
This seems to me a good Bill, even though the lawyers may wish to trim it a little. I believe that if this Bill goes through this House and is passed in another place, far from having a corrupting influence on our society it will create a much healthier attitude to sex in general and will alleviate much persecution and suffering. I believe that the dangers of facing the facts about human nature are less than the dangers of denying their existence.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I express my respect and admiration for the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for persevering once again with a Bill to reform the law on homosexuality? It takes courage; and if he had tried to introduce this Bill in another age, he would perhaps have been burnt at the stake. Those of us who support him know that to disturb the deep and primitive emotions attached to any manifestations of sex is like treading on a minefield. Some of us have been pelted with the filth of anonymous postcards and letters. But may I add, finally, that moral indignation is not a weapon exclusive to those who oppose reform? It is a two-edged weapon. I hope that this Bill will go through this House and
628
be passed in another place, and that the law concerning adult homosexuals will be changed. If this comes about, it will long be to the credit of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and to the credit of this noble House, which is well on the way to becoming the best social reforming Chamber in the land.
6.40 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, since listening to the debate that took place during the last Parliament I, too, have had many letters such as were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell. What struck me about those letters is that there is another side to homosexuality which has received very little support so far in this House. We have heard a great deal about the persecution of the homosexual, but we have heard very little about the homosexual's persecution of those who do not fall in with his plans and his wishes. I know of two men who lost their jobs, who were hounded out, by a man who had approached them for a year or more and who, having failed, had no mercy on them whatsoever.
I have read The Sociology of Homosexuality from cover to cover, because I was told in the last debate that nobody could read that book without tears in their eyes. There were accounts of interviews with 150 different men who are homosexuals. I could find no evidence whatsoever, in the case of any one of those men, of the slightest contrition, or even the slightest shame or guilt. I found that there are certain types of homosexuals whose delight it is to seduce young heterosexuals and lead them down the garden path which, as we have been told, leads to nothing but frustration, sorrow and degeneration. The report itself, in, I think, paragraph 58, tells us that the committee consider that it is inevitable that there should be some increase in homosexuality if this Bill is passed.
The other day I read a book called The Cult of Softness. I do not know if any noble Lord has read it, but it is well worth reading, in connection with this Bill and with other Bills of the same kind. In it we trace the way in which the moral standards of this country have fallen in recent years because of the so-called "Christian charity" which it

629
extends to all kinds of apathetic approach to aberration, misdemeanours and sins. I read the other day also a quotation from Abraham Lincoln, who was certainly not an anti-humanitarian. In that quotation he said
"You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong."
Yet, my Lords, the whole tendency in this country has been to do that very thing.
Sympathy is a wonderful thing; it is a necessary quality in the making of any man worth his salt. But we can carry sympathy too far when we carry it to the extent that it is detrimental to the life and living of the victim. We have seen quite lately the concern in the minds of many people at the treatment of the train robbers. There has not been much sympathy expressed for the man whose whole life was ruined by the actions of those very men who listen to their television and enjoy the pictures and the social activities in the prisons in which they are confined. If this Bill is passed, I am convinced that there will be an increase in homosexual practices; that a concerted effort will be made to pervert the young—over 21, perhaps, so as to be able to escape the guilt of their sins; but there will be an increase.
I should like to make one quotation from the New Testament which was left out of the other quotations about the woman taken in adultery, and so on. The quotation is:—
"Woe unto to that man through whom the offence cometh! It were better for that man that a millstone were hanged around his neck and he were cast into the midst of the sea."
We have heard a great deal about the Christian charity of the gentle Jesus, meek and mild. I have read the New Testament from end to end as often as most people; but I have never yet found a case where Our Lord condoned sin—forgiveness, yes. But the woman who was taken in adultery was not told merely that she was not to be condemned: she was told, "Go and sin no more". That was the whole basis of the early Christianity, in all that I have read. There was not condonation for sin and error; particularly if it was going to affect other people. But there was sympathy always; and comfort for those who came with a humble and a contrite heart.
6.46 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like first to apologise to the noble Earl and to your Lordships for arriving so late in this debate. Unfortunately, I was misinformed about the expected starting time. I have not hitherto taken part in the discussions in this House on this subject, but I venture to do so to-day mainly in order to reinforce the pleas already made by the right reverend Prelate in respect to the impact of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, on the men of the Merchant Navy. But since this is a Second Reading debate I feel I ought first to declare my position in the matter generally.
I have not had the great experience which many of your Lordships have had in the administration of the law as it stands to-clay; or, indeed, of the social problems that arise from homosexual practices. But I have read very carefully the discussions that have taken place, both in this House and in another place, and have, I hope, studied them objectively. The conclusions I reach is that I am against this Bill. I think it is common ground that the practices with which we are dealing are deplorable and should be discouraged, especially in the young; and T feel that any legislation must be looked at from the point of view: Does it or does it not discourage these practices?
A great number of the arguments adduced in support of this Bill undoubtedly have force; but in this, as in other matters, the decision must be on the balance of argument, and I suggest that it is not right to legislate to protect the activities of the minority if the result is to subject others to undue hazard. This, it seems to me, is the difficulty that faces us. It is right that we should have every sympathy for those unfortunate people who cannot resist the temptation to undertake unnatural practices. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, suggested that perhaps on strictly medical grounds these practices were not unnatural. I think that is a view not very widely held. Indeed, the framers of the Bill have clearly been at pains to protect young people. They have not only left the offence as it stands at present of having homosexual relations with a young person, but they have increased the penalty. We must have every sympathy with these unfortunate people whose case has been

631
very eloquently pleaded, but that does not mean giving them approbation. In that respect I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan has said.
There is the view that this is a private affair and a matter of conscience, and not a suitable subject for the law. But, here again, surely, we must consider whether the private activities of people have their impact on others, and I should have thought that one of the sad things about these practices is that they do excite young men at an impressionable age in adolescence. They are undoubtedly encouraged to experiment in these practices. That may well lead to their ultimate downfall, if I carry your Lordships with me in thinking that it is a downfall.
Then there are arguments used of a more practical nature: that the law as it stands at present is practically unenforceable, or is enforced only in a whimsical way because it is so difficult to detect the offence. But, my Lords, surely that applies to other offences dealt with in the Statute Book. I should have thought that it applies very largely to a range of motoring offences. Is it more difficult to enforce a law which prohibits homosexual relations between adult males than a law which prohibits homosexual relations between an adult male and a young person? A great deal has been made of the fact that the existing law has been christened "The Blackmailers Charter". But does not any undetected lawbreaking give an opportunity to the blackmailer? It seems to me that if blackmailers have taken greater advantage of opportunities provided by cases of this kind, it is because, in addition to being a breach of the law, this practice is something which most people regard as disreputable and disgusting: and the hold which the blackmailer has is not just that a man is liable to prosecution but that he will be shown up before his friends and family, and perhaps in his business, and so on. So I very much doubt whether blackmailers will be greatly deterred by this Bill.
Now I come to what I feel is the great argument against this Bill. It seems to me quite extraordinary that a law should be passed which says that it is all right to do this if you are 21 but it is not all right to do it before you are 21. It is suggested that that will not encourage young people
632
to experiment in this direction. It is not just the young people of the present generation, but all young people who, I should have thought, if I may put it this way, would almost regard it as a challenge: "If this is something I can do when I am grown up, why cannot I do it now?". I am sure that it will greatly hinder the efforts of schoolmasters and others to keep this practice from spreading among the young.
May I say a few words about the men in the Merchant Navy? In a ship at sea we have a close community of males in a situation where no doubt there are special temptations. The aim of the promoters of this Bill is to legalise homosexual relations between consenting adult males in private. It seems to me that on hoard ship both those last two conditions have a different meaning. The act may be performed in private in the technical sense that it is behind a closed door, but in a small community it could hardly ever escape being known, and this immediately gives rise to tensions in the ship. You have people who regard the practices as horrible and who may proceed to assault those who indulge in them and if there are, unhappily, more than two or three who indulge in them, it may give rise to problems of jealousy and the like which can occur. I understand that there have been cases where assaults and knifings have taken place as a result of homosexual practices on board ship.
My Lords, the master of a ship has a difficult task. He can maintain discipline through the Merchant Shipping Act, but that does not provide any specific provisions in this regard, and it seems to me quite clear that if the law is made that this practice between consenting males in private is legal, his power to put a stop to that sort of thing will be greatly decreased. We should not forget that there are among ships' crews a substantial number of young people who will undoubtedly know what is going on and who may be encouraged thereby to do the same.
Then again, consent is not quite the same thing when you are living in very close communities and it is difficult for someone to get away from someone else. If there are pressures brought to bear in the ordinary world, and if a young man is sufficiently strong-minded, he can walk

633
out and go away. As the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, said, sometimes that has very damaging effects, but at least if he is sufficiently strong-minded, he can get away. It is more difficult in a ship where a man may be living close by people who may be trying to persuade him to indulge in these practices. So it seems to me that if your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading—I very much hope that you will not—there is a strong case for an Amendment which will put the men in the Merchant Navy in the same position as men in the Armed Forces, and exclude them from the operation of the provisions of Clause 1.
6.58 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I feel that I cannot congratulate my noble friend on presenting this Bill, but I admire his pertinacity. I took no part in the debates last year, other than to vote in the Division on the Third Reading. I did not speak because I knew that then it could not become law, and I hoped against hope that, having fallen, it would originate in another place and perhaps never reach your Lordships' House. Even as it was, my Lords, the debates in your Lordships' House took a curious pattern. I say that because we had that Monday Sitting, called at short notice, for the Second Reading, with a Division; and I think I am right in saying that the Committee stage was on a Friday morning at one time. Be that as it may, here we have the Bill again, and I feel compelled, with your Lordships' permission, to make a contribution to the debate.
My views coincide with those expressed by Mr. Adair in the reservations he published to the Wolfenden Committee's Report. They extend to nearly six pages relating to homosexuality. I will not endeavour either to repeat them or make a précis of them. I would say that his views are views with which I agree. I should like to emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, in the debate last year. I cannot see how a sin—and this act we are discussing is a hideous sin; I nearly said bestial, but beasts do not do it—is any more excusable morally because it is committed in private. I am unable to agree that the law should rule that a gross offence of this sort is no crime. Heterosexual behaviour is, to my mind, in quite another category. It is not that the law does not need re-
634
form. I think we are all agreed that the law does need reform as it bears on the homosexual. The homosexual is either mentally deranged, in which case he deserves our compassionate consideration (and this class of homosexual is, in my belief, a minority), or he is a sinner in a sin which is bred from self-pity out of sadism, or from lack of self-control out of lust. As my noble friend Lord Saltoun said, I cannot believe that a great many of these emotions cannot be controlled by men of character. Some measure of reform may be necessary, but not in this way. That is my objection to the Bill.
This Bill offers a charter to the male prostitute. I do not think there is any question about that. Its effects would tend to corrupt society. This point has been made by my noble friend Lord Saltoun, and I entirely agree with what he said; and it is also a point which Mr. Adair makes strongly in his reservations. There is no doubt, in my mind, that it would corrupt society; and nobody has spoken more strongly than the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in this debate in this connection. Further, in my view, it does next to nothing to frustrate the blackmailer. This point has been touched upon by several speakers. It seems to me that it does nothing to alleviate the situation. Why do I say this? The reason is that, law or no law, the people as a whole detest and despise homosexual behaviour. Therefore, crime or no crime, the blackmailer can continue to rely upon this Bill, if it becomes an Act, as a basis for his misfeasance.
I think it is safe to say that this particular form of misdemeanour seldom crosses the path of the average man. Ordinary, decent people are not involved in this sort of thing. I have an old friend who served for more than thirty years in one of our largest industrial undertakings. For many years he was in the personnel department, managing upwards of 10,000 persons. He tells me that only once in the years when he was in the personnel department, and, indeed, in the years he was in the company, did he ever come across trouble over a homosexual in the employment of the undertaking. I believe that the incidence of homosexuality in our society has hitherto been greatly exaggerated.

635
There is one other point, which I almost hesitate to make, but it is based on conversations I have had with people in all walks of life. It is this. I believe that in continuing to worry about this particular Bill we are bringing your Lordships' House into contempt.
LORD ANNAN: Shame!
LORD FERRIER: If that is the case, as I believe it to be, then the right thing is to refuse the Bill a Second Reading, and let us have an end of it.
7.4 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. It is the first speech he has made on this subject, and I should like to say what a powerful speech it was. I wish to speak for a few moments, because it is essential that we should have the Division as soon as we can. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, who introduced the Bill, said that there were between 500,000 and one million men in the country who are homosexuals. We do not really know that: it may be so, or it may not be so. Then the noble Earl said that these men do not choose homosexuality. We have had speeches from noble Lords in this House who are members of the medical profession, and who have said that this is not the case, and that those who are homosexuals are rather like the different colours of the rainbow: some may be that kind, and some may be the other kind; and then there are the centre different colours of homosexuals.
I am sure, from the debates we have had, that members of the medical profession, and many other people in the country, think that if this Bill is passed it will definitely encourage homosexuality. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan—who, if I may say so, made a remarkable speech, both from the Christian point of view and from the point of view of his experience as Chief Scout for so many years—holds this view very strongly. I feel it is absolutely certain that the teenage boys who are likely to be tempted in this direction, if this Bill goes through will say: "Ah! Now we are 21, it is quite all right. It is legal."
The Church, through the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St. Albans, have
636
said that the supporters of this Bill do not want any relaxation of moral standards. I am sure that this is the view of the Church; I accept it, and I am glad that it is so. But if the supporters of this Bill do not want any relaxation of moral standards, they must have the law on their side as well. Then why produce this Bill? That is, I think, a complete non sequitur. I had a letter from a Bishop during the debates last summer who said that the Bishops were divided more or less in the same proportions as were the people in the country. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, has said that the country is now divided 60–40.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: That is the opinion poll.
LORD BROCKET: As the noble Lord says, that is the opinion poll. But we do not get any of the Bishops coming here to speak against the Bill. We have a wonderful attendance of Bishops tonight: it is the best attendance we have had since the Bill came up last time.
I want to say just one or two things further. We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, references to the Merchant Service. Clause (1) of the Bill allows this act among those over 21. Then Clause 1(5) says:
"Subsection (1) of this section shall not prevent an act from being an offence (other than a civil offence) under any provision of the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Naval Discipline Act 1957."
Since that subsection was put into the Bill—and I entirely agree with it—I have thought that it shot the whole principle of the Bill to pieces, because what is good for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force—and I hope for the Merchant Service—should also be good for ordinary civilians.
I want to quote only one other figure. I think the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said that the majority of the House of Lords was in favour of this Bill. On October 28, 96 Peers voted in favour of this Bill—and I must say I am ashamed to note how few voted against it. However 96 Peers voted in favour of the Bill, and at the present time there are 1,016 Peers entitled to sit in this House if they want to. That is all I have to say. I hope we shall have a Division, and that this Bill will be defeated.
7.9 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in the arguments he has put forward, and to congratulate him on having the good sense and the courage to introduce this Bill once again. There is no doubt from the debate we have had that there is a clear-cut division in the House, and I doubt whether any of us will convince others to a different way of thinking. But those who hold the views that I do can, I think, without doubt, point first of all to a marked shift in public opinion over the last few years. I think we can also claim there is a good chance that reform along the lines of Wolfenden will give better protection to the young people in the future. I think it will make the path a great deal easier for those who are trying to get help to deal with what they themselves feel is a very difficult personal problem. This certainly is the view which has been expressed by anybody who has had experience of universities. I feel that it must inevitably reduce the considerable amount of blackmail which has surrounded this problem for a very long time.
In addition, as I said on a previous occasion, research is tending to show that the development of the homosexual condition, and the form which it takes, may well depend on the events in a person's life, and the attitude which society adopts towards that condition. There is evidence that the present law itself can in some cases be a direct cause of homosexuality. It is certainly true that not all homosexuals are born, and this is why we want homosexual reform; to see whether we can reduce the number of people who have this problem, and who immediately find themselves within the ambit of the criminal law. In my view it is high time that the law was changed.
It is also important to recognise—as I should have hoped the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, would have recognised, having read Mr. Michael Schofield's book from cover to cover—that there is now the suggestion that the child-molesting homosexual and the adult homosexual, as we have known him in the past, are quite different phenomena. In new circumstances, and in a new atmosphere, there may well be a great and hopeful line of research which will show us that we can differentiate along that road. To those who say that this Bill legalises vice, that
638
it will lead to social decline, and that it will do harm, I should like to say this. If I understand homosexual practices, then I find them abhorrent. But I find the law full of injustice; I find it full of stupidity as it stands at the present time, and my sympathy goes out to any such minority who are oppressed in this fashion. But when I find that research is tending to indicate that the present law is doing positive harm, and that a Committee as powerful as Wolfenden reported along these lines, then I believe it is right and proper that we should see that law changed.
I respect the honesty and sincerity of the opinions which have been put forward by the people who take a different view from myself. But they are just views, as mine are. I would say to our opponents that their views are getting further and further away from the sociological research results which are being shown, and further and further away from public opinion, as we are able to judge it. As for male prostitutes, who have been mentioned on three occasions to-night, I should have thought that, where satisfying relationships can legally be entered into by adults in private, the attraction of the male prostitute must as a result diminish quite considerably.
I want to make only one more point on the merits of this case, and that is the suggestion which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I think he said that the introduction of a measure of this sort was bringing this House into disrepute.
LORD FERRIER: Contempt.
LORD BYERS: Contempt—even worse. I must protest at that, as a relatively new Life Peer. I would say that I am quite shocked that anybody should hold that view, and it shows how out of touch the noble Lord is with public opinion. This House has gained tremendously in reputation for the courage it has had in the case of homosexual reform, capital punishment and abortion law reform. This is a House which has demonstrated that it is understanding of the problems which are facing the people of this century. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, it is a House which is in touch with change, and this is where I believe we can do a tremendous amount of good in the social reform that is needed in the corning years.
LORD FERRIER: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think I said that I was repeating what had been said to me by people in various walks of life, which is the case. Only last night was one occasion.
LORD BYERS: That is very interesting. I take it, from what he said, that the noble Lord agrees that this is bringing this House into contempt. Does he or does he not?
LORD FERRIER: I do.
LORD BYERSThen I can only tell him he is completely out of touch with the people of this country as a whole. He may have some very odd friends who meet him every Monday night, and tell him these odd stories. Let him ask the editors of the newspapers—
LORD FERRIER: Oh!
LORD BYERS: They are practically all Conservative to-day. Let him ask the universities, the professions and the people who are in touch with public opinion, not in his own club, or wherever he goes on Monday nights to meet these Bishops.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if I may interrupt again, I suggest that we might ask the Clerk to read Standing Order No. XXIX, relating to "Asperity of Speech".
LORD BYERS: If this is to be regarded as asperity of speech, I think perhaps we ought to have a clearer definition. If I have offended the noble Lord in the way in which I have spoken, then I must withdraw. But I do not withdraw the comment.
LORD FERRIER: Then I am satisfied.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, there is one final point that I should like to make. I should have thought that with a measure of this sort there was a strong case for affording Government time for a Bill at the very start of a new Parliament. Subjects like homosexual law reform raise a certain amount of emotion, and the best time to test the Houses on a measure of this sort is, in my view, at the beginning of a Parliament when there is time for the Bill to be looked at objectively and in a detached way and for it to he put into law, so that one can see how it
640
works. I have every confidence that this Bill will work. I should like to see it tested in another place this Session, and not left for two, three, or four years towards the end of the Parliament, when one knows that the charged atmosphere of a General Election is coming forward.
7.17 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, as between the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and my noble friend Lord Ferrier, I incline to the view of my noble friend. Like him I voted against this measure before. Like him, I think I registered a silent vote, and, like him, I am grateful for the opportunity of putting to your Lordships, however briefly, the considerations which weigh with me.
I am not shocked in any way by this Bill. I do not have anything but the greatest respect for the noble Earl, Lord Arran, for the faithfulness with which he has followed a cause in which he believes, and for the compassion which everything he has said has shown, as my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir said earlier. I do not believe that the law regarding homosexuality is satisfactory from the point of the homosexual. I very much doubt whether, in some cases, the prosecution, the imprisonment, and so on, does anything but harm. In the only case with which I have had any close personal relationship—and it was a tragic case, affecting somebody for whom I had the highest respect—I am quite certain that the op ration of the existing law did not help him. Indeed, I think that he might have been helped if the law had been different—but I do not know.
In spite of that, I am against this Bill, and I am against it for this simple reason: that in it—and I think in all the other measures which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, quoted as showing the enlightenment of this House—we have been far too much concerned with the effect upon the criminal, or, at any rate, upon the object of our sympathy, and far too little concern with the effect upon society.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to say so, that charge was made in the capital punishment debate, and I think we can say there are many of us—indeed, I should say all of us—who cannot be accused of being guilty of that sort of consideration.
LORD COLERAINE: Capital punishment is another case, and perhaps I could just say this, as the noble Lord has raised the subject: I voted for the abolition of the death penalty. I am not sure now that I voted correctly. I voted for that Bill because I did not think that capital punishment had any direct deterrent effect upon a potential murderer. But to go back to the point I was making when the noble Lord intervened, I think that Act, combined with the other measures to which the noble Lord referred, has had a very dangerous effect upon society, because the tendency of all the measures which we have passed in recent years has been to diminish the responsibility of the individual for his own acts, and I do not see how anybody can deny that. That has been the tendency and I think it has been a disastrous one. We have only to look at the newspapers—the moors trial, anything you like—to see the effect of that tendency. In every field, whether it is in literature, in what old fashioned people used to call "pornography", or the death penalty, or this tragic subject which we have been discussing this afternoon, Parliament has come in and said, "Do not worry; you are not responsible. It is the law that is wrong".
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, in a most interesting speech this afternoon, said we had to recognise that society was a new thing; that in our own boyhood before the Great War, and I hope that when we were young men, society was confined to the individuals who composed it. Now, vast numbers of people who were then outside society are a living part of society and they are setting their own standards. The noble Lord said they will not any longer put up with advice from their betters. I wonder whether they are wise in that? I wonder whether we are wise to encourage them in that view? I wonder whether there are any of us who would not benefit from advice from our betters, and in particular—I am not thinking of social classes or wealth or anything else—I wonder whether we should not, all of us, benefit if we paid a little more attention to the accumulated wisdom of the past and the experience of mankind, and relied a little less on our own cleverness, which, God knows!, is landing us in a most terrible predicament.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, may I take up a remark made by the noble Lord,
642
before he sits down? While thanking him for his most courteous reference to my speech, I would point out that the point I was trying to make is that it is not always wise to try to enforce moral standards by law. Would the noble Lord not agree that while the Victorian age was one of the severest in its moral code and its standards, it is nevertheless odd that this country in the Victorian age had the highest rate of child prostitution of any country in Europe?
LORD BOOTH BY: My Lords, may I ask one further question? The question of male prostitution has been raised on more than one occasion in this debate.
LORD COLERAINE: Not by me.
LORD BOOTHBY: No, not by the noble Lord but by other speakers. Would the noble Lord not be inclined to agree that these creatures live mainly by blackmail and nothing else?
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, having listened by my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir earlier in the debate, I was assured by him that this blackmail aspect of the problem is very much exaggerated. May I revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Annan asked me? Of course I agree. Horrible things went on in Victorian times: evils and corruption and wickedness and sin of every kind. But what seems so appalling to me is that in those days these things stemmed from conditions which could produce nothing else, whereas the corruption and the wickedness of our own day is stemming from the Welfare State. I think there is all the more reason for the law to give a backing and a sanction to morality in conditions as they are to-day.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat may I ask him whether he can define a little more clearly what he means when he refers to "our betters" from whom we are to take advice, and how we are to recognise these "betters"?
LORD COLERAINE: I am sorry; I am afraid my noble friend—if he will allow me, my noble connection—was not listening to me. I defined "our betters" as those who had gone before us and I said that we should all of us do well to pay attention to the accumulated wisdom and experience of the past. It

643
was not I who used the phrase originally; it was the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and I was taking him up on it.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Would the noble Lord agree that many of those who have gone before us were not our betters but were in fact malefactors?
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I do not think we can pursue this argument indefinitely, but I would ask the noble Lord to read the works of Edmund Burke, and I think he will understand what I mean.
7.27 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I, too, am not going to enter into this argument, or, indeed, into any of the arguments to which I have listened over the last four hours. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in introducing his Bill, said that when Mr. Humphry Berkeley introduced it in another place in the last Parliament he did so without altering a single comma. My Lords, they did not even correct the misprint.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, with great respect I think I said "a single word". Am I wrong?
LORD STONHAM: There was one word, but I am happy to assure the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that it has now been corrected. However, the point I wished to make was that we are now considering essentially the same Bill which your Lordships considered very closely for many days in all its stages and to which, in all essentials, noble Lords gave a very substantial majority. On behalf of the Government I have again to say that on this Private Member's Bill, which has excited to-day such deep feelings, and in some cases passionately expressed feelings, the role of the Government is a neutral one, but we shall continue to give such help as your Lordships need with regard to the drafting of any Amendments.
Having heard, I think, nearly every word of all the previous discussions in the last Parliament on this subject and almost every word of the Second Reading Debate, I am bound to say, expressing a purely personal opinion, that this debate has been less satisfactory than those which preceded it, because to-day we
644
have concentrated far less on the contents of the Bill, and what it proposes to do, than we did on the last occasion, when we went into it very deeply and thoroughly, and when the House delivered a decisive verdict.
I can appreciate that on a subject such as this we all have deep feelings, but I regret that at times those feelings have seemed to overcome some noble Lords to the extent that they appeared to think that other noble Lords who did not share their views were in some ways less worthy. It would never be my role to suggest what anyone's Christian duty was: that is a matter for each individual to decide for himself. But, again expressing a purely personal view, as a very ordinary member of the Anglican Church, I can say that I am very glad that the most reverend Primate and a number of right reverend Prelates have considered it their Christian duty to come and express their views on this Bill in the way they have done. Apart from saying that, I propose to devote my remarks to dealing only with points raised in the debate.
The first is a question raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kilmuir, by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, regarding the position, if this Bill becomes an Act and if it is unchanged in this regard, in the Merchant Navy. The position as I understand it is that if homosexual acts on British merchant ships were no longer to he criminal offences the master of a British ship would have no sanction to employ against members of his crew who engaged in homosexual practices. The master has a Common Law power to arrest and confine any seaman or other person on his ship if he has reasonable cause for believing this is necessary for the preservation of good order and discipline or for the safety of the vessel. And certainly her Majesty's Government would never wish to do anything, or indeed, if they knew of it, allow anything to be done, which would interfere with that necessary right.
The master also has an ordinary Common Law right to dismiss a seaman from his ship, but he must obtain the sanction of a British consular officer before he discharges a seaman at a port outside the United Kingdom. These powers may at

645
present be exercised by the master in respect of a seaman who commits a homosexual offence. But if both the Common Law and Statute Law are changed in respect of homosexual conduct between consenting adults, it is argued, as I understand it, that the master's Common Law powers will no longer be available in respect of such conduct on board ship. It is further argued that the position is different from that in the Armed Services, where disciplinary sanctions will still be available, for example, against conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline.
There is a complication, as I indicated when I ventured to interrupt the noble and learned Earl, which makes it difficult to give clear advice as to the effect the Bill would have on life at sea. This is that the laws of Scotland and Northern Ireland apparently apply equally with the law of England on British ships, and the Bill is confined to England. It is therefore arguable that the master's powers would not be affected by the Bill, because he could invoke the law of Scotland instead of the law of England, as he may do now. This, of course, as the noble and learned Viscount was quick to notice, is an unattractive argument in the case of an English ship that trades from English ports and never visits Scotland. My case was that it is not an English ship but a British ship, subject to British law, and whichever port it trades at it will still rely on British law. But I do not want to rely on that argument alone in this case. We are looking into the legal position to see how it can be clarified.
There is one other thing I would say. It has been quite rightly said, and stressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that a great many young men are in the Merchant Navy; and I believe that about a quarter of all seamen in British ships are under 21. It is right to say at once that nothing in the noble Earl's Bill will affect the position with regard to homosexual practices in relation to people under 21. It relates only to such conduct by consenting adults in private. I am coming to the point the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is going to raise. He is going to say that it would nevertheless be a bad influence on these young men, and I do not dispute that.
I think the noble Earl said parents may be reluctant to allow their sons to enter the Merchant Navy. I hope no
646
parent at this moment will have the impression that this kind of situation is going to be allowed to arise because of this Bill in its final form. Therefore, I welcome what he said, and I undertake that the Government will give careful consideration to these problems in the light of all the views that have been expressed. We will seek to clarify the legal position and, if we may, advise the noble Earl, Lord Arran, before Committee stage, whether anything, and if so what, should be done to deal with this point which has quite rightly exercised the minds of several noble Lords.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked me two questions, one of which I have now answered. The second question he put to me—I took it down at the time, but if I have not it correctly he will correct me—was this: will it be a criminal offence if a number of people engage in promoting homosexual acts; will it be a conspiracy to effect a public mischief?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Homosexual acts in private.
LORD STONHAM: I accept that. As I am sure he would expect me to say, a simple answer is not really possible. So much would turn on the nature of what he called "promotion" and whether the homosexual acts were in fact offences. If they were not it might not arise.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I am asking this question. If this Bill is passed, an act of homosexuality between consenting adults will not be contrary to the law. I am asking whether, if there were an agreement between a number of people to promote such acts, that would be a conspiracy to effect a public mischief or not.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble and learned Viscount is aware, because he himself through an Amendment put some of the provisions in the Bill to guard against this, a great deal hinges on the particular case. He mentioned promotion. The noble and learned Viscount is well aware that if that promotion really meant a male brothel, then it would be covered in Section 5 of the Bill.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If I may interrupt again, I will not press the noble Lord for an answer to-night, but I would

647
certainly press it at a later stage. If he boggles at the word "promotion", I will put it this way. If a number of people agreed together to encourage the commission of acts of homosexuality between adults, will that be a conspiracy to effect a public mischief?
LORD STONHAM: I shall be very glad to look into that. But I assure the noble and learned Viscount that, after nine months of almost continuous work on the Abortion Bill and the Sexual Offences Bill, I do not boggle at any word in the English language.
I do not want to run away from the question, and certainly in Committee, when we get down to it, I should like to deal with this important point. But, as the noble and learned Viscount knows, the standard definition of the crime of conspiracy is that it is committed when two parties agree to pursue an unlawful purpose, or a lawful purpose by unlawful means; and an agreement to do acts which, though not offences, are outrageously immoral or extremely injurious to the public may constitute an agreement to pursue an unlawful purpose.
LORD SALTOUN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but this is so cognate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, on a stage of the other Bill, spoke of clubs for this purpose. Would they be covered?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we dealt with clubs in the Licensing Act. I myself put forward many Amendments in Opposition. But it is no use trying to give a general answer to this question. It would be necessary to look at the precise point of the particular club and the purpose for which it was being run. I am only trying to answer questions, but I seem to be getting as many interruptions as if I were being controversial. Again, as Lord Dilhorne will know, the law of conspiracy—the whole question of Common Law misdemeanours—is at present under review by the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I am quite sure that I have not wholely satisfied the noble and learned Viscount, but then neither he nor I thought that I should. We can take it up at a later stage.
I come to what I thought was the one remaining point that required an answer,
648
as distinct from arguments which have been deployed—exactly the same arguments as have been deployed before: that is the point of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, about those persons who have been convicted of offences which would not be crimes if this Bill became law. First, I would question Lord Arran's estimate of about a hundred such people in prison. I asked for the figures prior to this debate. I am afraid that the statistics are necessarily compiled in accordance with the law as it is now, not in accordance with the law as it would be if this Bill were passed. Therefore, in our statistics there is no distinction between offences between consenting adults in private and other homosexual offences. The only thing we can turn to is the special study which was done for the Wolfenden Committee, when it was found that 108 such persons were sent to prison in a period of three years ending in 1956. Since the Committee reported, the practice has been introduced of the Director of Public Prosecutions being consulted about prosecutions for stale offences, those giving rise to blackmail, and offences between consenting adults in private. He confirmed this instruction to Chief Officers of Police in 1964, and therefore it is likely that those numbers have considerably diminished since the Wolfenden Committee looked at the matter in 1956.
But, as the noble Earl will appreciate, the point is really one of principle. It is a dangerous argument for a reformer to advance because the only way to avoid the uncertainties and transitional difficulties before a change in the law is made is not to change the law, nor institute reforms. In this country the only way to change the law is by Act of Parliament, not by a Bill which makes some progress, nor by a Report from a Committee.
The noble Earl mentioned landmarks. There are landmarks, such as the Wolfenden Report and, if I may say so, the passage of the noble Earl's Bill. But one cannot argue that because one of those landmarks has been reached, one must regard the law itself as having been changed. To me, the truly surprising feature about Lord Arran's Bill is not the delays which it has encountered but the rapidity of the progress it has made. If you compare the long and tortuous path of the Bill for the abolition of capital

649
punishment, I find it difficult almost to believe now that it is only just over a year since the noble Earl put down a tentative Motion calling attention to the Wolfenden Report. Now many of us expect this Bill to reach the Statute Book in a matter of months.
I am more than ever convinced, particularly from the debate we have just had, that the real way to deal with questions of this kind is by Private Members' Bills. The Government have given drafting assistance, and will give more; and in so doing this Bill has been transformed from a declaration of intent into a viable piece of legislation. Progress has been so rapid that we should surely continue on the path which has taken this Bill so near to success, and not abandon this course and deal with the matter in some other way. Like, I imagine, most noble Lords, I am unable to dissociate the discussion we are now having from the Second Reading of the earlier Bill and our comparatively recent discussions in the previous Parliament. I recall the decisions that we then made, and I hope that we shall make further progress.
7.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, we have had our debate. I did not think it was such a bad debate. Perhaps there was nothing particularly new to say, but
at least those of us who feel strongly spoke strongly once again. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, this is a matter on which those of us who disagree will probably never agree. I must confess that I feel somewhat depressed by the sad things said by some noble Lords in regard to our youth. I do not believe that our youth is waiting to be corrupted, or is in any way corrupted, any more than it has ever been. I do not think that the country is "going to the dogs". I think—and perhaps this is an original thought—that our youth is perhaps a little selfish. But of course young people are always selfish.
I know that there are dangers in this Bill. There are dangers in all reform. I suppose there was a danger in the Bills for the abolition of hanging for sheep stealing and of slavery. These things seemed to a number of wise people at the time to be wrong; but they were done, and Britain survived and was the better for it. If your Lordships will courteously approve this Bill once again, which I am far from taking for granted, I propose to proceed further.
7.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Devonshire, D.

Plummer, B.

Airedale, L.

Dunrossill, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Amherst, E.

Effingham, E.

Queensberry, M.

Annan, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Raglan, L.

Archibald, L.

Faringdon, L.

Reay, L.

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Ferrers, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Rothermere, V.

Audley, B.

Gardiner, L. [L. Chancellor.]

St. Albans, Bp.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Gladwyn, L.

St. Just, L.

Barrington, V.

Greenway, L.

Segal, L.

Bedford, D. [Teller.]

Gridley, L.

Sherfield, L.

Boothby, L.

Hertford, M.

Sorensen, L.

Bowles, L.

Jessel, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Stonham, L.

Burden, L.

Killearn, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Byers, L.

Kinross, L.

Strang, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Lilford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Lincoln, Bp.

Swanborough, B.

Colgrain, L.

Listowel, E.

Terrington, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Wellington, D.

Colwyn, L.

Monson, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Darwen, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Derby, Bp.

Mowbray & Stourton, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Devonport, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Oakshott, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rowallan, L.

Blyton, L.

Glentanar, L.

Saltoun, L.

Brocket, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Simon, V.

Coleraine, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Dilhorne. V. [Teller.]

Kilmuir, E. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Exeter, M.

Lindgren, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Falmouth, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Resolved in the affirmative. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House adjourned at one minute before eight o'clock.