Sitting of 9 February 1967

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

    MINISTRY OF AVIATION (DISSOLUTION) ORDER
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Ministry of Aviation (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

    MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DISSOLUTION) ORDER
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE- HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Address praying that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the Draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (FISHGUARD HARBOUR, ETC. VESTING) BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday 23rd February.
    LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

    Prices and Incomes Policy
    Mr. Marquandasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs with what administrative machinery, and according to what social and economic criteria, he intends to administer the Government's prices and incomes policy after July, 1967.
    Mr. Channonasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) if he will now publish a White Paper dealing with the future of the Government's prices and incomes policy;
    (2) if he will now state the Government's policy towards wage increases after July.
    Mr. Christopher Rowlandasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what progress he has made in his discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on an effective long-term prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Biffenasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is satisfied that Parts I, II, and III of the Prices and Incomes Act give him sufficient legislative sanctions to influence the movement of prices and incomes after 31st July; and if he will make a statement.
    . Mr. Ridleyasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when he will now make a statement on the Government's incomes policy to follow the end of the period of severe restraint.
    The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour and I have had further meetings with the C.B.I. and T.U.C. this week. The consultations have covered the norm criteria, machinery and possible statutory powers after the end of severe restraint. The two sides are considering the Government's views on these various topics and further consultations will be taking place.
    Mr. Marquand: Can my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance that

    1799
    he has no intention of returning to a wholly voluntary incomes policy after July, since experience has shown that a voluntary policy is equivalent to no policy at all? Secondly, what does he intend to do after July about the lower-paid workers and will he specifically look at the proposal for a national minimum wage, at least equivalent to the standards laid down by the Supplementary Benefits Commission?
    Mr. Stewart: I will certainly look at the proposal contained in the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, as I am already looking at this and other suggestions. To answer the first part of his supplementary question, that is exactly one of the matters now under discussion.
    Mr. Channon: Is it not a disgrace that this House has not yet been told about the Government's plans for the period after July? When will the First Secretary let the House know, as well as the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., what the Government are proposing?
    Mr. Stewart: I hope to give that information to the House as soon as possible, but I do not believe that there is anything objectionable—and this is frequently done—in the Government beginning by putting certain ideas and possibilities forward to particular parties before stating those ideas in the form in which they should be presented to this House.
    Mr. Rowland: Would my right hon. Friend indicate along which lines his mind and that of the Government are working? Is it that there may be no price change at all—whether it be the price of labour, goods or services—without the prior approval of the Government, or that there may be price changes, subject to delay and to possible Government intervention afterwards? If it is the former, may I say that I would object not so much on doctrinal grounds as on practical grounds?
    Mr. Stewart: Without pre-empting the result of discussions, I think that I agree with my hon. Friend about that.
    Mr. Biffen: Before endorsing the advice offered to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand), will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the considerable hostility that will be expressed, not only in this House but
    1800
    throughout the country, if the drift to compulsion in this policy is intensified rather than ended?
    Mr. Stewart: It would be idle to suppose that any solution to this problem could be reached without there being opposition to it from some quarter or other. It is a difficult problem, in the consideration of which many pros and cons must be weighed. That is why I am now having consultations. As I said, I hope that before long the Government will be in a position to speak to this House about it.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that authoritarianism is often more successful than liberty, but that our economic freedom to determine wages and prices is something which we cherish very much indeed? Will he, therefore, hesitate severely before extending compulsion in this matter?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman says that authoritarianism is often more successful than liberty. I should have thought that that was true only in the very short term. The argument here is not between authoritarianism and liberty. There are a great many subjects on which we have laws, but they have to be laws which are broadly in line with public opinion. What we have to consider now is exactly what part voluntary action and Government action should play.
    Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable number of hon. Members on this side of the House, including trade union Members, are opposed to any extension of compulsion after July? Would he not consider that the proposals made by the T.U.C. for a temporary scheme are more acceptable to the Government than the previous suggestions?
    Mr. Stewart: There is certainly a great deal in the proposals put forward by the T.U.C. with which I would agree and with which I think anyone who has studied this problem will agree, but before any of us take up rigid positions on this we ought to allow the consultations to proceed a bit further.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that when the powers were introduced he did take up a rigid position on this? The White Paper said

    1801
    that the powers would be purely temporary, that they would lapse automatically, and could not be renewed. Is he saying that the nation can put no faith whatever in that promise?
    Mr. Stewart: No. It is perfectly clear that the powers contained in Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act do lapse, actually, I think, on 11th August this year, but my right hon. Friends, in saying this, pointed out that if it were ever considered desirable to ask for any other powers, they would, of course, require fresh legislation and the consent of this House.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Will my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance to the House that if controls are to continue—and I hope they are—he will maintain just as strict and rigid control over prices and profits as he does over incomes?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not think we ought to use too freely these words "strict" and "rigid". This is not what is in issue. This is a question whether we can get, and what is the best method of getting, sufficient stability in our prices and wages to enable us to sustain rapid growth in the economy, but quite certainly, whatever is decided on that, one has got to make it apply both to prices and to incomes.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the comparative failure of his policy so far, as 1,100 prices have gone up and 165 have gone down and the cost of living since July has gone up 1·7 per cent.?
    Mr. Stewart: When the hon. Member talks like that I think he fails to understand what the purpose of the policy is. If he will study the White Paper, he will find that it was to see that during the periods of standstill and severe restraint neither incomes nor prices went up unless there were certain specified justifications for them. That policy has been carried out.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not follow the advice of lawyers and university teachers on this question but will accept the advice of the Trades Union Congress, which is involved in the day-to-day negotiations for wages in this country?
    Mr. Stewart: I have clearly got to pay very great weight indeed to any advice given to me by the Trades Union Congress. I have to bear in mind, however, that this is a matter which affects the rights and standard of living of everybody in this country and I have received advice from a great variety of quarters. Not all trade unionists are agreed on the advice they give me, and not all university teachers are agreed either.
    Mrs. Knight: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that what matters to the people of this country is not so much the purpose as the result of his policy and that the result has been that many increases have taken place in the nationalised industries? Would he not agree that this is a rather unfortunate result, whatever the purpose started out to be?
    Mr. Stewart: I think the hon. Lady is again making a purely selective choice of evidence. If she has a look at what has happened to the Price Index as a whole and the reasons and justifications there have been wherever increases either of prices or of incomes have occurred, she will see that the policy is being carried out.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members are concerned at the tremendous pressures which are being brought to bear on both sides of industry without any apparent concern for the general public? Will he bear in mind that we as Members of Parliament represent the general public and not a sectional interest? Will he ensure that this is thought of when the legislation is brought forward?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, indeed. Indeed, it is, of course, the Government's part in this matter—the part of the Government and the House—to represent the general interest. On any question requiring legislation, of course, this House would properly have the last word.
    Mr. Marquandasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure that the recommendations contained in the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on productivity and pay during

    1803
    the period of severe restraint, Command Paper No. 3167, will be carried out.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Frederick Lee): The Government have welcomed this valuable guidance to all concerned in the negotiation of productivity agreements, and the Board's recommendations are being taken into account in the examination of proposals for pay increases under paragraph 27 of Cmnd. 3150. The Government themselves are considering the Board's recommendation that it should receive a reference relating to systems of payment by results.
    Mr. Marquand: Does my right hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most important of the points made by the Report mentioned in my Question is its insistence that the benefits of the productivity agreement should accrue to the whole community in the form of lower prices? Will he say specifically what he is doing to achieve that?
    Mr. Lee: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. This to me also is one of the important factors. It is one of the reasons why one cannot merely talk of a productivity agreement, so-called, and give assent to it without finding whether the national interest is being preserved by it.
    Sir C. Osborne: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he expects that we shall have greater national productivity? In view of the fact that only this morning it was shown that in steel production there has been the greatest fall since 1963, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman did something about it, or allowed someone else to do something about it?
    Mr. Lee: I should have thought that the hon. Member would have noticed from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the tendencies are all in that direction.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether he will now revise Government policy disallowing discretionary wage and salary increases to employees.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: No, Sir, as far as the period of severe restraint is concerned.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister not agree that the present system works great injustice by linking wage increases to the purely arbitrary criterion of job classification? Does he realise that that is bitterly resented, not least among employees of the Marconi factory in my constituency at Chelmsford?
    Mr. Lee: Where a commitment to review was in existence on 20th July last year, it is covered by paragraph 34 of the White Paper, Prices and Incomes Standstill; Period of Severe Restraint, Cmnd. 3150.
    Mr. Ford: Is my right hon. Friend aware that whilst it is comparatively easy for employees working under payment by results schemes to increase their earnings, employees labouring under systems of personal assessment, with earnings related to productivity, are at a severe disadvantage?
    Mr. Lee: Yes, Sir, I am. I have recognised that from the days when I used to negotiate for them. This is not brought about by anything in the present restraint period; it is one of the weaknesses of bargaining in the old sense.

    Import Surcharge
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what steps he has taken since the removal of the import surcharge to secure the reduction of prices, particularly those of petrol, which were increased by reason of the surcharge; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: A special approach has been made by Government Departments to the trades chiefly concerned to ensure that they are fully aware of the need to reduce prices wherever possible. Petrol prices were not affected by the surcharge.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is not this most unsatisfactory? Does not my right hon. Friend remember the bland assurances given at the time that the import surcharge was announced that the price increase would be only temporary until the import surcharge was taken off? Does he not further remember the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, on 1st December last, saying that there was a

    1805
    duty to reduce prices in appropriate cases? Is this not becoming a public scandal?
    Mr. Lee: I expect there will be more reductions in prices as stocks run out. In fact, there have already been important reductions, in fibre board containers, cameras and wines and spirits, and, as I said, there are still price reductions to come.

    National Plan
    Mr. Onslowasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs whether, in compiling statistics for the preparation of a revised version of the National Plan, he will seek to establish how many staff in the private sector of the economy are wholly or mainly employed with work which is directly connected with the compilation and rendering of official returns and forms, with the collection of taxes, and with other similar activities performed on behalf of the Government.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): No, Sir.
    Mr. Onslow: Why on earth not? Is the Minister afraid to ask industry how many men have to be employed in this way, or does he not know the answer?
    Mr. Shore: The information would obviously have some interest, but it would hardly be essentially relevant to an industrial inquiry designed to help revise the National Plan. I think if one put this further obligation upon industry it would be one that many firms, at any rate, would certainly not welcome.
    Mr. Higginsasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the input/output tables which show the relationship between the various industries covered by the National Plan and reconcile the figures given for each industry.
    Mr. Shore: No, Sir.
    Mr. Higgins: The First Secretary's predecessor said that the tables existed and would be published. The present First Secretary then said that it would cost too much to produce them. Do they exist or not, and will the hon. Gentleman place whatever tables exist
    1806
    in the Library so that we can carry out a post mortem on the National Plan?
    Mr. Shore: As my right hon. Friend explained on 25th November last year, the tables are based on the projections in the National Plan, which are no longer considered practicable for 1970. Therefore, work on the tables has not continued. There is also the problem that some of the figures might give a misleading impression of Government policy.
    Mr. Higgins: What happened to the actual figures for the base year? Were they ever reconciled or not?
    Mr. Shore: I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that point.
    Mr. Higgins: Were they ever reconciled?
    Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to what extent the forecasts contained in the National Plan will be affected by the increase over the past 28 months in the numbers of people employed in the Civil Service and local government service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Shore: The increases are consistent with the relevant figures in the National Plan.
    Mr. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how it assists rapid and sustained growth in the economy to redeploy 38,000 additional civil servants into the Civil Service in a period of two years?
    Mr. Shore: Those additions reflect changes in the population structure and the services that are required to meet it, particularly the Government's policy of improving certain social services. The great majority of the increase in people employed by local government comes under the headings of education, health and welfare.

    Industrial Production
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how he accounts for the fall in the index of industrial production, as published by his Department, to its lowest level for two years.
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the fall in the index of industrial production for November to 129, the lowest level for two years; and if he will forecast the trend for 1967 as a whole.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The level of the index in November reflects mainly the downward adjustment resulting from restrictions to correct the balance of payments foreshadowed in my reply to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on 1st December [Vol. 737, c. 601–3]. It was also depressed by industrial disputes in the motor industry.
    I am confident that with exports in the lead, industrial production will be rising this year.
    Mr. Griffiths: A few minutes ago the First Secretary described this state of affairs as "sustained growth". Is it not a fact that the National Plan and many of the social programmes that flowed from it were founded upon the assumption of higher production? As this higher production is not forthcoming and the National Plan is a flop, how can anyone put any credit on any promises by the Government?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that what I said earlier was that a prices and incomes policy must be sought which makes sustained growth possible. That is certainly true. The reason why there has been this down-turn is that which I gave in reply to the earlier Question. The hon. Gentleman's statement that the National Plan is a flop is not an opinion shared by people in industry generally. [Laughter.] It is perfectly true that the objectives there mentioned will take longer of realisation, but I do not regard that as a subject for rejoicing, as apparently it is to hon. Members opposite. With exports in the lead, we have reasonable hope of rising industrial production this year and I hope we shall get back again to those objectives.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Are not the figures shown in Question 20 the inevitable result of two years of doctrinaire Socialism? Would the right hon. Gentleman explain the fall of six points in the index since August on a seasonally adjusted basis,
    1808
    which is the heaviest for very many years and which seems to occur mainly in manufacturing industry rather than in service industries, which is exactly the opposite to the policy of redeployment?
    Mr. Stewart: I have already given the reasons for the down-turn. The measures taken in July were, as is well known, the result of the need to correct the balance of payments. If the hon. Gentleman wants to look for the causes of difficulty in the balance of payments, he must make a more profound historical research than the last two years.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Will the First Secretary also make a profound historical research and consider the policies of Mr. R. A. Butler, who, when faced with a deficit running at the rate of £800 million a year, was able to turn it into a balance within two years and introduce tax incentives as well?
    Mr. Stewart: If there was that degree of talent in the party opposite, it is surprising that we inherited the position we did in 1964.

    Industrial Reorganisation Corporation
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on what other occasions besides the case of Rootes he has insisted on the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation making an advance, without leaving the initiative to the Corporation.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act does not give me power to insist that the Corporation should make particular investments.
    Mr. Digby: Is it not a fact that it was made perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman has put a lot of pressure on the Corporation already? Does he think that it is the best way to launch the Corporation to make it appear the mere creature of his Department?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman says, first, in his Question that I "insisted", which is not true and which could not be true. Now he says that I have put pressure on the Corporation, which again is incorrect. In accordance with my powers under the Act, I made a

    1809
    request which it was open to the Corporation to refuse or accede to. It was its own choice to accede to it.

    Roehampton Hospital (Limb Fitters)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs why he has taken steps to prevent the payment to limb-fitters working at Roehampton Hospital of the wage increase agreed by their employers; and what, on an annual basis, is the sum involved.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The agreement, which is for a pay increase of £100 a year for each limb-fitter from 2nd January, is not obviously reconcilable with the criteria for pay increases in the period of severe restraint and was therefore referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for examination. In view of the refusal by the parties to defer payment of the increase pending the Board's report, the Government considered it necessary to make an Order prohibiting further payment of the increase.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not the total amount involved absolutely trivial in terms of the national economy or in relation to the amounts at stake in respect of electrical contractors and the agricultural workers? As these men are specially skilled men, limited in number, who do a vital job of work for disabled people is it not very petty to invoke this great instrument with criminal penalties to stop the increase which their employers want to give them?
    Mr. Stewart: It is true that a very small number of men are involved. That really is the point, because the great majority of workers are accepting the general tenor of the policy at present. Therefore, it would not be right to let particular groups act in clear opposition to that policy.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there are special circumstances in this case which would have justified allowing this increase? Does he not agree, further, that by intervening at this stage and preventing the payment of the increase he has conditioned the situation and made it extraordinarily difficult for the National Board for Prices and Incomes to reach a fair and unbiassed conclusion in the matter?
    Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think this is so. I would agree that there are special circumstances in this case, but there are many groups of workers who could have advanced that plea. It was because there were special circumstances that I thought it right to refer the case to the Board. I would have thought that it was reasonable for both parties to have refrained from making the increase until the Board had reported. To insist on making the increase before the report, was really an attempt to pre-judge the Board's decision. I did not think that could be accepted.

    Northern Regional Economic Planning Council
    Dame Irene Wardasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) what requests for action in the region by the Northern Regional Economic Planning Council have been received; what they were; and what decisions have been taken;
    (2) if he will give a detailed progress report to be related to the subheadings in each of the main divisions requiring Government action on the recommendations contained in the "Challenge of the Changing North" Report of the Northern Regional Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. Shore: The first four pages of the regional study published by the Northern Economic Planning Council gave a summary of its findings and recommendations. Those proposals which were addressed to Government covered a wide range of topics. They are now being carefully considered by the Departments concerned.
    Dame Irene Ward: As the Northern Economic Planning Council is dominated by this miserable Government, would not the Joint Under-Secretary agree that it is very important that the public records shall show whether the Government are really taking any action, or, according to the hon. Gentleman's reply, just sitting on their behinds considering, about which I am absolutely sick?
    Mr. Shore: I do not see why the hon. Lady should be quite so censorious in her tone. This is a serious Report. A serious Report deserves and requires serious study. That is what it is getting.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that, unlike the hon. Lady, northern Members on this side of the House are greatly impressed by the vigour and drive of the Northern Economic Planning Council under the great leadership of Dan Smith? Is he aware, further, that we expect the Government to implement the recommendations contained in the Planning Council's Report?
    Mr. Shore: I think that the whole House, certainly all those who have come into contact with the leaders of the Northern Economic Planning Council, have been greatly impressed by the quality of the men concerned, and, indeed, by the excellence of the Report they have produced.
    Dame Irene Ward: Not me, anyhow.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend doing something to ensure that the different Ministries involved in the carrying out of these recommendations are brought together so as to ensure that there is a reasonably active follow-up of these recommendations?
    Mr. Shore: Yes. Consultations are taking place.

    Atlantic Free Trade Area
    Mr. Martenasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards an Atlantic Free Trade Area.
    Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the debate on the European Economic Community on 16th November, 1966.—[Vol. 736, c. 448.]
    Mr. Marten: Does the First Secretary of State agree that the Atlantic Free Trade area proposal is an alternative way of organising Britain's future? Are the Government studying it and giving it consideration?
    Mr. Stewart: The Government, before embarking upon their present step, considered all relevant considerations.
    Mr. Jennings: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the soundest alternative to entry into the Common Market? Does not he agree also that
    1812
    probings of a similar nature to those which are now taking place would be good policy for the approach of the United States, Canada, E.F.T.A. and the Six, including ourselves, into such an Atlantic economic union?
    Mr. Stewart: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is, "No, Sir." We are at present engaged in discovering whether there is, as we trust, a basis for negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community. I do not think that much point would be served by trying to weigh up the comparative merits of different alternatives to that policy.
    Mr. Roebuck: Is it within my right hon. Friend's recollection that the proposal for an Atlantic Free Trade Area was particularly warmly advocated by the Prime Minister in 1962? Has my right hon. Friend any information on whether the Prime Minister has changed his mind?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that my right hon. Friend's policy is well known. It has been repeatedly stated.

    East Anglian Regional Economic Planning Council
    Dr. Grayasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what is his policy with regard to the undertaking by the East Anglian Planning Council of physical and land use planning and the decisions upon growth points within the region.
    Mr. Shore: 'The Planning Council's job is to adivse on a general framework for the future economic development of East Anglia within which sensible planning decisions can be taken by all concerned.
    Dr. Gray: Apart from assurances to the local authorities of full consultation, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that such powers as local authorities have on physical planning will not be diminished or taken from them and transferred to this unrepresentative and non-elected body?
    Mr. Shore: Yes, Sir, I give that undertaking. There is no intention to take from local authorities their planning powers. If I may put it in this way, the Regional Planning Council's concern is the broad strategy of economic and

    1813
    physical planning, not detailed and physical land use planning which properly belongs to the local authorities.

    Low-paid Workers
    Mr. Ashleyasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (1) what immediate steps he is taking to improve the standards of the lowest-paid workers;
    (2) if he will undertake a survey of the full distribution of earnings in order to locate and give long-term assistance to low-paid workers.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what concrete steps the Government propose to take to raise the standard of living of low wage earners.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: As my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State explained in the debate on 22nd November, 1966, it must be accepted that the problem of removing poverty amongst the worst off cannot be dealt with by looking at wages alone. The Government are, therefore, looking at measures designed to meet family needs. It has also been thought right to include in the Severe Restraint White Paper, Cmnd. 3150, a criterion justifying exceptional treatment for the lowest-paid workers. The application of this criterion is in the first place a matter for the parties to wage negotiations, taking into account their particular circumstances and the need to ensure that the benefits are genuinely confined to the lowest-paid workers.
    Mr. Ashley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful Reply. Is he aware that, although successful implementation of the productivity, prices and incomes policy will assist lower-paid workers, there is an urgent need for short-term assistance to them at once?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend will know that even now many of these wage applications are being met. But, as I said in my original Answer, one cannot completely meet the problem of the lower-paid worker by wage increases alone. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security has instituted the family expenditure survey which gives regular information about the distribution of
    1814
    earnings and incomes, and a full-scale survey of distribution of earnings was carried out in 1960 by a Member of the party opposite, which also is helpful in this respect.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would not one of the most effective ways to help these workers, who constitute the new poor, be a substantial increase in family allowances linked to a simple incomes test?
    Mr. Lee: This is the kind of possibility one has in mind. Obviously, one cannot meet the problem by mere increases in the earnings of lower-paid workers, and the kind of thing the hon. Gentleman has in mind I have in mind, too.
    Mr. Will Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend recall that it used to be the policy of the party to which he and I belong that it is desirable to create greater egalitarianism, a greater equality in our society? Have he and his colleagues in the Government abandoned that object now?
    Mr. Lee: Not in the least, Sir. I think that over the past seven months, because of the comparative stability which we have brought into the economy, lower-paid workers have gained far more than those with higher wages.
    Mr. David Howell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a definite assurance that there is no question of raising family allowances and at the same time penalising taxpayers through reductions in child allowances?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman should address that question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Social Security.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that incomes legislation, as outlined on numerous occasions in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), is proving in practice of little benefit to lower-paid workers?
    Mr. Lee: One cannot generalise on this. I am pretty sure that one could show that lower-paid workers have, in fact, gained more by the stability in the economy to which I have referred.
    Sir H. Harrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind particularly the

    1815
    agricultural workers and make representations to the Minister of Agriculture, during the present Price Review, to increase farmers' returns sufficiently to enable them to pay a higher reward to agricultural workers for their good work?
    Mr. Lee: The National Board for Prices and Incomes has considered the pay of agricultural workers and its Report is now available. It is now preparing a report on the retail drapery trade, and this also will be of value.
    Mr. John Hynd: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to commit the Government to an incomes test in relation to family allowances? Will he correct or confirm that?
    Mr. Lee: I did not commit the Government to anything of the sort. I said that this was the kind of issue which could not be resolved merely by increasing the wages of lower-paid workers.

    Regional Planning
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the First Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he is taking to strengthen the regional planning machinery established by his Department.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The planning councils and boards have made good progress since they were established, and, while I keep their operation under continual review, I have no present plans for making changes in their functions or organisation.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is there not an urgent need for a close link between economic and physical planning, and does not my right hon. Friend feel that some of the Ministries, at least on a regional basis, are at present inclined to carry on their own activities in their own way without adequate co-operation?
    Mr. Stewart: I agree about the need for the link my hon. Friend mentions, but I would not agree with his other point. This is one of the matters which I watch when paying attention to the work of councils.
    Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a growing feeling that the Government are trying to make these councils the passive partner of Whitehall rather than a really
    1816
    effective voice for regional development? Will he ensure that that feeling is overcome? Otherwise, this hopeful development could easily founder.
    Mr. Stewart: I am sure that it is not a widespread feeling. I shall do my best to see that there is no justification for such a view, and there are many instances when Ministers have been influenced by the valuable advice we receive from councils.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs if he is satisfied with the success of his policies relating to regional development; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. M. Stewart: The Government's policy on regional development has got off to a good start with the setting up of the regional councils and the steady preparation of their first reports. Our regional problems are, however, wide ranging and complex and cannot he solved overnight. Nevertheless, I hope for steady progress.
    Mr. Taylor: How can the Minister be satisfied with the situation in Scotland when we have six unemployed men and women for every vacant job, and unemployment is increasing at twice the rate of the rest of the country? How does that fit in with his assurance that the regions would be sheltered from the freeze?
    Mr. Stewart: I did not say that I was satisfied with the position in Scotland, but the hon. Member will know that the Government have taken a wide range of measures to help those regions likely to be in most difficulty.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is a matter of urgency that the regional reports that have not yet been published should come out as soon as possible? Will he take every step to see that that is done?
    Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir.

    South-West Regional Economic Planning Council
    Mr. Nottasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many members of

    1817
    the newly-appointed Council of the South-West Regional Economic Planning Council come from Gloucestershire, Bristol, Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall.
    Mr. Shore: Including those recently, appointed, the membership of the Council, which was established in April, 1965, is, by county, as follows: Gloucestershire 3, Bristol 9, Wiltshire 2, Dorset I, Somerset 3, Devon 8, Cornwall 2.
    Mr. Nott: First, will the Minister consider greater Cornish representation on the Council—he has written to me about it—and will he do so as soon as possible? Second, will he give an assurance that, when the report for the South-West is published—it is nearing completion now—the Government will not have changed, altered or amended it in any way and it will contain the opinions of the Council, not Government policy?
    Mr. Shore: I can give the second assurance without any difficulty. On the first point, the hon. Gentleman knows that the appointment of members is not an easy matter. The basis of representation is not territorial. It has to be the selection of individuals who, we believe, can contribute most to the region. But I shall bear the point in mind.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Why is Dorset so miserably under-represented, with only one member? On what basis was the final selection made? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that political considerations did not come into it?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman could not have heard my reply to the previous supplementary question. I said that the basis of selection for membership of the Regional Council was not a territorial one. I can assure him that it is not a party political one either.

    Doncaster Area
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs what action he is taking to give effect to that part of the recently published study of the Yorkshire and Humberside economic region which urges speedy development of the growth potentialities of the Doncaster area.
    Mr. Shore: The proposals from the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic
    1818
    Planning Council, including those for Government action to stimulate industrial development generally in the region, are under consideration.
    Mr. Walker: Is the Minister aware that the Report was published several months ago, and that in the meantime the rate of unemployment has grown very considerably in an area that has been designated by the Planning Council as one that is ripe for rapid development? Is there not a contradiction here?
    Mr. Shore: The Report produced by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council makes suggestions that have important implications for general national policy. They must be considered, and considered carefully.

    South-West Regional Economic Planning Council
    Mr. Nottasked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs how many people with practical experience of Cornish agriculture and horticulture are represented on the Agricultural Sub-Committee of the South-West Regional Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. Shore: None, Sir.
    Mr. Nott: Is the Minister aware that there is great dissatisfaction amongst the farming community in the South-West that there is not a single person with practical farming experience on the Agricultural Sub-Committee, particularly from Cornwall, and that it is preparing a report on the future of agriculture in the South-West? Will he look into this straight away?
    Mr. Shore: I am always willing to look at this, but it is not practicable, within the limited membership of a Regional Council, to cater for every industry and every interest in every county. To make the point a little stronger, although agriculture is a very important part of the Cornish economy, it accounts for only about 7 per cent. of the total employed.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister if, in the interests of a peaceable settlement in the Rhodesian dispute, he will now seek the services of a mediator.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir. As I said on 8th December in answer to a Question by the hon. Member, such suggestions have been rejected by Rhodesian leaders in the past. There is nothing to indicate that a mediator could at present assist in securing a return to legal government.—[Vol. 737, c. 1566.]
  Mr. King: Now that the Constitution has been agreed, is it not a fact that almost the sole obstacle is a mistrust felt by the Prime Minister for Mr. Smith, and the distrust felt by the whole Rhodesian people for the Prime Minister? I am not concerned whose fault that may be, but, in such circumstances would not the good offices of a third party be useful?
  The Prime Minister: The whole trouble is that when argreement was reached on the "Tiger" and could have been implemented, Mr. Smith was not in a position to deliver because of the extremists in his "government." I do not see that a mediator could do more, unless someone could find a mediator to mediate between Mr. Smith and his extremists.
  Mr. Paget: Now that the matter is in the hands of the Security Council, are we in any position to appoint a mediator?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We would certainly be in a position to attempt to find a solution if we were dealing with people in Rhodesia with any power to deliver. When one gets, as one does, through the Rhodesian Press under censorship, and through their television and radio, such a fantastically inaccurate account of what happened on "Tiger"—complete denial of things Mr. Smith said, and he must know that to be so—it is no wonder the Rhodesian people are in the state of confusion apparently shared by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Maudling: Is the Prime Minister closing the door permanently to the idea of a mediator? That may not be practicable at the moment, but at some time or other this problem must be solved. Is it wise to close the door to any solution that might be of advantage?
  The Prime Minister: I am not closing the door permanently. The Answer I gave was that "There is nothing to indicate that a mediator could at present
  1820
  Assist…" The phrase "at present" suggests that there could be other circumstances. But Mr. Smith rejected every suggestion for a mediator—a Commonwealth mission, the Canadian Prime Minister and others—last year, and there is nothing at present to suggest that a mediator could help.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and numbers of his colleagues have already been in Rhodesia trying to mediate? Are they not the best people to say whether mediation is possible?
  The Prime Minister: I know for a fact that when the right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was there what he did behind the scenes and what he said were aimed at trying to get a solution, and indeed it was a solution which could have been very close to that which we reached on "Tiger". He would know the difficulties, if Mr. Smith is overborne by his extremists, of any kind of mediation by himself or anyone else.
  Mr. Sandysasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on the 2nd of February.—[Vol. 740, c. 762]
  Mr. Sandys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, even if it means once more eating his words, he will sooner or later be obliged to start talks again with the de facto Government in Salisbury and that the longer he waits the more difficult and the more humiliating it will be for him?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will recognize—and there was no question of eating words—the very real effort we made on H.M.S. "Tiger" to get a settlement. Unfortunately, that settlement was not carried through because there are people in the Rhodesian regime who did not allow it to go through. If anyone is going to eat words, I am afraid that having to eat the words he uttered in Trafalgar Square will give the right hon. Gentleman a very chronic form of indigestion.

  SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Prime Minister which Minister is now responsible for the co-ordination and overall planning of the development of our social services.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made for a Minister to take over the task of reviewing the social services.
  Mr. Rowlandasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement about Ministerial responsibility for the co-ordination of the social services.
  The Prime Minister: The development of the new social services remains, of course, the responsibility of the various Departmental Ministers concerned. But I have asked my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio to assist them in ensuring the necessary co-ordination of their interests, particularly as regards forward planning.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: While I welcome that Answer, is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some anxiety in the country lest the wider-than-Departmental responsibility should be lost sight of in the very important further reforms still needed for the development of our social services?
  The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of losing sight of that problem.
  Mr. Lewis: Would not the Prime Minister agree that a senior Cabinet Minister has been sitting on this matter like a broody hen for far too long and that it is time something was hatched?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman will recall the very considerable number of social advances that have been legislated upon during the last two and a half years. If, however, he wants me to remind him, if he puts down a Question I will give him the very long list.
  Mr. Rowland: Can we have an assurance that the work put in train by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will be concluded and, if so, when?
  The Prime Minister: This is a continuing process. As each part of the work
  1822
  reaches the point where we can commend legislation to the House, we do so. We have been doing this ever since November, 1964, and the House knows the long list of legislative achievement in that direction.
  Miss Pike: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a growing feeling among social workers that the Government's attempts at overall planning and co-ordination are failing to lead to long-term solutions? Will he ensure in future that more regard is paid to priorities than to propaganda?
  The Prime Minister: We have been paying regard to priorities in bringing forward legislation in the House. Indeed, the hon. Lady has been good enough to commend some of it. It is a pity that she never got the chance to commend it from the Government Bench when she was a Minister. I know that she would have liked to have done so but was not allowed. But we have been working on the priorities and I think that the House may feel that our priorities are right. I agree with the hon. Lady that there are still some substantial problems.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as usual, Scotland leads the field with an excellent White Paper on the social services? In recognition of this, will he look sympathetically at the current wage dispute with local authority workers in some sense of reward for their efforts?
  The Prime Minister: That is a rather different question, but no doubt my hon. Friend can get an answer from the appropriate Minister.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Sandysasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about the progress of his talks with other Governments regarding the entry of Great Brtain into the Common Market.
  The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to Questions by hon. Members, following the visits of my right hon. Friend and myself to Rome, Paris and Brussels respectively,

  1823
  on the 19th January, the 26th January and the 2nd February, Sir.—[Vol. 739, c. 643; Vol. 739, c. 1765; Vol. 740, c. 769.]
  Mr. Sandys:Will the Prime Minister, in his talks, make it clear that, as the public opinion polls show, he is speaking for the mass of the British people—[Interruption.]—and that those here who oppose Britain's entry into the Common Market are a small and declining minority? Can he say whether the Governments of the countries he has approached accept that a special arrangement will be required to meet the unique problem of New Zealand?
  The Prime Minister: In answer to the first part of that supplementary question, which the right hon. Gentleman extended beyond the Common Market, it is certainly the case that even this morning's public opinion poll confirms what he said. But it would be rather more considerate of him if he did not keep rubbing in this point to the Front Bench opposite.
  With regard to public opinion on the Common Market, I think that the right hon. Gentleman correctly expressed the position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman perfectly represented what the public opinion polls have recorded about the Common Market.
  The answer to the third part of his supplementary question is that, in our talks with the countries I have mentioned, they have fully understood the special problem of New Zealand, as I have previously reported.
  Mr. Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend be heartened not only by the public opinion polls but by the fact that, last weekend, the European Left, meeting in Paris, unanimously approved our entry?
  The Prime Minister: It is not for me to comment on internal political views expressed in other countries. There have been public opinion polls there but it is not for me to comment.
  Lord Balniel: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is very considerable resentment about the way in which our Ambassador in Paris is being criticised for his speech which, I understand, fully represented the view of Her Majesty's Government? Will the Prime Minister
  1824
  make it clear that the Ambassador fully enjoys his confidence?
  The Prime Minister: I dealt with this question on Tuesday and have nothing to add to what I said then. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also answered a Question and has stated that he was putting a copy of the full speech in the Library of the House so that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to judge for themselves the context in which the Ambassador was speaking—a context which the Foreign Secretary and I fully support. The House will be able to judge, perhaps at some risk to myself, whether I was right or not in saying that the Ambassador had been misreported in certain sections of the Press.
  Mr. Michael Foot: However the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) may have phrased his supplementary question, will my right hon. Friend take into account that some of us do not care a fig for what the opinion polls say, on this subject or any other? Will he therefore send to our Ambassador in Paris and to all our other Ambassadors the information which he and the Foreign Secretary confirmed as recently as a few months ago—that the five conditions laid down by the Labour Party for entry into the Common Market still stand? Will he make sure that every British Ambassador in the world knows that?
  The Prime Minister: I answered the question put to me, which was whether I was aware of the public opinion polls. The answer to that was, "Yes". My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asks me whether I am aware that he does not care a fig for what the public opinion polls say. The answer to that is, "Yes, I am aware that he does not care a fig about them."
  I have repeatedly explained in the House the position of the Government on the conditions of British entry and a decision has still to be taken by the Government. Nothing that was said by our Ambassador in Paris derogated from the duty falling on the Government [Interruption.] The Ambassador knows full well what was said in Paris about the conditions of entry and is au fait with the Government's position. He did not say that the Government have taken a decision. He spoke entirely within the

  1825
  context of the statement that I made to the House on 10th November.
  Mr. Heath: I am sure that the Prime Minister is right in the interpretation given to the House of the Ambassador's speech, which some of today's newspapers reported more fully than was the case previously. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and the Government have complete confidence in the Ambassador?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have already said that. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to what I failed to mention—that a fuller and less selective report of the speech appears in today's Press, but right hon. and hon. Members can judge for themselves from the fuller statement in the Library.
  Sir T. Beamishasked the Prime Minister what information he has given to member Governments of the European Economic Community about the progress that he plans to make in this Parliament towards the long-term aim of his Government to nationalise the means of production, distribution and exchange; and what doubts have been expressed by members of the Community about the compatibility of such a doctrine with Great Britain's membership of the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister: The answers to the two parts of the Question are "None", and "None", Sir.
  Sir T. Beamish: Does that reply mean that Clause Four of the Labour Party's Constitution has been secretly dropped or amended or does it mean that the Prime Minister has changed his views since he said in the House on 3rd August, 1961, that even his party's short-term policy for a Socialist economy
  "…cannot be implemented without substantial amendments…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1657.]
  to the Treaty of Rome?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is about six years out of date in the first part of that supplementary question. I commend him to study the statement of the Labour Party National Executive on 16th March, 1960, dealing with Clause Four in full. I hope that he will study it, for he would benefit very much from doing so. I answered
  1826
  the second part of his supplementary question on Tuesday, when the same words were quoted to me.
  Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a mischievous question in view of the fact that, only last year, the Italian Government nationalised the electricity industry and opened a publicly-owned steel works in Southern Italy and that 30 per cent. of insurance companies, particularly those dealing with car insurance, are nationalised in France?
  The Prime Minister: I did not think the question mysterious. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mischievous."] I did not think it mischievous either. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) put it forward for the most obvious reasons and I am sure that he will have noted what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). If not, he will have noted the statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, speaking from this Bench some years ago, which both the right hon. Gentleman and I have since repeated many times—that nothing in the Treaty of Rome inhibits a country from nationalisation.
  Mr. Kershaw: As the Treaty of Rome, in its own way, is dedicated to the principle of private enterprise, how can that not be in conflict with Clause Four? If the right hon. Gentleman had to choose, which would he take, the Treaty of Rome or Clause Four?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is obviously limping a long way behind his hon. and gallant Friend. I would refer him to the statement of 16th March, 1960, and secondly I would suggest that he talks to the Commission about its interpretation of the Treaty of Rome. Thirdly, I must not try to arbitrate or mediate between the hon. Gentleman and his own Leader, who has correctly stated the position under the Treaty of Rome on this question.
  Mr. John Hynd: Will the Prime Minister not agree that with the hoped-for injection of the British democratic element into the European Community, there is every reason to assume and to hope that the development of a political community in Europe will lead towards

  1827
  the acceptance of the policy of public ownership throughout the whole of the Community?
  The Prime Minister: One step at a time.
  "…I do not ask to see
  The distant scene; one step enough for me."
  Mr. Thorpe: In view of the back-bench doubts which appear to have been expressed on both sides of the House about the Common Market, will the Prime Minister persist in this, and may we hope that he will achieve the same success in converting the back benches of both sides as the Liberal Party achieved in converting the Front Benches of both sides?
  The Prime Minister: I was not sure that the Leader of the Liberal Party had entirely succeeded in converting all of the back benchers in the Liberal Party.

TASMANIA (BUSH FIRES)
Mr. Ogden(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what aid and support the British Government are making to the Government and people of Tasmania after the disastrous fires in the Hobart area?
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy for the Government and people of Tasmania for the loss sustained in the recent serious bush fires, including the heavy loss of life. I have already expressed our feelings in a personal message to the Governor. I have asked our High Commissioner in Australia to ascertain urgently whether there is any immediate assistance that we can give and, if emergency relief is required, we shall be glad to do what we can to help.
Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that British help continues after the present emergency, so that we can play some part in the rebuilding of Hobart and the communities around?
Mr. Bowden: We should consider with the Australian Government exactly what is required. I have already said that we will do everything that we possibly can to help.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: May I join with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and, as the representative of the smallest county in England, say that I hope that the Government will give all the assistance necessary to this, the smallest State in Australia?
Sir D. Renton: As a Member of the last delegation which went from this Parliament to Australia, may I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said and express the hope that the help which is given will be not only proper but generous?

MR. KOSYGIN'S VISIT
Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance as to whether this should be a question for you, Mr. Speaker, or the Leader of the House? This afternoon we have a debate on a Report of the Estimates Committee, on the police, which may or may not run for the whole day. Some of us want to take part in the debate, but on the other hand there is to be a very important speech by the Russian Prime Minister in the Royal Gallery. I wondered whether you would consider adjourning the House for 30 to 40 minutes, so that those of us in the debate could go to hear the speech in another place?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will know that the arrangements for today's debate and the arrangements for hon. Members to visit the Royal Gallery, where our illustrious visitor is coming later on this afternoon, were confirmed by the House some time ago. I have no power to change them.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 13TH FEBRUARY: In the morning—
Second Reading of the Plant Health Bill [Lords] and of the Forestry Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.

1829
Remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill.
In the afternoon—
Supply [8th allotted day]:
There will be a debate on The Brain Drain, which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Consideration of Lords Amendments to the London Government Bill.
TUESDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Companies Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the Local Government (Termination of Reviews) Bill.
Motion on the Tees-Side Order.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY: In the morning—
Remaining stages of the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Bill, and of the Plant Health Bill [Lords], and the Forestry Bill]Lords.]
In the afternoon—
Second Reading of the Marine Etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Bill.
THURSDAY, 16TH FEBRUARY—Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report by Lord Mountbatten of the Inquiry into Prison Escapes and Security (Cmnd. 3175).
FRIDAY, 17TH FEBRUARY—Private Member's Bills.
The business proposed on MONDAY 20TH FEBRUARY in the morning is—
Motion on the Diplomatic Privileges (Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) (Amendment) Order.
In the afternoon—
Remaining stages of the Road Safety Bill and of the Road Traffic Bill.
Mr. Heath: I am sure that the whole House hopes that the discussions going on in Malta at the moment will prove to be successful in resolving the difficulties, but, should they fail, will the Leader of the House take note that we should like to have a debate on Malta next week? Will he give an undertaking that he w ill consider rearranging the business towards the end of the week, should the situation demand it?
Mr. Crossman: I quite accept that the contingency which I know we all hope will not arise, may arise and that the Oppo-
1830
sition would want to debate this. I would take it that, since the Government gave time on the last occasion, it would be on a Supply day at short notice? We would certainly agree to be as helpful as possible.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a few days ago, when the Prime Minister was asked which Minister would be responsible in the House of Commons for Aden, he replied that it would be the Foreign Secretary and that in further exchanges he agreed that the position in Aden was so anomalous that the Foreign Secretary might well afford further clarification on what was the position? Bearing that in mind, can he say when we may receive this clarification from the Foreign Secretary? Does he appreciate that the statement which the Foreign Secretary made on a cognate matter the other day only underlines the anomalous situation and the need for clarification? Can the House have a debate upon this as quickly as possible?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that we should debate the substance here. I know my hon. Friend's great concern about this, and I will ask the Foreign Secretary to give the clarification as soon as possible.
Sir S. Summers: In view of the uncertainty prevailing in many quarters following a question which I put in November last to the Leader of the House about the Whitsun Recess, when we were told that it would be related to the secular holiday, can the Leader of the House give any additional information?
Mr. Crossman: I should like to serve the convenience of the House as much as I can. I have, as the hon. Gentleman has said, stated the Government's intention to relate the Whitsun Recess to the secular holiday on 29th May. I understand that it may be for the convenience of Members if the adjournment were to be beamed backwards, that is, from the secular to the Whitsun Holiday weekend. In this case, it would be possible if, as has happened before, the adjournment lasts for two weeks, to make it stretch between the two events. I am sure that the House will understand that the outcome of this must depend upon the progress of business, and that there must be some time before a final decision is reached.
Mr. Atkinson: In the light of our experience of morning sittings last week, would not my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to start discussions about rolling back the whole programme of the House on Mondays and Wednesdays so that we can start Mondays and Wednesdays with Question Time at 10 o'clock in the morning? This would enable us to get through the business of the House much quicker.
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that strictly that is related to next week's business. Yesterday morning's sitting went very equably, and we should seek to maintain that standard next week.
Mr. Powell: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make, as he indicated last week he would, on the date of the publication of the Defence White Paper?
Mr. Crossman: I hope that the Defence White Paper will be available on Thursday, 16th February.
Mr. Heffer: In view of the very deep concern felt on this side of the House about Vietnam, and in view of the statement by President Johnson to the Pope and Mr. Kosygin's speech yesterday, may we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that we shall have an early debate on the whole question of Vietnam?
Mr. Crossman: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we shall consider the possibility of it. However, as I said last time this question was raised, this subject was debated not long ago. Unless the situation justifies it, I do not think we are likely to find an occasion for a debate on Vietnam in the near future.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least keep in mind that there is also great suffering in the Yemen? Referring to Motion No. 368 on the subject of Egyptian aggression and gas warfare, may I ask whether he recalls that last Thursday during business questions he said that the Middle East was clearly one of the subjects which we might now consider had become urgent?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to raise in the United Nations Security Council the threat to peace presented by the United Arab Republic's extension of the Yemen war
1832
to Saudi Arabia, and the use of poison gas against the Yemen and Saudi civilians, contrary to the Geneva Protocol, to which Egypt is a signatory.]
How urgent is it now, and when shall we have a debate?
Mr. Crossman: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that in the relatively near future we shall be having a whole series of days on which we discuss defence and the Defence Estimates and there will be opportunities then for discussion of certain aspects. But I appreciate that there is a demand for a foreign affairs debate which should centre, in part at least, on the Middle East. Certainly we shall consider that through the usual channels.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In view of the changes in the situation in Vietnam, of the recent declarations by the President and Secretary of State of the United States and of the meeting with Mr. Kosygin, may I press on my right hon. Friend that it is really urgent that the House should again debate the whole matter?
Mr. Crossman: I give my right hon. Friend the assurance that after the important discussions now taking place in London between Mr. Kosygin and the Government there will be a reconsideration by the Government of the desirability of a debate. But I cannot give any firm commitment on that subject.
Mr. Hogg: With regard to the debate on the Mountbatten Report next Thursday, can the right hon. Gentleman say what form he intends the debate to take and, if it be on a Government Motion, when we shall have the terms of that Motion so that we may consider it?
Mr. Crossman: It is our intention to table a Motion to take note of the Report.
Mr. Lubbock: Referring to Monday's debate on the brain drain, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a committee of inquiry has been established under Dr. F. E. Jones to inquire into the migration of scientists and that that committee is expected to report in the next few months? Therefore, while this is a matter of very great importance, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that a debate in the House on the subject would be premature? Secondly, has he taken note

1833
of Motion No. 319 concerning a free vote on the question of decimal currency?
[That this House welcomes the statement of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in Command Paper No. 3164 that the decision of Her Majesty's Government to retain the £system in a decimal currency is subject to the final approval of Parliament, and trusts that such Parliamentary approval will be sought by a free vote of the House of Commons.]
Has the right hon. Gentleman made up his mind on that subject? Can he give an assurance that there will be a free vote?
Mr. Crossman: On the first question, I would point out with respect to the Liberal Chief Whip that when the Opposition select a subject it is for them to select it and not for us on this side of the House. I should like to consider the question he hon. Gentleman asked about decimal currency and write to him about it.
Mr. Michael Foot: Referring to Thursday's business, is it intended to spend the whole day on the Mountbatten Report? Was that selection made by the Opposition? Would my right hon. Friend consider giving half that day to debating the much more urgent question of Vietnam which many hon. Members on both sides of the House, presumably, would like to debate then, particularly in view of the extremely urgent references to the matter made by the Soviet Prime Minister on his visit to this country?
Mr. Crossman: Certainly I will consider that suggestion. But it is not my impression that there is not a widespread interest on this subject, and I have a suspicion that if I had suggested three hours to debate the Mountbatten Report that would have been considered very inadequate by most hon. Members.
Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a very early opportunity to debate the special difficulties which morning sittings cause for the Officers and Officials and all the staff of the House?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that that is a subject to which we should devote a whole debate. I hope to arrange a debate on procedure in the not too far distant future in which, no doubt, hon.
1834
Members can compare their experiences of morning sittings. I pay my tribute to the Officers of the House who are doing an admirable job under considerable difficulty.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I disabuse my right hon. Friend's mind of the notion that there is no interest in a debate on Vietnam? I assure him that there is a real and widespread interest in a debate on this subject on this side of the House and, I think, on the benches opposite.
Mr. Crossman: I am a little bewildered. I thought that I had made it clear that I recognised the strength of interest in Vietnam, and after the conversations with the Russians are over I shall talk to the Prime Minister about whether there is a new situation which justifies a debate. What I was emphasising was that there would be a great number of right hon. and hon. Members who would keenly object if I took away half the time devoted to the Mountbatten Report and gave it to a debate on Vietnam. Frankly, I think that both subjects are important.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on 14th December last he undertook that only Ministerial statements of secondary importance would be made during morning sittings? Is he aware that, despite that, yesterday morning the Minister of Health made a statement of major importance, as indeed the Press has treated it, affecting, as it does, the lives of hundreds of people every year? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in future the undertaking which he gave to the House will be strictly observed?
Mr. Crossman: This is a matter which I think we want to discuss, and we want to work out our experience. It was my view that my right hon. Friend's statement was exactly the kind of statement which I thought suitable for the mornings. We must learn by experience. The Government will be prepared to work with the House on what should or should not be done about statements in the mornings. When I read the Report of the Select Committee, I came to the conclusion that it meant that, for instance, the business statement and major statements on foreign policy or home policy should clearly be made at 3.30, but that we should seek to cut away the interruption and postponement of the debate at

1835
3.30 by taking in the mornings what I call matters of secondary importance but not the kind of thing which should be taken at 3.30. If right hon. and hon. Members say that they want all statements of any importance to be made at 3.30, the advantage of trying to get on with the debate at 3.30 will not be obtained. I am prepared to discuss this matter because we are trying an experiment this Session, but I should have thought that this was exactly the kind of statement—a rather long statement, but a statement of importance—which would hold up business in the afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue a question in detail at business question time.
Mr. Orme: On morning sittings, is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on this side of the House do not accept that business should be down-graded and that we should like to see important business taken in the mornings? Why cannot my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the Vietnam situation during a morning sitting? This subject is topical and very important.
Mr. Crossman: I am prepared to consider everything, but I doubt whether a debate on Vietnam is the kind of debate which we should take in the morning during the period of this experiment. I emphasised that in the mornings we should take matters of secondary importance. Having said that, I must keep my promise to the House to treat the mornings in that way.
Mr. Brewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what has happened to the very important Scottish business which was to be discussed this week? Has it been postponed indefinitely owing to the right hon. Gentleman's procedural incompetence?
Mr. Crossman: I hope to make a statement about that business in my next business statement.
Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend be very careful not to have anything in this place designated either first-class or second-class? We have already had one designation of Question Time as "precious time", as if that was right
1836
over the top. If we get into this state of mind, we will soon be talking about first-and second-class Members.
Mr. Crossman: There is a great deal of wisdom in my right hon. Friend's observation. It is important when one talks about matters having classes of importance. Basically, we are talking about the kind of thing that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said yesterday morning. Of course, it was a first-rate importance in one sense, but it was also, I thought, the kind of business that we should have at a morning sitting.
Mr. Biffen: Can the Leader of the House confirm that the first item on Monday morning will be the adjourned debate on the Prayer to annul the Salop (No. 2) Order?
Mr. Crossman: No. The arrangement which I have made is to take the Opposition Prayer after we have had the two Consolidation Measures and the Export Guarantees Bill. We will normally take the Prayers at the end of each sitting.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Following his answer on the Defence White Paper, can my right hon. Friend say when the Defence Estimates will be published and when we are likely to debate them, too?
Mr. Crossman: The Defence Estimates—indeed, the whole Vote on Account—will also be published on 16th February.
Mr. Prior: Is the Leader of the House aware that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about statements made at morning sittings is quite remarkable, because last week he said that the statement on foot and mouth disease by the Minister of Agriculture would be an ideal statement to be made at a morning sitting but it has not been made?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have proper business questions. We cannot enter into argument now.
Mr. Prior: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Minister of Agriculture makes in the morning next week the statement which he promised last week?
Mr. Crossman: I have looked into the matter of a statement on foot and mouth disease. This is an extremely important

1837
issue. My right hon. Friend tells me that he wishes to make a statement after full and careful investigation. I am sure that he should be given time to get the investigation completed before he makes his statement.
Mr. Prior: In the House?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, in the House.
Dr. David Kerr: Will my right hon. Friend note the continued pressure for debates on subjects such as Yemen and Vietnam? Will he not consider bringing forward as a matter of urgency the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure concerning urgent and topical debates?
Mr. Crossman: I cannot give any assurance about that. I suggest that we might debate the Report on Standing Order No. 9 together with the expected Report on Finance Bill procedure which, I know, is coming in a week or two.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) concerning the Salop (No. 2) Order? I do not think that it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention that time should be ruled out by the way he arranges the business. It is a question of timing.
Mr. Crossman: That was not at all my intention. As an ex-Minister of Housing, I recognise that the Order is of considerable importance. I have no complaint about the way the business was conducted. There is no suggestion of time having been wasted. This is an important Order and time must be given for it. Certainly, I will consider the question.
Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is justified indignation throughout the country at the operation of private enterprise in the insurance sector? Can we have a debate on this before there are any further victims?
Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that the Second Reading of the Companies Bill would give an opportunity for this subject.
Mr. Stodart: Further to the right hon. Gentleman's reply concerning the promised statement by the Minister of Agriculture, is he aware that when his right hon. Friend spoke on this subject he said
1838
that the statement would be made available to the House? In view of the allegations which appeared in a Sunday newspaper last week and which received great publicity on a matter which is causing great anxiety, will the Leader of the House confirm that the statement will be made in the House?
Mr. Crossman: Yes. I did not accept all the allegations which were made in the Sunday Press last week about any Member of the House; but I do not take that seriously. Of course, my right hon. Friend will make the statement in the House.
Mr. Judd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of concern in the House about the Government's overseas aid and development programme, particularly in the light of the recent White Paper and the decision concerning fees for overseas students? Can we have a debate on this?
Mr. Crossman: Certainly, I will consider that subject.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is the business which the Leader of the House has announced for next week reasonably firm or is it liable, as was the case this week, to be altered by his failure to conduct the business of the House properly?
Mr. Crossman: It is always dangerous to make predictions, but I am prepared to predict that this is a firm programme.
Mr. Blenkinsop: On Wednesday's business, may I have an assurance that the Government's White Paper on Broadcasting can be discussed as well as the Government's Bill?
Mr. Crossman: I had discussion about this through the usual channels. On the whole, I thought it better that the Bill should be discussed on its merits, which means postponing the debate on the White Paper until after Easter. That is a better division. I do not rule out a debate on the White Paper. I realise that preference is now felt for taking this subject on its own.
Sir R. Russell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government propose to stop blocking two animal welfare Bills at present awaiting Second Reading, namely, the Livestock Export Control Bill, introduced by my hon.

1839
Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), and the Export of Animals for Research Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder)?
Mr. Crossman: If these were the two Bills which were objected to on Friday, I will certainly take care to study the reasons for the objections and write to the hon. Member.
Mr. Rowland: In the light of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House indicate whether, in his view, it would be proper during the debate on the Marine &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Bill to discuss the alternative radio proposals contained in the White Paper and which, in the view of many hon. Members, are to some extent related to the question of "pirates"?
Mr. Crossman: As my hon. Friend well knows, in Second Reading debates a certain latitude is allowed. That, however, is something which we shall have to think over and on which Mr. Speaker will, no doubt, rule.
Sir H. Harrison: Bearing in mind the right hon. Gentleman's great desire to protect the rights of back benchers, may I ask him to give an assurance that during next week's business he will be in his place to stop the Patronage Secretary twice moving the Closure before 10 o'clock on one day?
Mr. Crossman: I will give no kind of assurance on that. I point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the first Closure took place after private Members had had in total no less than 14 hours of time to seek redress of grievance on the Consolidated Fund Bill for the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the time for questions on business.
Mr. Monro: Will the Leader of the House look at Motion No. 365, calling attention to the failure of the Government to implement the wages award to national and local government officers in Scotland?
[That this House deplores the arbitrary application of the Government's economic
1840
policy, resulting in the rejection of a pay rise for local government employees in Scotland which has been granted to equivalent staff in England and Wales; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to rectify this anomaly.]
May we have a debate on it?
Mr. Crossman: I do not think that there is anything on this subject which I can add to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Paget: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of giving a little notice of the intentions of Ministers to make statements at morning sittings, so that those who wish to hear them may be present?
Mr. Crossman: Yes, indeed. If my hon. and learned Friend studies the Order Paper, he will find that we are now seeking to give notice of Monday's statements on Friday's Order Paper, precisely for that purpose.
Mr. Clark Hutchison: As the Government agreed to give time for the Sexual Offences (No. 2) Bill, which was very contentious, will they now give time for the Livestock Export Control Bill, which has all-party support and has great support in the country?
Mr. Crossman: I am certainly prepared to consider that possibility.
Mr. John Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend yet say when we will have the First reading of the Leasehold Reform Bill?
Mr. Crossman: I have no precise date to give except to say that I think that the Bill will be published well before the Easter Recess.
Mr. Carlisle: Referring to Monday's business, since the right hon. Gentleman said that the object of morning sittings was to enable us to go home earlier in the evenings, will he say why he has put down exempted business for Monday? Will he undertake in future not to put down exempted business on days when there are morning sittings?
Mr. Crossman: Our aim in the morning sittings is not directly related always to the same evening. It is to take the burden off the evenings generally. The

1841
hon. Member will find that next week, for example, there is a likelihood that on Wednesday and Thursday we may have a reasonable prospect of retiring to bed at a normal time. We are not, therefore, relating Monday morning to Monday evening. We are working over the week as a whole and ensuring that time is saved in the evenings in that way.
Mr. Berry: When will we have a debate on transport, bearing in mind particularly the urgent need for a rail link with Heathrow airport, the absence of which was highlighted this week by the arrival of Mr. Kosygin?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of that. I cannot make a statement today, but I hope in the near future to make a statement on transport.
Mr. Buck: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in future arrangements are made, as far as he as Leader of the House can make them, to see that the House suspends its sitting if a leader of a Government visits this Palace? Is he not aware that there could be a highly embarrassing and invidious situation this afternoon if suddenly somebody were to demand a Count? We would all want to be present to hear the speech of a visiting Head of State.
Mr. Crossman: Mr. Speaker has spoken on this. This matter was carefully considered. In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I would say that all precedents were very carefully considered and that precedent has been followed precisely on this occasion.
Sir Knox Cunningham: The Leader of the House, in reply to a question asked by my hon. Friend on why the Government had blocked two animal welfare Bills, said that he would consider the matter and find out the reasons. Will he also make certain that the Government do not block such Bills as this in future?
Mr. Crossman: Of course, the question of blocking has a very long tradition. It does not prove that everything in the Bill is opposed by the Government. However, I will look into this issue and I will write to the hon. and learned Gentleman on the merits of the two Bills.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there
1842
is a danger of local government services in Scotland breaking down because of the outrageous wages anomalies referred by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)? Why cannot we have a morning sitting to find out what the Government are trying to do?
Mr. Crossman: I am glad that the hon. Member regards this matter as of secondary importance. Nevertheless, I will bear this in mind and will discuss this matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anxiety felt in the British shipbuilding industry about the Government's delay? Will he tell the House when it will publish the Bill that is expected and when there will be a debate on this subject?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the anxiety to have the Bill published. I believe that things are going perfectly well. I hope to make a statement on that in the relatively near future.
Sir Robert Cary: Does what the right hon. Gentleman said about transport, indicate that he may be making a statement on Thursday of next week? By not debating the White Paper on Transport, is not the House drifting into a position where it may be creating a Transport Bill without having first debated the White Paper?
Mr. Crossman: I did not mean to imply that the Government were seeking to evade a debate on transport. All I said was that it had not been excluded, and that I may make a statement on Thursday.
Mr. Onslow: Concerning the morning sittings, the Leader of the House comes here so seldom that he does not know that only one of the three items set down for consideration in the morning has been concluded in the morning. Is he sure that he has not overloaded next week's morning sittings again and that we can get through without the Closure being necessary?
Mr. Crossman: As I said on Monday, I have no complaint of the way that hon. Gentlemen are using the morning sittings. Obviously there was keen interest in the Ministry of Aviation. Obviously, in the last resort, after seven hours of

1843
debate, it was brought to a conclusion in the evening. Therefore two whole mornings were spent on that. It is up to the Opposition to decide what kind of importance they attach to the items we discuss in the morning. I am not criticising the Opposition for finding that particular Order so important that they wanted to talk about it. I should have thought that we should go on as we are. I was wholly satisfied with how things were going on Wednesday. I regarded the Shropshire Order as a very important and interesting matter meriting discussion, and I was very glad that hon. Members were here to discuss it.
Mr. Bob Brown: Rather than my right hon. Friend expending any energy in considering Private Members' Bills in relation to animal welfare, would he not consider that the proper thing to do is to press on with legislation on the Brambell Report?
Mr. Crossman: This has nothing to do with next week's business. The Government are already considering the form of legislation in which the Report will be turned into law.
Mr. MacArthur: Will the Leader of the House realise that the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is of primary importance? If there is no time for a debate next week, will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to make a statement arising from the Motion mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries in view of the arbitrary application of the Government's economic policy which discriminates against 20,000 local government officers in Scotland, and also 50,000 manual workers?
Mr. Crossman: I am aware of the great interest and I will certainly communicate that wish to my right hon. Friend, and suggest to him that, if there is need for a statement, it should take place on either Monday or Wednesday morning.
Mr. Leadbitter: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision regarding an early debate on insurance? Is he aware that I asked a Question on this matter in the House yesterday which
1844
produced information which has created great public concern, and that therefore an early debate, outside the Companies Bill, would give the House an opportunity at least to have something to say about the scoundrels who are still making a living out of this matter?
Mr. Crossman: I appreciate the interest in the subject, but I cannot promise my hon. Friend an early debate. I would remind him that we are moving into a period where we have a group of defence debates and the Estimates to consider, and there will be little time for debates of this kind. This is certainly a subject that we will consider as being one on the list for possible debate.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Has the Leader of the House decided when he will make time available for Motion No. 376 to be debated, since it has now been signed by at least 61 people in two different political parties and reflects on his incompetence as Leader of the House?
[That this House reminds the Leader of the House of his duty to safeguard the right of hon. Members to seek redress of grievances before voting Supply, and regrets that he neglected this duty both during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill and also while disputing the advice tendered by Mr. Speaker on 2nd February, 1967.]
Mr. Crossman: I have studied this Motion. The most suitable comment on it is the Amendment put down by some of my hon. Friends.
[Leave out from 'that' to end and add 'the Leader of the Opposition, after appealing on Thursday, 26th January to the Leader of the House to avoid the closure of the Consolidated Fund Bill, HANSARD, column 1794, nevertheless in a manner totally unbefitting his office took advantage of the Government's generosity by obtaining on Thursday, 2nd February a postponement of the consideration of the Bill'.]
I am not allowed during Business questions to indulge in discussion of a matter. I should have thought that we had discussed this quite enough. I am always prepared to debate such things, but we have to see that the House gets through its business and that it does not indulge in recriminations.
Mr. Kershaw: Would the Leader of the House give an assurance that he has not lost sight of the Gloucester Order? Does he realise that if we always have Prayers in the morning sittings it may be squeezed out of time?
Mr. Crossman: We do not by any means always have Prayers in the morning. We have them in the evening as well. This is a matter of arrangement through the usual channels. Prayers are a matter for the Opposition and not for me. They tell me what they want to do and we work quite amicably in placing Prayers at times convenient to both sides of the House. The Gloucester Order is one of the Orders which, we recognise, need to be debated.
Mr. Costain: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the importance of the Prayer on the Salop Order? If it is not reached on Monday will he allow time for it to be debated one evening?
Mr. Crossman: I will not have it talked out. It will have to be discussed and decided.

POLICE
4.8 p.m.
Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the First Report from the Estimates Committee and of the Fifth Special Report from the Estimates Committee relating to Police.
It is appropriate that this debate should begin with thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the debate on the Estimates Committee, and for your patience which I have enjoyed in the past. I would also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who is Chairman of the Estimates Committee and who, owing to illness, will not be with us until after Easter. I would say in his absence that in the relatively short time that he has been Chairman he has shown qualities of broadmindedness, sympathy and tact which, if I may say so, are not immediately apparent to those who know him only by his activities at Question Time. I am sure the House joins with me in sending our best wishes for his early return.
I should also like to express my thanks to the former Clerk to Sub-Committee B of the Estimates Committee who has now exchanged the non-controversial backwaters of the life of the Estimates Committee for the turbulent political waters of academic life in a new university. He had already proved himself to be a very excellent Committee Clerk. I would say that members of the Sub-Committee are in very considerable debt to him for the work he put into this Report. I am sure that we wish him well in his new career.
I believe that the Home Secretary will be here later. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that Mr. Middlemas, like himself, started his early training as a historian under this roof and perhaps he will emulate the Home Secretary as a successful historian in due course.
There are also witnesses to whom I should like to extend thanks. One is Mr. K. A. L. Parker, the Under-Secretary at the Home Office, who is in charge of police matters. Another is Sir Joseph Simpson, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who, although being an extremely busy man, found time to give evidence before us on more than one

1847
occasion and whose evidence was of the highest value. Another is Colonel Sir Eric St. Johnston, the former Chief Constable of Lancashire, with whom we spent a stimulating day. We should now like to congratulate him on his promotion to the post of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.
I should like to tender my personal thanks to the long-suffering members of Sub-Committee B and congratulate them on the fact that they no longer have to suffer me. This is my Fourth Report on behalf of Sub-Committee B to be laid before three successive Parliaments. Now having reached my swansong, I think that I can say with the poet Coleridge:
"Swans sing before they die—'twere no bad thing
Did certain persons die before they sing."
Anyway, this swansong will be brief and not subject, as far as I can see, to encores.
Sub-Committee B started this inquiry in November, 1965, and met to take evidence for the first time on 31st January, 1966. The Home Office appointed working parties in that same month, January, 1966, to consider questions of the manpower, equipment, operation and efficiency of the police. The Estimates Committee reported in August and we received the Home Secretary's observations on 20th December. The working parties published their conclusions on these matters at about the same time. I think that we can say that the Sub-Committee covered the course in about half the time taken by the working parties.
The hon. and learned Member who is to reply to the debate on behalf of the Home Office will probably agree that our Report was satisfactory to the Home Office, because, of 23 specific recommendations which we made, only one was turned down and all the rest accepted if not in practice, then at least in principle. Therefore, unlike previous occasions, I shall not have to indulge in any captious criticism of the attitude of the Home Office to our recommendations. On the contrary, I should like to congratulate ourselves on having in many respects forestalled the conclusions of the working parties.
It is necessary to bring the extent of the problem to the attention of the
1848
House, because for reasons which I will give later, I think that the reports of the working parties rather glossed over some of the difficulties. The fact is that there is a dramatic shortage of police in this country. This is brought out very fully in paragraphs 32 and 33 of our Report. No police force in the country is fully manned and only one-third of them are within tolerable distance of being fully manned. This is a very painful situation.
Furthermore, there is a special problem about establishments. Up to 1961, police establishments were termed "realistic". They were based not on what was required in policemen adequately to police the areas concerned, but on what the chief constables concerned could reasonably expect to recruit. After the Police Act, the provincial forces were told to reconsider their establishments and to bring them up to a true figure, which I would describe as being an ideal figure, although, in order to confuse the issue, this ideal figure is also termed "realistic". We thus have to differentiate between the pre-1961 realistic figures and the post-1961.
With one stroke of the pen, Sir Joseph Simpson, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, raised his establishment from 18,204 to 25,000. This was a very big jump and in evidence he gave the reason for it. I bring this to the attention of the House. At Question No. 262 I asked:
"Your so-called realistic establishment is the ideal you would like to attain?"
He replied:
"No, Sir, not the 25,000. I would not like to say whether it was more or less. It is something of a cockshy to make apparent the vast deficiencies there are in the Metropolitan Police."
I then asked:
"What is the value of this figure then?"
He replied:
"I think I am right in saying the recommendation of the Royal Commission was that realistic establishments should be approved for every force; and the Home Secretary, in seeing that that is done in respect of the provinces, also feels he has to put his own house in order. I have been saying for some years in my annual reports that we are clearly 5,000 to 6,000 men under strength."
There is a great deal of uncertainty about what is the ideal establishment

1849
for a police force. I can illustrate this by two quotations which deal with the Metropolitan Police, which is naturally the force most short of men. In reply to Question No. 279 the Commissioner said:
"… every policeman in the Metropolitan Police is working 12 hours a fortnight longer than the hours prescribed by the regulations."
Hon. Members will see from Appendix G on page 310 of the Report that on average a London C.I.D. man does 15 hours' overtime on top of a 48-hour week, so that on average a man in the London C.I.D. does 63 hours a week. That is a very painful figure.
I particularly draw the attention of hon. Members to Appendix G. It contains a police manpower survey by the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge. For the first time in history we have a record of how policemen spend their time. For that if for no other reason I commend the Report to the House, because it produces these very important figures.
There is another angle to this. The Home Secretary has embarked on a policy of the amalgamation of forces, which is to be compulsory if not accepted voluntarily. My Committee would not wish to criticise this, but it is in no way a solution to the problem of numbers. I take as an example the West Midlands conurbation and the establishment of the new force in the West Midlands which will include the boroughs of Wolverhampton and Walsall and the previous urban districts of Wednesbury, Willenhall and Darlaston. The new establishment is 1.962 while the strength, as at 6th June, is 1,172, very little more than 50 per cent. of establishment. This is shown from Question No. 996.
What happened? Two things have happened. First of all, no fewer than 350 policemen have applied to go to the county forces of Staffordshire and Worcestershire instead of joining the new West Midlands conurbation force. That is one thing, and on the other side—and this is also, I think, dramatic—the standards of policing required for the former urban districts of Willenhall, Darlaston and Wednesbury have been raised. Nothing has changed the character of those areas; they remain exactly the same urban areas as before, but because they are borough police forces instead of being part of the county forces
1850
their standard of policing is required to be substantially higher, and here we have this situation, where the new West Midlands force, which in some ways should be a pattern for future amalgamations, because it was done voluntarily, starts its life with very little over 50 per cent. of its true establishment.
I think this is an omen which has to be borne in mind, because I think it must be probable that further amalgamations will lead to further shortages of police, partly, as I say, through policemen preferring to remain with county forces rather than going to the new borough forces, and partly because of the higher standard of policing required. Both of these were matters not considered by the working party on manpower in the police—so far as I can see from its Report, though, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman who presided over the Sub-Committee will be able to correct me there if I have missed the point.
In its Report the working party devoted a quite considerable portion to what is called the annual voluntary premature wastage. It referred to the numbers of people retiring from the police force before pensionable age for one reason or another. Here it produced a statistic that the annual voluntary premature wastage was 2·4 per cent. of the strength, taking the country as a whole. Now, 2·4 per cent. does not sound a very large percentage, but I think one has to remember that we are legislating for people who decide to make their career in the police, probably to stay for 25 years, and therefore merely to keep up the numbers 4 per cent. have to be recruited annually. Nor will this be enough, as every year an additional percentage of 2·.4 per cent. must be recruited to replace premature wastage. There is a very severe shortage indeed and it is building up.
The Working Party's Report in paragraph 39 referred to wastage in comparison with that in industry. I should like to take issue with the working party on that particular point. I do not think that an industry recruits exclusively people who are going to spend their whole life in that particular industry. I think there has always been in normal times an element of mobility of labour, of people who change their jobs very freely indeed. I say in normal times because

1851
these, with the financial measures taken by the Government, are not normal times and people do not change their jobs in these present times if they can possibly avoid it. Therefore, the comparison with industry is not a fair test, because the people who go into the police do so with the intention of making their career in the police.
Sir Joseph Simpson was cross-questioned about the wastage, and I refer to Question No. 284. I asked him,
"Are you in … the anomalous position of having to recruit twelve people in order to keep seven before they become useful to you?"
The answer was, "Yes."
This is a very substantial figure, and that is why the bulk of the Report of Sub-Committee B was engaged in dealing with the problem of wastage and the problem of easing the burden on the police, and this is something which really goes to the root of the matter, as, I think, is appreciated by the Home Office.
I do not want to pre-empt time, for I see a number of hon. Gentlemen who want to take part in this discussion, but there is a number of questions which arise from answers which were given by the Home Office and which I should like to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman. By and large, the Home Office accepted the Committee's recommendation for the transfer to traffic wardens of a number of duties at present carried out by police, and therefore the first question I want to ask him, in respect of this recommendation, which was also, of course, accepted by the Working Party, is, when he expects to be able to legislate on this matter, because, of course, he will have to legislate, and I hope he may give us some idea about that.
Secondly, I thought that the working party's Report was particularly strong on the question of civilianisation of police jobs. In fact, it produced a list of six jobs done by the police which local authority staffs could do and 18 which civilian staffs under police supervision could do, and I think this was a very important part of the Report. In addition to that, it found that the police might be relieved of court duties. I should like to know when all this will be effective, because these matters were included in the Working Party's Report.
1852
As an aid to recruiting, the Estimates Committee said that the purchase of houses by the police should be made easier and this was our Recommendation No. 22. This recommendation was deferred by the Home Secretary until he got the Working Party's Report, but the Working Party came out in favour of it, and it also propounded a very ingenious plan of its own, and I should like to hear in due course what the Home Office view of that plan is and whether the Home Office sees the probability of implementing it in the near future.
One case on which I join issue with the Home Office is in connection with the cadet force. We have got evidence that there is a
"very low wastage rate among recruits who have been cadets"
That is at Question No. 226. And, at Question 1166, one of our witnesses said:
"The cadet force produces the best policemen."
We recommended that there should be a considerable increase in cadet recruitment, and I think that the Home Office rather missed the point in its reply, because the Home Office said that recruitment in certain areas of suitable boys is difficult, and yet the Home Office ignored the fact that only one applicant in ten is accepted at Hendon Training College, which suggests there is a wider field for recruiting cadets than the Home Office admitted.
Naturally, the rate of recruitment possible depends upon the training facilities, and in their reply to Recommendation 12, the Home Office have assumed that the Committee are talking only about residential training establishments, whereas in paragraph 46 of the Report the Committee say specifically
"When the new amalgamations have taken place a great opportunity will be presented to create regional centres, whether residential or not."
The Home Office working party on cadets recommended that there should be residential centres where necessary, but that where it was not necessary, e.g. in thickly-populated areas, centres should be non-residential, and this information was given in evidence by the Association of Municipal Corporations. That is, Questions Nos. 1188–9. Clearly, the conclusions in the argument about the high

1853
cost of residential centres do not apply to non-residential centres, and the Home Office reply covered both types. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman could see his way to giving us some information on that matter.
Another point which we raised related to the rather ingenious suggestion that we should try and obtain an extension of police service to 35 years. That is something which appealed to a number of our witnesses. They felt that in police forces, compared with other forms of service, there was a special value in the older and more experienced man. The fact is that it is now open to a constable to retire on half pay after 25 years, and no less than 24½ per cent. do that. The alternative is to retire on two-thirds pay after 30 years, and only 17½ per cent. are willing to stay on as long as that. The only option open to a man who has retired on pension is to be re-employed at the bottom of the pay scale. It is not realistic for a man of 45 or 50 to come back at the bottom of the pay scale.
All that the Home Office would say about this recommendation of the Committee was that
"… full account will have to be taken of the implications for other public services."
I would suggest that, in the Armed Forces, 90 per cent. of the people employed after the age of 45 are in jobs which could perfectly well be civilianised; in other words, they have ceased to be really effective members of the Service, unless they have very special skills. No doubt we shall have a chance of discussing that aspect next week.
I do not think that the implications for public other services should be taken into account. We have a police problem here. Our recommendation was that constables should be encouraged to stay on for 35 years by promising them that, after 30 years' service, they would receive not only their pensions, but the pay for the constabulary service. We felt that that would secure them for a minimum of 30 years plus the extra five years. Of course, that should be made subject to a medical test, and, clearly, police forces could not be compelled to re-employ people whom they did not want for one reason or another.
I do not think that sufficient attention was paid to that suggestion. It is a
1854
method which might help stop the wastage at a time when a man is particularly valuable to a police force.
Turning to the rate of recruitment, I wish to draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that there is no inducement to graduates to come into the police service. From the Working Party's Report it is apparent that the Police Federation considers that an annual intake of 15 to 20 graduates spread over the whole service is sufficient.
Considering the brain-power which is now given to crime, I do not think that that is enough. In that respect, the Police Federation, who gave valuable evidence to our Sub-Committee and who certainly have a very important rôle to play, should be overridden. I think that we should aim at a greater intake of graduates.
If we cannot do that, rather more attention should be paid to our suggestion that greater scope should be given on the lines of the Bramshill scholarships, with police forces all over the country making arrangements with their local universities, as is done in Lancashire, to admit policemen to study for graduate degrees. It has worked out in the case of the Bramshill scholarship scheme, and the idea should be spread. They would be welcomed in the universities, and they would have a contribution to make, not only to the universities, but to the police forces when they came back.
There are other questions on which I should like to ask for a little information. The Working Party confirmed our Recommendation No. 8 about the physical standards and age of recruitment for entry to the Police Force. The Home Secretary has agreed to consider certain lowered physical standards and the possibility of recruiting up to the age of 40 where recruits come from a body in which they have previously known conditions of discipline; that is, the Armed Forces or the Merchant Navy. I should like to ask when it is likely that this is to be implemented.
I should also like to ask the Home Secretary about our Recommendation No. 10, which concerns undermanning allowances. The Home Office was able to produce a fairly quick and easy reply by saying that it could not do anything until the incomes standstill came to an end. I wish to probe a little further and

1855
find out if the Department will undertake to look more carefully at undermanning allowances, because they are one of the aids which have to be taken into account if we are to remedy what is a really shocking deficiency in our police forces today.
We said that the problem is to secure national standards within the framework of local police forces. As we know all too well, crime pays little attention to national boundaries and none at all to county or borough boundaries. The institution of regional crime squads has shown a way of overcoming this. As one of our witnesses said, it is no good trying to paper over the cracks of a 19th century organisation, and perhaps there is a good omen contained in those words, as they are taken from the evidence of the gentleman who is now Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. I hope that we shall see no further attempts to paper over the cracks, and that real consideration will be given to ways of dealing with the crime situation as it is today.
I did not want to take up the time of the House unduly, because the Sub-Committee found that its recommendations virtually have been accepted either by the Home Office or by the Working Party on the Police. We are very glad that, in reaching our conclusions, we have been thinking along the same lines as those eminent bodies.
It only remains for me to congratulate those hon. Members who have stuck this debate out. Those in attendance at these debates are usually few but fit. I get the idea today that, with a counter-attraction in another place, I am trying to present a poetry reading in a public house. I hope that these two Reports will provide material for a debate which will not only be constructive and useful, but is very timely indeed.
4.40 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): Like the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) I very much welcome this opportunity for a debate on the police. We have had a most thoughtful and thorough Report from the Estimates Committee, and we have had a most valuable introduction to the debate from the Chairman of the Sub-
1856
Committee who presided indefatigably over all its meetings. His work in the Estimates Committee and the way in which he has presented its Report this afternoon show what a great loss his retirement will be to the Committee.
The virtues of the Report are twofold. First, it contains a large number of extremely useful recommendations. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was only one which the Home Office felt completely unable to accept, for reasons which were stated in the official comment. There are some which cannot immediately be implemented, or which require further consideration, but, generally speaking, the recommendations and the Report deserve the support of the Government, of the House, and of the country.
The second virtue of the Report lies in its value as a means of educating the public in its understanding of the problems of the police, and also making the public more aware of the changes which have been taking place in the police service itself. Appendix G, for example, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, makes available information and useful material to which access might otherwise be difficult.
The changes which have taken place are probably greater than those in relation to any other service, and are unparalleled in any other country. They involve three stages. First, there were the changes which came from the Royal Commission; the changes in the constitutional position of the police in relation to central and local government and in relation to Parliament. These were the changes made in the Police Act, 1964. Secondly, there are the structural and organisational changes being brought about by the programme of amalgamations announced in May. Thirdly, there is the intense internal reorganisation of the police service itself as recommended in the Reports by the three working parties which were published last month.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not take up the points that he made in the order in which he presented them. Indeed, it may well be that I shall not be able to deal with some of them, in the interests of keeping my speech reasonably short, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will reply to the debate, and I have made a

1857
note of the points so that he can take them up later if necessary.
I propose to approach the debate in four parts. First, I intend to say something about the progress of amalgamations and then to look at some aspects of the three subjects considered by the three working parties—equipment, manpower and operational policy.
When the large-scale reorganisation and mergers of police forces were proposed in May, they received a general welcome on both sides of the House. They did, of course, involve upheavals. I fully understand the difficulties caused to local police authorities, many of whom were justly proud of their long association with their local forces. We recognise, too, that the limitations imposed by the 1964 Police Act meant that in one or two cases the proposed amalgamations were perhaps not ideal from a geographical point of view, but the only real alternatives were either to do nothing or to wait for the local government reorganisation. To have waited for local government reorganisation would have meant a quite unacceptable delay.
The response to our proposals has been most encouraging, and the progress which has been made is perhaps greater than we were entitled to expect. Of the 30 schemes announced on 18th May last year, seven have been made, and one more has been submitted formally and is on the point of being made. In only four cases so far have compulsory schemes had to be initiated. Of the remaining 18 schemes, discussions are proceeding on the basis of agreement in principle in almost all the them. Over all, it is hoped that by 1st April next about half the schemes will have been made. By and large, therefore, progress on amalgamations has been extremely good.
I turn next to the question of equipment. One of the advantages of amalgamation is that the new larger forces will be able to make much better use of the more sophisticated and often expensive equipment which can play an increasing part in the fight against crime, and I want this afternoon to single out two developments which can play the greatest part in helping the police.
The first of these is personal radios. The advantage of personal radios has often been stressed and generally
1858
accepted. With a personal radio, a policeman will no longer be isolated. He will be able to summon support when he needs it. He will be able to pass back information without the need to interrupt his pursuit of the quarry by having to make a call at a telephone kiosk. He will be able to receive a steady flow of information from headquarters. The real question is how soon and in what quantities personal radios can be supplied. The present position is that by the spring of 1968 we hope that about 12,000 personal radios will be in use. It will mean that nearly every constable out on the beat will have this invaluable piece of new equipment.
Secondly, I want to say something about computers. A study by the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police Joint A.D.P. unit has shown the feasibility of a national computer system which can keep the majority of operational police records. The implications for police efficiency are obviously of great importance and perhaps I might elaborate what this could mean.
Let us consider, for example, a police officer who stops a car and has suspicions about the car, about its occupants, and perhaps about property that he finds in it. It will mean that within a matter of minutes he will be able to find out, through his personal radio, whether the car has been stolen, in some cases whether the property has been stolen, and whether the individuals of whom he is suspicious have records or are men who are wanted. Quite clearly the implications of this are very great indeed. All information of this kind which is known to the police all over the whole country could be fed into a computer system and made available almost instantly, not only to every police force but to every division within each force.
But I must sound a note of warning, because it would be a mistake to believe that this computer system will be available overnight. Final decisions cannot yet be taken, but it has been shown to be feasible, and discussions are about to start with local authorities on questions of finance and the way in which it could be operated. It is not a remote ideal. It is something just over the horizon.
I propose to deal now with the question of manpower, on which the hon. Gentleman spent a certain amount of

1859
time. As the Committee rightly recognised, premature wastage is one of the greatest problems facing the police. The hon. Gentleman said that the comparison drawn by the working parties with industry was perhaps not a fair one, but it was the outside consultants on the working parties from industry who said that if one looks at comparisons with industry one sees that the police service performs quite well, even allowing for the different conditions in police forces, and it was their view that the problems which faced the police service in one sense could be over-stated. Nevertheless, it is clear, and I think that it is universally agreed, that the loss of trained men in the middle of their careers weakens the effectiveness of the force.
A serious problem was presented by this wastage in 1966, though it is right to say that during the last few months there was a significant fall in wastage, and as far as the net gain in manpower is concerned the picture in 1966 was not altogether a bad one. The House may be interested in the figures for the last three years. In so far as these figures differ from previous ones, they do so because transfers have been excluded, and it is only right that they should be.
In 1964 there were about 5,400 new recruits, wastage was about 4,600 and there was a net gain to the force of 796 men. In 1965 recruits numbered 6,900, wastage was approximately 3,900 and the exact net gain was 3,008. The year 1966 showed 6,855 recruits—nearly the same figure as the year before—a wastage of 4,671, and a net gain of 2,174. Last year's figures show that it was not quite as good as 1965 but very much better than 1964.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the figures that he has given are for England and Wales—or do they include Scotland?
Mr. Taverne: They are for England and Wales.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Can we take it that wastage includes those retiring as well as those leaving prematurely?
Mr. Taverne: These are the figures for "premature wastage" in the words
1860
of the working parties. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I shall have to check that—No, I am wrong. I am considering the net gain to the police forces. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. These are figures for the net gain to the force as a whole. They include both premature wastage and wastage due to retirement.
Mr. Paul Dean: It would be helpful to have a breakdown of those figures. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how many normal retirements there were and what figure represented premature wastage?
Mr. Taverne: I cannot give those figures offhand, but either my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will give them at the end of the day or I will write to the hon. Member. I want to make it quite clear that my initial reaction was wrong; the figures represent the total wastage from all sources. They are the figures of net gains. The net gain to the police forces last year was 2,174, compared with the net gain of 3,000 in 1965 and 796 in 1964.
Clearly, as the Report shows, a number of factors bear on the figure of wastage. One is the question of pay, but since this is a matter for the Police Council I am not in a position to say anything about it at present. Others were questions considered by the Working Party on Operational Efficiency, and I shall be referring to those presently.
On the general question of manpower and recruitment, the Sub-Committee made some valuable and relevant suggestions. Some I will leave to my right hon. Friend to answer, but I can say one or two things now. The question of age limits of up to 40 for those who have had experience in a disciplined service was discussed at a recent meeting of the Police Advisory Board and it was decided that this will soon be implemented.
On the question of extended service there is a difficulty, to which the hon. Member did not quite do justice. As was stated in the official comments from the Home Office, one cannot disregard the effect on public services generally. It is all governed by Treasury rules. We must look at the whole system of the public services, and while we may wish special exceptions to be made for the

1861
police it is far from being an easy matter and something which can be decided by the Home Office.
The Sub-Committee also suggested something about standards of entry and civilianisation. The recommendation on standards of vision has already been accepted. The suggestion that chief constables should have a discretion to accept men under 5 ft. 8 in. is being sympathetically considered by my right hon. Friend in consultation with the Police Advisory Board, and the proposals on civilianisation are in line with those coming from the Manpower Working Party.
As the hon. Member very generously acknowledged, it is fair to state that this Working Party really went into this question of civilianisation in a degree of detail which had not been done before. On matters such as a career structure for civilians and the extended use of traffic wardens, certain guide lines have been laid down which chief constables and local authorities are now working on, with the backing of the Home Secretary and the Police Advisory Board.
The House will, however, understand that, unfortunately, there are limits on the speed with which we can proceed. Extending some of the functions of traffic wardens requires regislation, and I am not in a position to say when it will come before the House. It is precisely in those areas where traffic wardens are most needed that their recruitment is found most difficult. Where we cannot get more police it is also the case, unfortunately, that we cannot get more traffic wardens. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that there is enormous room for improvement in many areas, even under existing powers, and the new impetus towards civilianisation generally given by the Sub-Committee's Report and that of the Working Party can do an enormous amount to keep the policeman out of the police station and on the ground, and to take away from the policeman some of the duly and routine work which does not require the special qualities for which he has been trained and selected.
I want to say something about quality and quantity. There is a need for a larger number of better-educated recruits. I realise—as the hon. Member's Committee realised—that there has been no great enthusiasm in some sections of the
1862
service for the idea of attracting graduates. Perhaps, however, there are some signs of a change of attitude. There is certainly a realisation of the need to attract better-educated people. All those represented on the Working Party on Manpower, including those from the Federation, were agreed about this.
A graduate recruit is perhaps less of a freak than he has been in recent years. Only 25 graduates were recruited in the 20 years before 1965, yet last year there were 16. Again, the Bramshill Scholarship Scheme means that this year about 21 Bramshill scholarships will be available at universities, and that between 40 and 50 police officers will be engaged in full-time studies at universities. But when all that is said, the fact remains that last year, out of the 6,855 recruits only 16 were graduates.
Further, the demands of the service are likely to continue to become more exacting as police methods become more complex and sophisticated, and police forces become larger. Positions of responsibility in the service demand standards of intelligence and education which are similar to those needed in comparable posts in business, the Armed Services and the Civil Service. I am far from saying that those qualities are to be found only among graduates, but with the increase in the number of people going to universities it becomes more important than ever to attract a larger share of university men.
If there is one point in the hon. Member's speech on which I would place a slightly different emphasis it is on the question of necessity to recruit graduates. With the net being wider one cannot look in future for the same number of well-educated men who do not go to university. Unless something drastic is done the present pattern of university development will mean that less able men enter the police force than have done in the past. It is a case of taking action to avoid slipping back, but even maintaining the present position is not good enough, because the police service of the future will need more talent than ever before.
The Committee which I am to chair has been set up to look at to question of the recruitment of graduates. Clearly, I cannot anticipate the recommendations of that Committee, but I am convinced that a solution can be found which the

1863
police service as a whole can accept and which will not upset the career structure open to the constable, which has been one of the attractive features of the service.
Perhaps most important of all is the question of police methods. The working party which considered this matter also looked at the problem of management. It made some valuable observations and my right hon. Friend has asked chief constables to lose no time in following up its recommendations on man management. We hope that by the end of the year formal training in man management will have been introduced in all police forces, certainly for all newly promoted sergeants and inspectors.
Perhaps the most significant change of all in the police force of the future will be the modification of the traditional beat system. Hon. Members will have heard of the new unit beat police system which has been tried out in Accrington. Perhaps I should elaborate on how this system would work in a typical area and what it would mean in terms of manpower. Such an area would be divided into groups of units, each of which was formerly covered by three beats. As each beat in the past required five men, allowing for constant patrolling, weekends and holidays, this required 15 men to work it.
These three beats now become two. each of which is patrolled for eight hours out of 24—of his own choosing—by a constable living on the beat. The unit is also patrolled by a patrol car with which the beat constables are in touch by mewls of their personal radios. Five men are required to give 24-hour effectiveness to this police car. In addition, there is a collator who collects the information from the two beat men and the patrol car and keeps contact with all the units that cover the locality. In addition there is a detective constable appointed to each unit.
The result of this new combination of men in direct contact with the public, and making more intensive use of cars, is that there is a considerable saving in manpower. Seven men—five for the patrol car and two for the two beat units, each living on their beat, plus the part-time services of the collator, cover an area previously covered by 15 men. Thus, in
1864
Accrington—including further patrol cars for the whole town and other staff—the manpower saving is 12 per cent. The contact with the public has been improved, the crime rate has been reduced, the public like it because they can establish personal relations with the police constable whom they know because he regularly patrols the same beat, and the morale of the men has improved enormously. The work has become more interesting, responsible and productive, since the efforts of the men are more effectively directed to where they are needed. The new system makes the best possible use of the latest sophisticated and modern equipment, particularly the potential of personal radios and cars.
The system is already being applied in a number of different localities, although it cannot be applied everywhere because of different conditions. However, we hope that by the end of 1968 it will be in force in every area where conditions allow. The cautious estimate of the working party was that this could lead to an overall saving in manpower throughout the country of 5 per cent., but it might well be more.
The implications of this for the police service as a whole are clearly of the greatest importance. First, by improving morale, it may prove to be one of the most important factors in cutting down wastage. Secondly, it gives the service options which it never had before. The manpower saving could be applied in reducing the number of hours worked and the heavy overtime which many police officers must serve, to which the hon. Member for Walsall, South referred. It could also be used to reduce the demand for extra policemen and to stave off a further increase in the establishment figures which would otherwise be necessary. Alternatively, the men saved by the new methods can be used in commando and vice squads, as they are in some places, to give the police force greater flexibility. These recommendations—like the recommendations of other working parties—open up a prospect for radical changes in the police service which we have not seen this century.
I wish to pay a special tribute to the work of those who have served on these working parties. To a large extent, it has been a question of the police looking at themselves. A leading part was played

1865
by the Police Federation, which was one of the prime movers in the setting up of these working parties. However, every section of the service has shown itself prepared to face change and re-examine its old and traditional practices. I should also mention the work of those who came from outside the service to give help; Mr. Hamilton of Urwick Orr, Mr. Tann of P.A. Consultants, Mr. Elwes of Lyons, Mr. McCrea of I.C.T., Professor Holt-Smith from the Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham, and Mr. Truefitt, Director of Scientific Electronics at the Ministry of Aviation.
In the near future, as a result of all this work—of the work of this Working Party and many others—we should see a police force in this country which is further ahead in the use of modern equipment—and certainly in its development of systems of policing—than the police force of any other country in the world.
5.6 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: I am delighted that we are having this debate arising out of consideration of these Reports and the whole House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'AvigdorGoldsmid) and the Under-Secretary for the extremely lucid and constructive way in which they have opened our discussion.
Few subjects are more important than the preservation of law and order, on the success of which so much depends. In the preservation of law and order the efficiency and morale of the police is a vitally indispensable factor, and it is that aspect of the matter to which I wish to refer. First, however, I should declare my interest in that, as the Home Secretary and most hon. Members know, I have for some time been the Parliamentary consultant of the country's senior police officers, namely the Superintendents' Association of England and Wales and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents. Because of that I have been careful to avoid entering into any public controversy on the difficult problems facing the police.
Senior police officers have a very difficult job to do. They have a marked loyalty to the employing authorities and, because they have come up the ladder,
1866
they have a deep concern for the morale of policemen generally. It is not always easy to reconcile these two factors. It is not an under-estimate to say, therefore, that at the time when evidence was being given to the Select Committee, the Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation too were both deeply disturbed about the way in which matters were drifting. The superintendents shared the view of the Federation that the forces of law and order were in grave danger of losing the war against crime. I jotted down some words uttered by a chief superintendent at that time. He said:
"Parliament, Press and the public must be brought to understand that we are engaged in a continuing, relentless civil war—the criminal against society—and because the police are not being given the tools for the job, society is losing ".
At that time crime had been increasing by about 9 per cent. per year although the rate of increase may have since begun to slow down. There were more than three and a half times as many indictable offences, four times as many crimes of violence and five times as many youths engaged in crime as in 1938. Moreover, not only was there more crime generally but it was becoming more violent, more vicious and more organised. The blame for this disturbing state of affairs did not, and does not, lie with the police themselves because the detection rate per man has been rising. Where the police have been unable to step up the detection rate appreciably they have been overworked, inadequately equipped and not sufficiently well organised. The fault for this has lain squarely on those who in the past have been responsible for the administration of the police service and on us in this House who lay down an ever-multiplying set of laws and regulations which we expect that service to enforce.
I do not propose to pursue this in any detail, largely because I think the lesson has been learned. We heard this afternoon from the Under-Secretary some of the improvements which are now getting well under way. I would be the first to recognise that the present Home Secretary has grasped the nettle firmly. He did this when he first assumed office and took a number of useful steps which have the full support of the police service. He has rightly pressed on with amalgamations. He has set up working

1867
parties to review organisation, manpower and equipment. He is paying urgent attention to the need for proper research. We have heard from the Under-Secretary some encouraging news about the progress that is being made.
All this is useful if the resources are found not merely to recruit men of the right type but to hold them. I hope that the Home Secretary in reply to this debate will amplify some of the figures about wastage because the shocking thing is the number of men who have left in recent years with less than five years' service. This is where the wastage has been so serious. But if the resources are there not only to recruit the right men but to hold them and to equip them properly, all these developments are in the right direction and the Home Secretary deserves support.
But he will be aware that senior police officers, the superintendents, are deeply dissatisfied over one matter and are looking to him to put it right. I refer to their long-standing grievance over the practice of the Metropolitan Police of prematurely retiring fit and able superintendents at age 55. This is done under Regulation 59. Secondly, there is their grievance about the use of compulsory powers elsewhere to retire fit and able men after 30 years' service which in some cases can be before the age of 50. This is done under Regulation 60. The House should know about this.
In the Metropolitan Police superintendents are retired compulsorily at the age of 55, however fit and able they are and whatever distinguished service they may have given. To underline the absurdity of the position, this rule does not obtain anywhere else in the country and does not even obtain in respect of men whose forces have been amalgamated with the Metropolitan Police. Originally it was argued that this was due to the need to facilitate promotion flow but it has done nothing of the kind. As the Oaksey Committee on Police Conditions of Service recognised in its Report in 1949, in paragraph 211:
"We felt bound to reject the first of these suggestions …"
The suggestion that this practice facilitated promotion flow—
"as being contrary to the public interest:"
1868
The same view was taken by the Select Committee on Estimates in 1957–58 and again by the Royal Commission on the Police. The Select Committee on Estimates said:
"… whatever need there may be for such opportunities, your Committee do not regard the premature retirement of fit and able superintendents as a proper means of meeting that need. It is financially indefensible to pay one man to do a job and another suitable man pension for not doing it. Your Committee recommend that local police authorities be advised not to adopt the practice of retiring superintendents or other officers for the sole purpose of improving the rate of promotion in their Forces."
Later the Royal Commission, in its final Report, said:
"In our interim report we referred to evidence that Regulation 52"—
the forerunner of Regulation 60—
"which was being applied systematically in some forces with the object of creating a promotion flow and without regard to the overriding need to retain officers for the maximum service of which they are usefully capable. We commented that we should not expect this regulation to be used arbitrarily as if it were of universal application. Further evidence that the regulation is being used in some areas for this purpose has come to our notice during the preparation of this report. We regard this as an entirely improper use of the regulation, and we recommend that the Secretaries of State give instructions to police authorities that the regulation is not to be applied as a standing rule to provide for the automatic retirement of officers in the sole interests of promotion policy".
There we have two powerful authorities laying down clearly what they felt. May I take the two issues separately? First, as regards the practice in the Metropolitan Police the Commissioner and successive Home Secretaries have continued to ignore the views I have just quoted. But we now have the Select Committee's Report before us this afternoon. Here the matter is referred to again. In paragraph 44 it is stated quite clearly:
"Your Committee also took note of the Superintendents' complaint that the Metropolitan Force obliged them to retire at 55, partly to improve promotion lower down and partly because this is regarded as the maximum desirable age under London conditions. This appears unreasonable because exceptions are made, inter alia for Superintendents in forces, such as the Romford area of Essex, which have been amalgamated with the Metropolis. … Your Committee, bearing in mind that Metropolitan Police policy can be waived, and that it is difficult to re-employ these men in provincial forces … considers this is an unfortunate waste of manpower."

1869
It is high time that Parliament took note of the way in which the considered views of two Select Committees of this House and other authoritative bodies are being ignored. This is not just a matter of principle as some hon. Members might think. The practice is doing grave damage to the morale of senior officers and to the efficiency of the force. Why should fit and able men of 55 wait for retirement when re-employment at that age is difficult to find? Many of us in this House have been faced in our constituencies with the problem of men who fall out of employment through no fault of their own when in their late forties and early fifties and who experience enormous difficulty in finding a suitable job. We know the tragedy which often ensues. Here, as a result of the policy of the Metropolitan Police, fit and able men have to go at the age of 55. Inevitably the result is that many take the opportunity to get out before reaching that age.
I do not think the up-to-date figures have been published, but my information is that in the last five years—a period, incidentally, of rising crime—27 out of a total of 35 chief superintendents and 131 out of a total of 144 superintendents have left the Metropolitan Police before the compulsory age of retirement. Could anyone in his senses argue that this is in the interests of the force or in the interests of the public? The earlier Select Committee on Estimates, 1957–58 reported:
"It is financially indefensible to pay one man to do a job and another suitable man … for not doing it."
So it is.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman is adducing a very powerful argument, but would not he accept, that, if the age limit were removed, that would constitute a return to the pre-war situation, which was disruptive to morale in the force until the age limit was set?
Mr. Braine: This practice has obtained in the Metropolitan Police since 1933. I think I am right in saying that it does not apply to police officers who were in the force before 1933, and this is yet another anomaly. It is a practice which, with certain exceptions, is not followed anywhere else in the country. It is a practice which has been examined repeatedly by Select Committees and other authoritative bodies and found to be
1870
indefensible. There is no question of going back to any pre-war position. There is no evidence that this has encouraged the promotion flow in the Metropolitan Police Force, which has one of the worst records for recruitment in the country.
I turn to the second complaint, namely, the practice in some forces of enforcing compulsory retirement of fit and able men of all ranks, not merely superintendents, after 30 years' service. I am delighted that the Estimates Committee has recommended, in respect of contables at any rate, that something should be done about this.
The Superintendents' Association approached the Police Council for Great Britain on this matter in 1963. On 10th June of that year a circular letter was sent to the clerks of all police authorities and joint police committees in Great Britain drawing attention to the considered views of the earlier Select Committee on Estimates and the Royal Commission. I am sorry to say that the result was negligible. Those authorities that were enforcing the practice continued in the main to do so.
The Estimates Committee, in the Report we are now considering, refers to
"the practice of enforced retirement of superintendents after 30 years' service often well before the compulsory retiring age of 60 …"
It could take place at age 49. The Report continues:
"… the Home Office explained that as a result of their earlier complaint"—
that is, the earlier complaint of the Superintendents' Association—
"no force in England and Wales was now enforcing this rule."
I am bound to tell the House that my information is that this was not correct. On 10th January the Secretary of the Superintendents' Association wrote to me saying that the Chief Constable of Devon has a force order requiring members of his force to retire on completing 30 years' service and has indicated that he will use it in respect of a particular superintendent. I am convinced that the Home Office did not know of this at the time that the Estimates Committee was advised that the practice did not obtain in England and Wales.
In Scotland there is one joint police authority which continues to defy everything that has been said on this subject.

1871
The matter was drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1965. He referred the matter back to the Police Council. All that happened was that a fresh letter went from the Police Council to the Fife Police Authority. The answer—this is the way the Chief Constable of that Authority treats the Secretary of State for Scotland and Parliamentary Select Committees—is to be seen in an advertisement which appears in the Police Review of 3rd February of this year. This is an advertisement inviting applications for the appointment of a Superintendent (Admin.) in the Fife Constabulary. After giving details, the advertisement ends by saying:
"Attention is drawn to the fact that Fife Police Joint Committee operate a policy of compulsory retiral at 30 years' service."
Who are these people who take no notice of what Parliament, the Royal Commission, and the Police Council have said on this matter, who take no notice of what is common sense and what is in the public interest?
I do not want to imply that the Home Secretary will not take any action on this. He has not been in his present office for long and he has had many important matters to deal with. But is it not high time—I beg the House to join me in stressing this—that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland took firm hold of this situation and ended a practice which is unfair, illogical and clearly contrary to the public interest?
Mr. Antony Buck: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is a great pity that the Home Secretary has not thought fit to make any comment on these two important matters which are raised in paragraph 44 but which are not framed as direct recommendations? If it is the custom for the Home Secretary to comment only on recommendations, is not this a custom which should be altered and extended to cover matters such as those referred to in paragraph 44?
Mr. Braine: No doubt the Home Secretary, in replying, will enlighten the House as to his view on this. There is a distinction to be drawn between his comment on the recommendation regarding 30 years' service for constables and the case I am putting to the House, because, in regard to the Estimates Committee's recommendation, the suggestion
1872
is made that a man might continue to draw pension and pay. I want to make it absolutely clear that, in asking that a superintendent in the Metropolitan Police Force should be allowed to go to the same retirement age as a superintendent in the country as a whole, there is no suggestion that he should draw his pension prematurely. In fact, my suggestion would save public money.
There is an additional anomaly here. I do not want to be too dogmatic about this, because the Home Secretary may have an answer. It arises out of the Scottish experience but could apply to superintendents in England and Wales. As I understand it, under Section 6(5) of the Police Act, 1964, a superintendent who is a deputy chief constable and who is compelled to retire by the police authority has the protection of Section 5(5) in respect of appeal before the retirement can be carried out. As far as I am aware, there is no such safeguard for a superintendent if he does not hold the job of deputy chief constable. If this is so, it is wrong and unjust, and it is a matter which should be remedied at an early date.
The matter I have drawn to the attention of the House is important in the sense that it affects the morale of senior police officers. All those to whom I have talked about police matters in the last year have been impressed by the steps that the Home Secretary has taken so far to modernise and strengthen the force. That is why they expect him to meet their legitimate complaint on this matter. I trust that in replying to the debate he will not disappoint them.
5.29 p.m.
Mr. David Ensor: Speaking as a member of the Estimates Committee, I hope that the House generally will welcome the Report. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing appreciation of the speech made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'AvigdorGoldsmid) in presenting the Report to the House.
I want to take up the time of the House for a few minutes, not on any particular item in the Report, but on the police generally. I hope that the House will agree with me that the recent appointment of the former Chief Constable of Lancashire as Chief Inspector

1873
of Constabulary at the Home Office is very welcome. This is one of the best appointments that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made and I am sure that it will do nothing but good for morale and for increasing efficiency.
I have some knowledge of these matters. I have been prosecuting solicitor to the Newcastle Police, and prosecuting solicitor to the Metropolitan Police. At one time I even taught the new chief inspector his criminal law at Hendon Police College. I have some slight knowledge of police work, and I want to speak today not about the rank but generally about morale.
When we debated the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill, all of us were horrified by the crime figures. We all know about the increase in crime today, with about 33,000 people in prison any day one cares to mention. A great deal of this is tied up with the police and the way they have to work. Our police are understaffed. We have not the numbers of police to do the job. Perhaps criminals are becoming more efficient or more intelligent—I do not know.
It is essential to improve relationships between the public and the police generally. This is one of the most important matters we can tackle. I am entirely at one with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when he says that we must have bigger police forces and, therefore, we must have amalgamations. It has been said here and in many other countries that it is best to have a national police force. That is a matter of opinion with which I do not altogether agree, but the days when one could have police forces of 40 or 50 have gone for ever. It is a question of efficiency, of equipment and of uniformity.
All this calls for the big unit, though not too big. It is an unfortunate fact that the detection and conviction rate in the Metropolitan Police, the biggest we have, is not one which can be recommended to other forces. But amalgamation must take place to some extent.
Amalgamation will not deal with the problem of morale. We must pay the policeman the rate for the job. If we do not, we shall not bring the right type of person into the job. Let us make no bones about it: today in a policeman's job, be he constable or
1874
superintendent, we need a man of intelligence and education, able to use his head. If we do not get such men, we shall never be able to deal with the ever growing problem of crime.
A great deal of the time of the ordinary police constable today is taken up by jobs which could well he done by other people. Not long ago, I went to Bow Street magistrates' court on one of the traffic afternoons, and I counted the number of police constables there dealing with purely formal traffic cases, parking offences and the like. There were 80 of them present, and I submit that those 80 might well have been better employed elsewhere. We could employ other people to do traffic work of that kind, office work and such jobs as conveying prisoners on remand from court to court or from court to remand centre.
Now, another matter of importance for morale. I am a great believer in the police cadet system. We should bring boys in when they are young and enthusiastic. That is the time to keep their enthusiasm and keeness for the job. In the Metropolitan Police and the Lancashire Police Force there has been a hostel system running for some time. This should be extended throughout the country, because youngsters of that age, when they come in as cadets, need looking after in exactly the same way as we look after youngsters when they go into the Armed Forces. Proper hostel accommodation for them would be of great benefit to recruitment generally.
Apart from all that, it still remains for us to put across to the general public that the police must be supported. For years and years, generally speaking, the law has always been on the side of the accused. I am not suggesting that that is bad, but there are limits to what one can do. There are limits to what the police can do in the present circumstances of the administration of justice when, for example, irresponsible juries are prepared to do anything except the duty which they have sworn to do. This sort of situation is of no help to police officers who are trying to do their best. However much we agree that the innocent should be acquitted, it is equally important that the guilty should be convicted, and so long as we have that sort of attitude towards our police, we shall not have a satisfactory administration of justice.

1875
If I may, as a member of the Select Committee, I welcome the Report. I think that the Committee worked extremely hard on it, and, on the whole, it has done a good job. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the House will think that we have done a good job. But there is still a long way to go. We have to teach the people of this country that, without efficient, honourable and incorruptible police forces, we shall never get anywhere.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) was right to emphasise the need for labour-saving devices within our police forces. I was glad that the Under-Secretary of State took time to describe the experiments which have been going on in Accrington and the modern methods used there. Those of us on the Committee were extremely impressed by what has been going on in Lancashire and certain other parts of the country. If we are to win the battle against crime—we may not be losing it, but we are certainly not winning it yet—we must use the most modern methods, mobile patrol cars, walkie-talkies, closed television circuits beamed on difficult areas, and so on, if the police are to be on top of their job.
In Accrington and elsewhere, the man on patrol with his walkie-talkie can call up the patrol car very quickly and bring it to the scene of trouble. This system should be extended throughout the country so that every man on the beat can call up his main station or patrol car as quickly as necessary.
We must do what we can to help the C.I.D. to quicken its methods and cut out unnecessary work. The other day, I parked my car in Albemarle Street and went to listen to a lecture at the Royal Institution. When I came out, I found the window smashed and my overcoat taken from the back seat. There are young men going about nowadays with a device like a humane killer which breaks the window of a car and makes it possible to take anything of value out. I could not see a policeman nearby, so I went to Savile Row to report. The C.I.D. was so busy that I had to wait
1876
10 or 15 minutes until I could make my little complaint.
I suggest that when members of the public go into a police station to make a complaint they could be given a form on which they could state their name and address, age, telephone number and other particulars and so on to help the C.I.D., because when the C.I.D. man came I had to spend five minutes explaining my sex, age, telephone number, address and so on. That would be a small reform to help any complainant who goes into a police station.
We must also adopt modern computer methods. If we had a centralised computer system that recorded all criminals' details, which could be sent by teleprinter at any moment throughout the country, that would go a long way to tracking down criminals. I was interested in the success of the computer system in Chicago, where it is said that the police authorities feed the pattern of crime for the week into their computer and get a forecast of where crime will take place at the weekend. They can thus concentrate their patrol cars at the most dangerous points in Chicago.
More wardens must be called in to help the police in the regulation and control of traffic. It always distresses me to motor around Parliament Square when Parliament is sitting and find 12 policemen standing there trying to help us on. Of course, they cannot help us at all. They cannot do better than the lights, but we insist on having those dozen or so men helping us. We possibly want two at the entrance of New Palace Yard, but I do not see why we want policemen in the rest of Parliament Square. In any event, why could not traffic wardens do that job and be on traffic duty in most places?
In that connection, we want a large extension of the fixed penalty system for minor motoring offences. It has been quite successful for parking, and I would like to see a fixed penalty for an unlicensed car, for rear lights that are not working, smashed reflectors, and so on. The constable could pin a notice on the car or say to the driver, "You are committing an offence by not having a car licence. Pay £2 or go to the police station." That would prevent the waste

1877
of a lot of the time of the police in having to prove those minor offences.
I do not think that the system would be abused, any more than it is abused by the traffic wardens, and I claim that it is not abused by them. If the motorist feels aggrieved, he can always appeal to his local magistrates' court. There should be an extension of fixed penalties, as was recommended.
One could get only generalised impressions, but another thing that impressed us was the extension of the neighbourhood police officer, living not in barracks but in a house among the people he served. It seemed to me that this was clearly an extension of the old village "bobby" living in an area where he knew everybody and everybody could go to him. Another advantage of the neighbourhood police force over a centralised, barrack-ridden police force is that the public get to know their man. They can pass on tips and little bits of information more easily to the man who lives in the area than the man who comes from three or four miles away. We saw that in Greenwich and one or two other places, and it is obviously something that should be encouraged throughout the country.
We should make more use of special constables to help the police force. In London and many other parts of the country there have recently been attacks of vandalism on telephone kiosks. We could have recruited a few specials to patrol kiosks in vulnerable areas and to keep a special watch on that sort of problem. I do not know why the modern type of telephone kiosk is so much more vulnerable than the old, which went for 30 years fairly untouched. But it seems to be of weaker design, and is rifled in every part of the country. In my constituency, only about 25 per cent. of the kiosks were working at one time. In an emergency like that, special constables could have been called in to assist the police to track down the young vandals, many of whom are only boys or very young men.
The general impression one gets of the police is of shortage of policemen and overwork. The C.I.D. are over-worked, having to spend 27 per cent. of their time filling up forms, writing up reports, and so on. We must obviously do everything we can to recruit more police.
1878
I was very taken with the work being done in the cadet training establishments, for instance, that in the Hendon Police College, where the cadets are given physical and mental training of a very high order. In the course of a few months the College greatly improves the morale and physique of a cadet coming into the Metropolitan Police.
I should like to see such police colleges throughout the country, although not necessarily residential. They could be of a type to which the boy goes, just as he goes to school or university. I was sorry to hear that some areas do not like those training colleges. I think that Glasgow was mentioned as one that did not. Unfortunately, we could not take evidence from the Glasgow police, and did not have time to find out why they did not like them. But I should be sorry to hear that any town was opposed to having those cadet training establishments. Those which we saw were first-class.
At the other end of the scale, as has been mentioned, the age of recruits who come out of the Services should be extended. We should regard the police as a service like the Navy and Army, as being of that calibre. That reinforces my point about the need for more cadet training.
Great work has been done by the police in bringing to fruition the Bramshill College and making courses available for higher levels of the police. I am glad to see that, and I hope that courses will soon be available at Bramshill for every one of the new inspectors promoted throughout the country, because they should all have the advantage of them.
I am very glad that so much of our Report has been accepted. The paramount need for the police is modern methods, modern equipment, laboursaving devices, higher standards of recruitment and more recruitment, so that a greater part of the time of the police is spent not in the station filling up forms or in other detailed work but in combating crime. In that way we should, with luck, catch more criminals than at present.
5.48 p.m.
Mr. Edward Lyons: Perhaps the most striking thing one notices on first arriving at the House is the courtesy of the police officers on duty

1879
in it. They should be mentioned as models of what police officers should be in that respect.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seeks to restore the morale of the police, not only in the urgent way we have heard today, by more walkie-talkie sets and so on, but also by the Criminal Justice Bill. Police morale should be helped by provisions in that Bill relating, for example, to advance notification of a defence alibi, and the provisions for ensuring that far fewer criminals serve on juries. These are not measures which are aimed at the innocent but are designed to ensure that, while trials are fair, the balance is not weighted too greatly against the public, because it is the observation of this happening that tends to destroy the morale of officers in the Police Force, particularly those in the C.I.D.
Further, the Bill assists in the saving of time. We have heard today of 18 police officers in a magistrates' court. There will be substantial saving of time in preliminary proceedings under the Bill. The admission of formal evidence without the bother of calling police photographers and so on will also assist the saving of police time.
One would like to feel that, in future, more attention will be paid to the convenience of witnesses, including police witnesses, by judges and magistrates in courts so that there would then be a much greater saving of police time. It is still unfortunately true that our courts are run on the basis that those who sit as the tribunal are demi-gods and all must revolve around them.
There is, of course, one other thing that one particularly notices in magistrates' courts. This is that not only are police officers giving evidence, but police officers are conducting the prosecutions. In my view, it is not desirable for police officers to conduct prosecutions. When a member of the public coming to a court to be charged with a traffic offence sees that not only is the witness a policeman but so is the prosecutor, he gets an impression, which is no doubt erroneous but is still undesirable as an impression, that he is not getting a fair trial. I do not make the point chiefly for that purpose but mainly because experienced police officers are wasting their time in magistrates' courts
1880
doing a job which solicitors should be doing, and this is not sensible.
In Bradford, for example, two sergeants and an inspector prosecute daily. In Leeds, inspectors and chief inspectors prosecute. At the moment, one has to accept this situation because there are not enough prosecuting solicitors to do the job. In Bradford we could do with six prosecuting solicitors. In fact, there is an establishment of four and at the moment three have been recruited. Two or three months ago, there was only one. This sort of situation occurs all over the North-East.
It seems to me that if we want to save the time of possibly hundreds of senior police officers so that they can get on with the job of crime prevention and detection, we must look at the situation in relation to prosecuting solicitors. But until we change the salary scales for prosecuting solicitors and cease to tie them to the salary scales officials in the local town hall, we will not get enough of them.
Prosecuting solicitors stay with an authority for a short time and then move somewhere else, usually from the north to the south of England, to lusher pastures. There is a constant merry-go-round of change. That is not good. There are very young solicitors who are doing work which is too difficult for them, and, therefore, what we need is to introduce a new and separate salary scale for prosecuting solicitors. But I would add that the effect of amalgamations means that in future it may be that more experienced solicitors will be able to advise on difficult prosecutions throughout the whole of a region.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in his period of office, has been distinguished by activity designed to bring the whole of the police organisation up to date, and I support amalgamations. Clearly, there are forces which have not prosecuted fraud cases because they have not been equipped to deal with a complex fraud. With an amalgamation, one will get a proper fraud department capable of dealing with complex fraud. There will be savings resulting from reductions in the number of police headquarters. All these things are good. However, I have some disquiet about the fact that in certain areas the amalgamations seem to be too wide-ranging.

1881
Police recruiting tends to be better in the boroughs, I believe, than in the county areas. It is true that there is a trend from the county police to the borough police. What we are doing in many of these areas, certainly in the West Riding of Yorkshire, is to turn borough police into county police.
The effect in Bradford is already noticeable because there is a falling-off in recruitment, and we must be wary about recruitment. We need to keep it up and increase it. Bradford is 100 police under strength, and this is a continuing trend because of the uncertainty induced by the amalgamation proposals for the West Riding. The fact is that police officers nowadays are often owner-occupiers. In Bradford 65 per cent. are. They do not want to move about over wide stretches of the country. They have wives who work in the borough. They have friends and neighbours there, and they form a way of life and do not want to see it uprooted.
The new West Riding area measures 80 miles across. That means that a police officer in a borough where he has his home may be expected, and feel that it is expected of him, if he wishes promotion, to accept that promotion perhaps 80 miles away. The effect is, therefore, that he must sell his house and live elsewhere.
Under the borough system, that does not happen. Nor would it happen if a borough were enlarged to take in the surrounding area so that, while there would still be an amalgamation, it would not be so large as that at present envisaged, for example, in the West Riding. I ask my right hon. Friend to look in future at the situation in order to try to have new areas which are not too great and which are not so drawn that they force police officers to fear having to move house and leave their existing environment for another which may be very different.
Perhaps I can put in a special plea for Bradford. It may be noticed that I have mentioned the city rather a lot, and that is because I am one of its Members of Parliament. The city is waiting for a decision from the Home Office about the fate of a new police headquarters which should have been started. It was to be combined with a new system of courts and could have formed the headquarters
1882
for the new West Riding County Force. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this. Bradford is the largest unit in the new West Riding Force, which consists of eight police areas. The headquarters proposed could be adapted if necessary, and I believe that senior police officers in Bradford believe that it would make an ideal West Riding county police headquarters. I do not wish to delay the House further; I know that this is usually said by those who have gone on for too long, or intend to go on for a great deal longer. I welcome this Report, the amalgamations proposed and the vigorous measures to re-equip and modernise the Police Force.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edumunds): Like other hon. Members before me I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and the members of his Committee for the work that they have done, reflected in this estimable Report. We are in the presence not only of the Report of the Estimates Committee, but of the working parties which the Home Secretary has presented, and of the Criminal Justice Bill. There can have been few occasions when so much activity in so many areas concerning the police has been before the House at the same time.
It is quite right that this should be so. As crime rises, so does public concern, and there is no subject that is quite so important. I must declare an interest for, as the Home Secretary and the House know, I have an affiliation with the Police Federation. Not only am I glad to say that to the House; I am proud to say it. The Under-Secretary ranged over a wide area. I too have been to Accrington, and like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I was impressed by what I saw.
I am not quite certain that the striking and very welcome results are entirely the consequence of the new system of policing. I have a feeling that they may reflect the much greater concentration of cars, equipment and publicity, upon that narrow front. But the experiment has so far proved a great success. One can only wish that something similar will be achieved elsewhere. Like those on the Estimates Committee, I have also had the pleasure of visiting Bramshill Police

1883
College, and I agree with hon. Members who felt it right to bestow such praise on the College.
On such a diffuse subject I want to concentrate upon two narrow points; first, the question of graduate entry into the police service. Some years ago the late Gilbert Harding, after leaving Cambridge, joined the police service. In uniform he was accosted on one occasion by a doctor who said in some surprise to P.C. Gilbert Harding, "You speak very good English, for a policeman". Harding's reply, I have always thought, was memorable. He said, "You don't do so badly yourself, for a doctor".
I put this point because it is vital that the police service should have more educated men, but I also put it because it is wrong for the public or the House to assume that the force does not have well-educated and well-spoken men. The hon. Member for Walsall, introducing his Report said, or I thought he said, that the Police Federation was opposed, on the whole, to an increase in graduates for the service. With great respect I must disagree with that. The Federation is not opposed to this; on the contrary, the Federation is in favour of it.
Mr. Braine: Would my hon. Friend add senior police officers, too?
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The Police Federation is on record in the Report of the Working Party as being in favour of about 15 graduate entrants a year.
Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the hon. Member has pointed to that. If the Police Federation is in favour of 15 graduate entrants a year, then he is admitting that it is in favour of an increase. Everyone is in favour of more graduates in the service. Before the House or the Government gets carried away with the notion of graduates for the sake of graduates, there are one or two practical questions to be asked. I hope that the Under-Secretary, who will be leading the inquiry, will consider some of them. Do we know how large is the real need for graduates in the police service? A careful assessment would show that we do not really know how many graduates are required.
The arguments in favour are that educational standards are rising and that
1884
the police must keep up. Similarly, more modern methods and equipment and the increasing use of graduates on the other side of the fence, namely in the service of crime, must put a premium on more graduates in the service. On the other side of the argument, amalgamations will reduce the number of command type posts in the service, and there are already important inducements to graduates to enter the service. As the Estimates Committee says at page 25, paragraph 49:
"As a concession to graduates and other mature recruits, men of 22 now start at £800 a year compared with £700 a year for those under 22 …"
One should also point to the fact that the number of graduates is increasing a great deal faster than the public seems to realise. The Under-Secretary gave us some very encouraging figures. It is important that we should recognise their implication. In 1965, five graduates joined the police service—a very poor figure indeed. In 1966, 16 graduates joined. These figures are not the whole story.
During the past three years, from 1964 to 1966, a total of 23 other policemen went as students from the Police College to full degree courses at various universities, and last year another four policemen entered universities under arrangements made by their local forces. From these three sources—direct recruitment, the Police College, and the arrangements of local forces—a total of 48 graduates were added to the police service.
Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Member knows very well that there is no certainty whatever that those who go on a Bramshill scholarship to universities will return to the police service.
Mr. Griffiths: There is never any certainty that those who join the police as graduates or otherwise will stay. It depends upon the general conditions, pay and hours of the police service. The prospects are for a bigger increase in graduate recruitment in 1967. A total of 21 students from Bramshill College will enter universities this year, and another six in all will probably enter through arrangements with local universities. If one adds to those men who will join direct from universities as a result of the recruitment campaign now going on under Inspector Peter Jackson, it is likely that 1967 will see up to 40 graduates recruited into the service. That is a far

1885
cry from 1960, when the Royal Commission reported:
"… we have not come across a recent instance of a university graduate entering the Service."
I wish the Under-Secretary's Committee well. It has six weeks to report, which is not a very long time but it has done a great deal of preliminary work. With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who I wish was here, although I appreciate that he cannot be in attendance for the whole time, I would like to offer one or two suggestions for his investigation. It is very important not to rush off looking for graduates if we do not know what we want them to do when they have been recruited. We should wait until it is clear that the career structure for them will provide ample chances for advancement, without jeopardising the prospects of hundreds of perfectly able, ambitious and very much more experienced members of the existing service. This is important. The members of the police service want to get to the top, and nothing could be worse for the service, or, in my view, for the country, than if they were to see their prospects—their own piece of blue sky to which they aspire—removed by the intake of graduates from elsewhere.
Secondly, it is very important not to fall into the trap of creating a separate officer caste within the service.
Mr. Dean: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest, and I see the point of it, but would not he agree that these arguments would be substantially diminished if more graduates were to come from within the police service—people sent from Bramshill by their own forces?
Mr. Griffiths: As always, my hon. Friend has anticipated the conclusion to which I was gradually making my way. It is important that a separate officer caste is not created. This was tried before, in a fashion not intended perhaps, in the 1930s. It would be agreed on all sides that it did not work, or that, if it did, it worked rather badly. It resulted in resentment among the rank and file of the service.
Thirdly, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to pay a great deal of attention to the professional and vocational training of the police within the existing service institutions, notably the Brams-
1886
hill Police College. We all appreciate the importance of general university education and the all-round academic background which the graduate may have, but surely what matters in the end is how good the man, whether a graduate or non-graduate, is as a police officer.
Therefore, the question which I suggest the hon. and learned Gentleman should ask about entrants to the service is not how good an academic record they may have, but how effective they will be as serving police officers. It is not only a matter of how good a brain the man may have or how good a memory he may have displayed at his university. The real questions are: how resourceful is be; how cool in an emergency would he; how resilient and persevering is he; how good would he be at dealing with the public and criminals? There is no reason to suppose that the graduate has more or fewer of those qualities than any other member of the community and certainly no more and no fewer than those sections of the community from which the police service draws its recruits.
My suggestion is that the hon. and learned Gentleman should pay much more attention to expanding the professional training, including the professional education, within the service and specifically at Bramshill. As I have said, I was glad to note the kind words of the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South about Bramshill. I should like to see Bramshill doubled. In particular, I believe that it would do nothing but good to have a second police college, possibly in the North. Perhaps it will take a long time to achieve this, but there is good reason for developing the education of the police graduate from within the police service. This would make an extremely valuable contribution, perhaps more than any other, instead of the great and, I fear, indiscriminate rush to try to bring in the graduate regardless.
My fifth point is much more general. The main reason more graduates do not join the police service is that lamentably they have a very poor impression of the financial rewards of the job and the prospects of the service. In my view, this is the result of, not just years, but decades of neglect in the supply of modern equipment, the construction of modern buildings and the development of modern techniques of man-management. I pay

1887
tribute to the Home Secretary for having set up the working parties whose reports give grounds for great hope that these serious deficiencies will be corrected. The acceptance of them is only part of the revolution in police methods to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. As university graduates, sixth formers, and good, solid all-round boys coming forward to the secondary and grammar school see this revolution beginning to roll, I am sure that many of them will be attracted to the service.
There are, however, two very serious impediments to the recruitment and, above all, retention of men of the right calibre. The manpower report to the Home Secretary identified these quite clearly. It mentions, first, inadequate pay and, secondly, too long working hours. Without a substantial increase in pay and the early introduction in all forces of a five-day week, I doubt whether it will be possible to solve the problem of police manpower either quantitatively in terms of wastage or qualitatively in terms of the need for graduate entry.
I say these few words about that without going into detail. I am a little worried that the hon. and learned Gentleman's investigation may concentrate rather too much on recruiting and not quite enough on wastage. There is the suspicion that the official tendency may be to get in more recruits by a reduction in standards—for example, in the height standard. I do not know whether the Home Secretary has accepted the suggestion that the height standard should be reduced. If he has, has he not accepted that recommendation in the face of the unanimous view of the professional police representatives on the Police Advisory Board, and is not this a rather unusual step to take?
In my view, recruiting is not the chief problem. Wastage is the chief problem. There is no question that the main reason for wastage—the failure of the country to retain in its service well-trained, able and responsible men—is dissatisfaction with the conditions of work and pay. The Estimates Committee has said this, and the working parties have said it. The Association of Chief Police Officers has acknowledged it and the Police Federation, understandably, has said it, and said it again.
1888
I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Home Secretary should place their main attention on the problem of pay and conditions. All else, important as it is, is secondary. This is not the time or place to refer to the question of pay, for it is a matter of negotiation. The police service is, to my knowledge, grateful to the Home Secretary for his personal efforts on its behalf in getting a rather special dispensation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary of State. This is acknowledged and appreciated. But he will also appreciate that the service is waiting and watching carefully for the results. No doubt, in the fullness of time the results will be known. I hope that that time will not be long.
The second point is the question of the 40-hour week.
Sir Spencer Summers: Before my hon. Friend goes on to that point, would he not agree that a good deal of the Working Party's Report on wastage is designed to show that wastage is no worse in this service than it is in many others?
Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend may be right. I do not see how that adds to or detracts from the case which I am making.
Mr. Braine: Is it not a fact that up to a year or so ago at least half of those who left the service prematurely had had less than five years' service? This is the worrying thing to which the Home Secretary should direct his attention.
Mr. Griffiths: I believe that the Home Secretary is aware of my hon. Friend's point and has given great attention to it.
On the 40-hour week, I should like to quote the evidence given to the Committee by the Commissioner, Sir Joseph Simpson. Speaking of wastage, he said:
"The prime reason is that a good policeman can get a job which appears to him to bring him as good a monetary reward as he can get in the police service with the additional benefit of being able to get his Saturdays or half-Saturdays and Sundays off."
I am sure that Sir Joseph Simpson, speaking from great experience, knew exactly what he was saying when he made that point. I realise that the Home Secetary cannot say when a 40-hour week will be possible, but I am sure he will accept that

1889
the sooner the better is the right motto for him to adopt.
I would like to ask the Home Secretary a question about amalgamations, to which the Under-Secretary referred at the beginning of his speech. Amalgamations must come, and must come quickly. The right hon. Gentleman will, however, appreciate that there are occasions when serving officers worry about what will happen to them in the course of amalgamation. I ask the Home Secretary to take the necessary steps to amend Regulation 20 of the Police Regulations to extend the statutory protection that this affords to all members of all forces which are involved.
The Home Secretary has given some assurances on this question, but I would like him to know that there still exists a good deal of misunderstanding, in particular from paragraph 43 of the Home Office Explanatory Memorandum of March, 1965. There is a worry among members of some county and borough forces that paragraph 43 would be applied generally only as long as it is expedient and, furthermore, that an undertaking by a chief constable to apply the provisions of that paragraph would not necessarily be binding upon his successor. I am sure that the Home Secretary, who is eager to see the amalgamations effected swiftly and successfully, will recognise the importance of giving that assurance to the serving officers.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. Paul B. Rose: The whole House will have listened with great interest to the contribution from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not immediately follow some of the points which he has raised.
Faced with crime figures which reveal a serious social problem, the organisation, equipping and recruitment of the police has become a question of major political significance. How we back up the police forces and, at the same time, preserve the rights of the individual against abuses from what, I fear, may well be a rather liberal climate of opinion in the country is a problem of some delicacy for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and one which, I believe, he has tackled remarkably brilliantly to date. Cer-
1890
tainly, the clamour by a vocal minority, urged on sometimes by irresponsible Press organs, for a return to rather mediaeval methods of dealing with crime will only be stemmed if we in this House show a willingness and readiness to create the real means to combat crime.
The mobility and sophistication of the criminal, the unattended wealth, particularly in cars, which abounds in our cities today, the ethos of an affluent society from which many are shut out and, I add, the entry of large-scale criminals backed up—this is what I have heard from quite responsible sources—by Mafia money from the United States are all factors which increasingly are difficulties faced by an already overstrained Police Force. Therefore, the first problem is that of recruitment.
While I strongly support the recommendation on page 20 of the First Report on relaxing standards of height, eyesight and age, this is only one side of the problem. Far more serious, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has said, is the problem of wastage. It is not more serious than in other industries, but it is more serious in the context of the need to strengthen the force in the particular problem which we are facing. It should not he overlooked in that context that since 1958 the authorised establishments in Britain have risen by 25 per cent., whereas in the United States, with a mounting and far more serious crime wave, they have not risen at all. There are now more police per head of population than there were before in this country. The problem has, therefore, to be kept in context and in proportion.
Nevertheless, we must look into the problem of the policeman's leisure periods, because these are probably only matched in their incompatibility with a reasonable social life by the hours of Members of Parliament. There are too many examinations, too much attention to form and, I believe, an unnecessary military type of discipline which can be inimical to morale. Many choices are open to the policeman today in other fields where some of the indignities which he has to face in the force would not have to be faced. Rather than rigidity and formalised procedures, I believe that a greater initiative on the part of the policeman and greater freedom of action

1891
might breed a more contented and more effective policeman on the beat.
It has been said that one of the measures that can be taken is greater civilianisation, and with this I am entirely in agreement. This would allow the policeman to become more effective in his work. It is already happening with regard to traffic wardens, who, I believe should have their own national career structure. It is already happening with the transfer of police functions to civilian in some of our courts. In the Manchester City Magistrates' Court, for example, we now have civilian ushers. I believe that this principle could be extended on a far greater scale. Again, in Manchester, the fingerprint section is now run by civilians. There will be resistance to this, and I understand that there was resistance initially in that case, but this resistance will have to be overcome.
Nothing has been said in this debate, or, I think, in the Report, on the problem of recruiting police from among immigrants. I believe that we are particularly backward in this. While I realise the problems involved, we must try to use this potential section of recruitment in a situation where we have to recognise that a section of our society, of perhaps as much as 2 per cent., is composed of recent immigrants. There is, therefore, no reason why we should not try to incorporate in the police forces a greater number of immigrants.
We might also assist the police forces by giving greater powers to some of the auxiliary forces—for example, the parks police. I know that in the City of Manchester the parks police are particularly unhappy that they do not have the powers of even a special constable, although they face the same problems that ordinary policemen have to face. All these peripheral measures would release the policeman so that he can get on with his job more effectively.
I highly deprecate the growth of private police forces. Experience has shown that where these have developed—I quote my own city again—there have been many instances of violence. There seems to be a tendency to recruit the wrong sort of person, who often turns out to be no more than a strong-armed man invested with some sort of uniform which seems
1892
to give him authority. I think that the growth of this sort of force would be very adverse to law and order in our cities.
I believe, however, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has said, that pay is still one of the overriding factors. I for one do not begrudge higher incomes to policemen. I want to see a highly-trained, highly-efficient, and well-paid Police Force. I want to see a Police Force that no one in this House would regard as anything other than a good career for his son to enter when his education is completed. The public attitude towards entry into the Police Force is that it is an inferior sort of employment. I deprecate that attitude and I am seriously concerned to see that we retain the high standard of entry and even increase it.
I was much impressed by the editorial in the Police Federation Newsletter after some rather foolish actions of a section of the police at a meeting addressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some time ago. The editorial finished with these words:
"The loudest mouths braying their fury at Mr. Jenkins belonged to the emptiest heads—men who had probably never been to a Federation meeting in their lives before. If they achieved anything it was to emphasise the dangers of letting the Service run down to the point where such as they belong to it."
It is sad that that should have been written in the Federation Newsletter. If we are to have a police lobby in Great Britain, it must be confined to wages, conditions and technical matters, because law reform is no more the prerogative of the police than military policy or defence policy is the prerogative of those in the Armed Forces.
Inevitably, because of the sort of life he has to lead in combating crime, a policeman may well have a one-sided and less objective view of the difficulty of dealing with crime and of the method to be adopted. I would therefore like to see a broader approach in police training. I was impressed with what was said about the training of existing policemen as against graduates, but I would like to see far greater emphasis in their training on the problems of criminology and penology and on the awareness of the need to preserve individual liberties.
A leavening of graduates in the service would assist in this and in raising

1893
the level of achievement and the standard of the service. It has to be done in a manner which does not unduly diminish the pay and promotion prospects of other policemen. I for one, therefore, welcome the setting up of the Working Party to inquire into methods of attracting more graduates and recruits of higher education into the force.
I believe that most policemen do their job well and conscientiously and often feel that they are let down by juries or judges, or even by legislators, who are unduly "soft", perhaps, on the criminal. They are sometimes over-sensitive to what are, in fact, constructive suggestions which are often regarded—and in the course of my profession I have spent a good deal of time with police officers in the courts—as evidence of hostility. Nothing could be further from my intention today, but it must be said that it was a sad fact that it took the tragic and terrible death of three policemen to bring home to the public the realisation of the hazards and the difficulties of the police service at a time when relations between the police and the public had been deteriorating rapidly over a period of years.
I deprecate the fact that they had deteriorated to such a degree and I think that this was particularly so in the Metropolitan Police area where I have myself witnessed several ugly scenes, often provoked by unfortunate behaviour on the part of the police and when even written protests have been treated in a cavalier fashion. Therefore, one of the things which we have to do to aid the police force is to secure greater public co-operation. This will make the police more efficient. One method is to set up on a local and regional scale committees for crime prevention in which the community at large and the business community, insurance companies and so on, can work together in order to help to keep down crime.
This is also why—and there is nothing contradictory in this—I would like to see independent tribunals to deal with complaints against the police, tribunals on which members of the public, civilians, as well as members of the police would sit, because this would give the public greater confidence that the police were not themselves above the law.
1894
We have heard a good deal about the equipping of the police and I wish to add my tribute to the work of the Home Secretary in speeding up the modernisation of equipment. This is also important for recruitment. We might also assist the police by equipping the public in some way, and perhaps my right hon. Friend can save some money for the Home Department by urging his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to give grants to those who use anti-theft devices and take strict precautions against the criminal.
Much has been said today about pocket radios. Some are multi-channel and some are two-way channels. Greater use might be made of pocket tape recorders. The other day I observed a policeman on the beat taking the details of a parked car—happily, not mine. I walked away and when I returned five minutes later the details were still being taken down. That is not in any way a criticism of the officer. A police officer taking observations can give detailed observations on a tape recorder in a few seconds, although it might take a considerable time to write the note. I hope that use of such instruments will be increased as time goes on.
We can learn much from, and I have been greatly impressed by, the experiment at Accrington which has been applied in other areas, not least in parts of Manchester itself. Have the experiments in closed-circuit television proved effective in the cities where they have been tried, Birmingham and Liverpool?
I add my tribute to the pioneering work by Sir Eric St. Johnston, now Chief Inspector of Constabulary at the Home Office and formerly in charge of the Lancashire force. Unit beat policing with the very best possible equipment and mobile support seems to be the thing of the future. I want these methods to be applied throughout the country as quickly as possible. We cannot allow old-fashioned methods to go unchallenged anywhere.
There is one thing in the Report and in the policy of my right hon. Friend about which I am not convinced. It is the view that amalgamation alone will provide modern methods or provide the panacea for some of the problems besetting us. Some amalgamations might

1895
endanger the close relationship with the public, through elected representatives, which it is important to foster. In paragraph 21 of the Report it is said:
"Nevertheless, they consider that the available evidence suggests that amalgamations on the scale now proposed will lead to higher costs …".
Lower down it is said:
"The Chief Constable of Lancashire gave evidence that he intended to divide his present force of 3,604 into three geographical divisions, each with considerable independence, while the headquarters retained the functions of command and co-ordination. When his force reaches 6.723 this will become five divisions. In his opinion a division of 1,200–1,500 men is the optimum size for such units".
We have to be very careful about amalgamations and about reducing the number of forces from 117 to 49, because the Home Office is restricted by the existing boundaries set out in the Police Act, 1964, and very strange results may be produced. Particularly in areas like mine, we shall have the most curious boundaries and remarkable anomalies. I underline the Committee's statement at paragraph 22:
"Your Committee were impressed by the evidence given by the A.M.C. that less sweeping amalgamations might provide more logical and efficient results; for example, to form a 'greater Manchester' by incorporating with Manchester nearby boroughs and that part of the county area which separates them rather than amalgamating the whole county of Lancashire with twelve borough forces."
I do not want to expand on this because this is in itself a topic which I think is worthy of debate, but I do hope that my right hon. Friend will have another look at this very difficult problem.
Finally, I have been more than impressed by the swiftness of the Home Secretary in coming to grips with the problems which have been covered in this debate. A combination of enlightened penal methods and regard for individual liberty are, to my mind, in no way incompatible with support for an efficient, highly-trained and well-paid Police Force. I want a Police Force which is supported by the public in an all-out onslaught on crime, and, to my mind, unless all these elements are brought together, we shall not really achieve the right balance and the sort of police force a democratic community like ours requires.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. There are still a number of hon. Members who wish to speak, and I should like to call all of them if possible. Hon. Members can help me by making their contributions reasonably brief.
6.41 p.m.
Sir Spencer Summers: As acting Chairman of the Select Committee on Estimates I should like to intervene for a very short time, to say, first of all, how very gratifying it is that so many of the recommendations of this particular Report have found favour in the Home Office and are, indeed, echoed to a very considerable extent in the Report of the Working Party.
Before coming to three particular points, I would quite briefly say, on the subject of amalgamations, how much I regret that Buckinghamshire is to be asked to join other counties. I could expand at considerable length on this, but it is not germane to the Committee's Report; but I think that the case, as put, is not made out, and that nothing but harm will follow from that. While I support the principle, I should like to register a strong protest in that particular case.
One of the recommendations, which was not accepted, referred to the question of height, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) said, speaking with an eye on the Police Federation, no doubt, that he hoped that there would be no modification of standards. I think it is understandable that he should have said that, and, moreover, that on the working party on this point the so-called professionals should take one view and the Home Office and the local authorities should take another. I think it would be quite natural if the Police Federation were to take the view that any modification of standards in recruitment would detract from the strength of its case to get better pay and conditions to solve the overall recruitment problem and if a contribution is to be made from some other quarter it would, so to speak, detract from the force of the argument that pay and conditions are the key to success. However experienced may be the source of that advice, I think that there could still be some ulterior motive associated with it, of which account should be taken.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: My hon. Friend is not arguing, is he, that a detective, for example, is any less a good detective because he happens to be a tiny man? Is he going to propose some way to meet that?
Sir S. Summers: What I am saying is that it is a pity that there is not more willingness to consider a reduction in height, and my hon. Friend's intervention merely lends strength to the point I was myself making.
I find the argument against change quite unacceptable. A change of one inch in the tolerable height of a policeman will surely not be so manifest to the public that he would be seriously handicapped in dealing with any disorders which may break out. We do not go about with rulers to measure the height of a policeman asking us to move on, or whatever it may be, and when one finds that one inch would add 40,000 additional people from whom there could be recruitment, that must make a substantial contribution to the whole subject of recruitment.
On the subject of wastage, the Working Party, as I said in an earlier intervention, made it quite plain that it regarded wastage in this career as really no worse than that in other careers. Moreover, in the Working Party. What is important made to Mr. Hamilton, of Urwick Orr, who approached the subject expecting to find an inordinate amount of wastage in this career and found it was—"relatively good" I think was the phrase quoted by the working party. What is important is to see to it that those on whom considerable expenditure has been lavished do not at the end of it all leave the service when really experienced. One may regret people leaving the service early on in their career, but the more experienced they are the more valuable they become, and the greater is the loss in terms of value if they leave towards the end of their career. That is why I was a little sorry that more encouragement was not given, in the reply to the Report, to the suggestion put forward by the Committee that encouragement should be given to those with 25 years' service to stay on a further five years by permitting them to draw their pension and pay at one and the same time. Agreed, that that suggestion has not been turned down, but I hope that in due course the Home
1898
Office will look at that and find it a helpful contribution to this topic.
On the subject of cadets, it so happens that, wearing another hat, namely, that of Chairman of the Management Committee of the Outward Bound Trust, I have come into contact with many cadets, of whom about 500 annually are now taking Outward Bound courses. In passing, may I pay tribute to the tremendous help we get in Outward Bound through the secondment for short periods of no fewer than nearly a hundred members of the police force who come as temporary instructors. Not only is it exceedingly valuable to get a fresh source from which instructors can be drawn, but there is the additional adventure that, for the first time, scores of young people undergoing experience of this type find that the policeman is their friend and not their enemy. It is of the first importance, in establishing that relationship with the public which we should all like to see, that that element should be borne in mind, and that is why, valuable as those people are to us, we are at the same time rendering a service to the police force by enabling them to come into contact with young people and demonstrate what friendly folk they really can be.
The cadets are not being used as much as the Committee hopes even though the ceiling of no more than 40 per cent. is thought to be the right maximum that it is proper to permit. I can only say that we find that, with very few exceptions, these young people are quite first class. Again, although they are not as yet qualified policemen, it is known that they have taken up this career, and again opportunity is being taken to demonstrate to the public that although they are going to end up in blue uniform, they really are no different in essence from other folk, and they can very well prove to be as much friends to the boys as the instructor who happens to be there at the same time.
We greatly welcome the collaboration which the Home Office is good enough to make possible. I hope the butter will be spread fairly thin, rather than in great dollops at any one time and in any one place to the exclusion of other types and qualifications. With that limited qualification, we hope very much that more and more will find it a valuable

1899
complementary experience alongside the technical training which these cadets get. If they are to be increased in number by further training facilities, we hope that we may be given a fair share of the additional number which will thereby be made possible.
As a result of these changes, brought about not only by this Report but by others, I hope that the public will continue to feel confident that we have a police force which is second to none in the world.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Albert Booth: I wish to refer to Recommendation (3) on page 4 of the Fifth Special Report of the Estimates Committee. It states:
"Legislation should be introduced, as soon as possible after the current programme of amalgamations has been completed, to amend the Police Act 1964 to permit further adjustments of police areas following the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government."
It seems to be a remarkable piece of advice, rather like locking the door after the horse has bolted, to say that we should amend the 1964 Act after we have carried through the amalgamations, instead of vice versa. I doubt whether anyone knowledgeable in and sensitive to the needs of police areas would say that while we have the 1964 Act in its present form we can amalgamate police forces on an area basis which will make for the most efficient administration and efficient policing of those areas.
It is a recommendation which might very well be campaigned for under the slogan, "Do not give us the tools until we have finished the job", because that is the proposition with which we are faced in our current police amalgamations.
The Police Act, 1964 precludes amalgamations other than those of existing police areas, which, in effect, means other than under existing local government areas. Where small forces were concerned, very often county borough areas were suitable areas for policing. However, at a time when we are turning to much larger areas for policing, the same cannot be said of our county boundaries. Whatever else engaged the minds of those who drew up the county boundaries of Great Britain, I am certain that it was
1900
not the way in which we should want to police the country in 1967.
The amalgamations which are going ahead today have been referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. He quotes, with some pride and with justifiable surprise, the fact that there have been so many amalgamations already. In response to that, I can say only that the reason why there have been so many is that they are not truly voluntary amalgamations. If he had had to secure real agreement from local authorities, on the basis of the present 1964 Act, I doubt whether he could have told the House today that he had this number of amalgamation proposals agreed. The choice facing a number of police authorities at the moment is, "Do it of your own accord, or you will be forced to do it". There have been a number of shotgun marriages between police areas, and no one would suggest that shotgun marriages are the sort which we commend. In the same way, the amalgamations which we shall produce are not the sort which we could commend. This recommendation is one which we shall live to regret.
However poor the recommendation may be, since it puts its proposals in the reverse order, the observation made upon it tends to water it down and qualify it to an extent which is disturbing. It says:
"… it may be that the Royal Commission will recommend the creation of local government areas which would also make viable police areas."
It may be, but if that is not the case what is the future for democratic control on a regional basis in police areas? What is the future for those who, rightly in my opinion, believe that the elected local representatives, sensitive to the needs of their own communities and appreciative of the peculiar circumstances in which their own local police forces have to carry out their work, can make a real contribution to those forces?
That has been possible until now because police area boundaries have coincided with local government boundaries and, therefore, the machinery for electing representatives to watch committees has been the simple machinery of our local government elections. But this observation allows for the possibility that that might not be so in the future.

1901
The observation goes on to say:
"If any adjustments were necessary, these could be achieved by amalgamation schemes being made at or about the same time as any local government reorganisation …"
Does anyone seriously believe that we shall not have to readjust our police areas when the Local Government Commission has done its work?
I am certain that every hon. Member who has studied the position, say, of the police areas in Lancashire knows that they will have to be adjusted. Indeed, the Chief Constable of Lancashire has more or less told us in his evidence that he will not run the whole of the area which he will have under his command as a single area, but will divide it into a number of divisions. He knows that that is the only sensible way in which it can be run. We in the House should have sufficient sense to realise that the only way to run areas as large as this is to divide them up for administration purposes.
Mr. Dobson: Would my hon. Friend not accept that there is now evidence that a regional system of some kind can be successful, one example being the South-West Region traffic experiment?
Mr. Booth: I concede that certain services can be administered very effectively on a regional basis, but I suggest that there is no evidence that all of the areas which will be produced by amalgamations, while the Police Act, 1964, remains unamended, will result in regions enabling us to have efficient police services.
If I might give a practical example, I can illustrate the point very well. In the Furness Peninsula, in which my constituency is situated, there are three police forces operating. At the tip of the peninsula, there is the Barrow-in-Furness County Borough Police Force. In the centre, there is part of the Lancashire Police Force area. At the top of the peninsula there is the Westmorland County Police Force area. Without amending the 1964 Police Act, it would be impossible to amalgamate the part of the Lancashire Police Force area which is in the peninsula with the Barrow-in-Furness County Borough Force, in spite of the fact that they form a continuous area, unless the county borough force were joined with the whole of the Lancashire force. Similarly, it would be impossible
1902
to take the part of the Lancashire force which is in the area and amalgamate it with the Westmorland force, although they have a common boundary.
The only regional force possible is one in which the administration for any land communication purposes would have to go through Westmorland from one part of Lancashire to another part of Lancashire. I do not think that it has been suggested that any regional administration which has worked up to now has been successful because it has carved up areas like this in which to operate. In fact, I am certain that that is not the case.
It is quite clear that the sort of procedure, and the sort of timetable envisaged in the observations runs roughly as follows: the present amalgamations should take place, legislation should then be introduced to implement the Royal Commission's recommendations, and thereafter transfer under that legislation of the services to whatever new local government bodies are decided upon. The recommendation is specific. It says that
"legislation should be introduced as soon as possible."
The observation suggests that this legislation will be brought in at the same time as legislation is brought in to deal with the other recommendations which arise from the Royal Commission's Report on Local Government. I do not want to make any great point on this other than to say that a considerable difference of emphasis is involved.
Police services in this country are not peculiar in that they raise problems because they operate within local government boundaries. We have come up against this problem with a whole host of local government services. Where the police service is peculiar is that we have never solved this problem, whereas we have done with other local government services.
Section 12 of the Fire Services Act, 1947, made provision for fire services to operate in areas other than those in which they were based, and nobody doubts that that increased the efficiency of the fire service. Under Section 12 of the Education Act, 1948, this House made it possible for children to go to schools in local government areas other than those

1903
in which they resided, thereby making our educational service more effective and more efficient.
Under Section 15 of the Children's Act, 1948 we made it possible for children to reside in children's homes run by local authorities other than those in their own local government areas, thereby making this children's service considerably more effective. Under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act, 1948, we made it possible for old people to live in Part III welfare accommodation in any one of a number of local government areas, not necessarily in the one in which they previously resided, and in this way we utilised to a far greater extent than ever before the existing Part III accommodation facilities in this country.
This problem of trying to operate local government services, or trying to operate public services, purely within local boundaries has had to be overcome so that we could proceed with public services in this country, and it has been overcome in respect of the services which I have outlined.
The argument and the debate which must go on with regard to amalgamations is not whether there shall be amalgamations, or there shall not. This debate was won a long time ago. It is generally agreed, and there is a general will, that there shall be amalgamations. The real argument is whether they should be carried out on the basis of putting together existing police services, whether these should be the odd-sized bricks with which we build our new police forces, or whether we should be prepared to shape and cut up areas so that we can bring about new areas of administration for the police forces. I believe that there is a will to bring about such amalgamations. I do not blink the problems attaching to this, but these problems have been overcome in respect of other services. They can be overcome in respect of police forces, and in overcoming them we will render a service to the whole country.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. Paul Dean: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) dealt at some length with amalgamations, and particularly with the problems as he sees them in his area. I, too, propose to talk about amalgama-
1904
tions, but before doing so I join in the tributes which have been paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) who was Chairman of the Sub-Committee which produced this Report, and on which I had the privilege to serve. All those who served under my hon. Friend found him an extremely able and fair Chairman. He also ensured that we put in a tremendous amount of work during the 12 months or so we were engaged on this subject.
This is the first occasion on which we have debated the police since the abolition of capital punishment. Whatever our views may have been on that subject, I think the House will agree that it emphasises the obligation on the part of us all to ensure that the police have effective tools to do their job.
In view of the appeal which you have made to us to be brief, Mr. Speaker, I propose to be just that.
I should like, first, to say a word or two about amalgamations. I agree, as we did in our Report, that the amalgamations should go forward, and that if we were to leave these until local government boundaries were reformed we would lose a great many years. The whole question would be in the melting pot, with the result that the police would not have a chance to settle down, although I accept that some further changes may be needed later.
I think there is a feeling, perhaps outside, that amalgamations will solve a great many problems. I was particularly interested, as we studied this subject, to find that it does not necessarily follow that amalgamations will lead to lower costs. The evidence which we had, in particular from the A.M.C., suggested fairly strongly that the larger the force, the higher the cost may tend to be, particularly in certain circumstances.
I think that there is a strong case for saying that we will get greater efficiency, but, equally, efficiency depends to some extent on local good will, and if we were to get to the stage that people contracted out of their responsibilities to help in maintaining law and order because the police forces had lost their local base, we could end up with higher costs, without the greater efficiency which we desire. In other words, we could get the worst

1905
of both worlds. This is why the Report stresses the need to marry local pride in local forces with the development of the regional crime squads, with regional traffic experiments, and with the strong central services where these are appropriate.
The Report summed up the intention to try to get this balance when it said in paragraph 64 of the Conclusions:
"The problem … is to ensure national standards within the framework of local police forces."
This is not an easy balance to achieve, but I believe that the amalgamations which are going forward are likely to achieve it in general terms.
I propose, now, to say a few words about the central services, and in particular the research and planning branch which I do not think has been mentioned up to now. When we studied this, it struck me, and I think it struck the Committee generally, that here we had a tiny establishment, at that time no more than 30, undertaking a vast range of work. I appreciate that the establishment has been somewhat increased since then. I believe that it now has a staff of 45, or some figure like that. I appreciate, too, that it is a very young branch. It has been going for only about three years, and there are obvious dangers in trying to expand it too fast, before it has settled down and got the measure of the way in which it fits in the sort of job it has to do.
Nevertheless, one cannot help noticing that it has already been given jobs which are absolutely critical to the future of the police force. It has been given the job of assessing the traffic experiment in the South-West and the other experiments that are going on and it has the job of looking into the various methods of beat patrol, together with questions of police equipment and wastage—all, in themselves, subjects of vital importance.
I find it difficult to see how an establishment as small as that—however efficient its members—can possibly hope to do this amount of work with the speed required. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to tell us a little more about the observations that we made and our recommendation that the research and planning branch should be substantially increased. I notice that in that observation the Home Secretary says:
1906
"A fresh review of the establishment of the Branch is now being carried out, with the object, in the first instance, of determining what its future size and structure ought to be in the long term."
I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to give us a little more information about future plans, both as to size and function, with regard to the research and planning branch.
I turn next to the question of manpower. Many hon. Members have referred to this, and I want to mention only one or two points very briefly. The Under-Secretary was good enough to give us the figures for net gains in the police service in England and Wales for the last two or three years. On the face of it, these figures look reasonably encouraging. Nevertheless, I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciated, when he was interrupted, that the figure of wastage is of equal importance. This figure will enable us to see more clearly than almost any other whether the new pay scales and the new methods which are being adopted are having an impact on the problem.
Mr. Richard Sharples: Does my hon. Friend realise that the real problem is that of premature wastage?
Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The figure for premature wastage is the one that we want. We all know the vicious circle involved in under-manning. Under-manning means longer hours. Longer hours mean bigger burdens on the police. Bigger burdens on the police mean frustration for them and—of equal or more importance—frustration for their wives. 'This means wastage, which means difficulty in keeping up the detection rate in crime. This is the vicious circle that we shall face so long as our police forces are under-manned to the extent they are at present.
As was shown in the Report of the Working Party this emphasises the necessity of providing the police with the most modern equipment. The modern criminal has the best equipment which the rich pickings of crime can buy, and it is essential that we should ensure that where a case has been made out for a certain type of equipment, that equipment should be made available as speedily as possible. We were somewhat

1907
disturbed by the apparent delay in the provision of wireless sets and personal radios. I was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman was able to tell us that fairly substantial progress is being made, at any rate with personal radios. Nevertheless, it seems likely that about a year will elapse before what is now regarded as a vital piece of equipment for the policeman on the beat will be available virtually to every policeman patrolling on foot. In view of the shortage of manpower, I hope that we shall be able to ensure that when a piece of equipment has proved itself of value it will be made available as quickly as possible.
I now turn to the subject of alternative sources of manpower, and traffic wardens. The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that in areas which have the most acute undermanning there is probably equal difficulty in recruiting traffic wardens to help relieve the police of this work. He will remember that the Working Party stressed the need to extend the functions and numbers of traffic wardens. Remembering the amount of time that police now have to spend on traffic duties, we must take the view that this is a ridiculous situation. Much police forces are spending as much time on traffic duties as on the investigation of crime.
I agree that we cannot entirely separate traffic offences from criminal activities; indeed, the traffic experiment in the South-West showed clearly that traffic duties, especially on motorways—we have one in the South-West—and on trunk routes bring a bonus in the detection of crime. Nevertheless, it was strongly recommended that the time had come for a much more effective stand to be taken where traffic wardens were not being used but where it would appear them to be used to relieve the police of traffic duties.
I welcome the fact that the Home Office has accepted a substantial proportion of the recommendations put forward, and I hope that further attention will be given to the points that I have raised.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: It is a pleasure to follow in debate the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). I agree with almost
1908
everything he said, and I join the general welcome that has been given to a debate on the First Report from the Estimates Committee. It contained a tremendous amount of valuable information, and that information has been supplemented by the facts given today by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary. Several major themes run through the Report. These themes have been fully brought out in the recommendations. There is the amalgamations theme, and the manpower situation theme, and the questions of modernisation and the need for modern and better equipment for the police forces.
I must declare an interest in this matter. Like the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), I can say that my father was for many years in the Police Force. I have relatives serving in the Police Force today and I have always been interested in police affairs.
I want to deal first with the traffic experiment in the South-West. It was not particularly costly, because, as the Chief Constable of Devon pointed out, most of the cost was absorbed by the forces involved, and the Home Office found an additional £14,000. What did they get for this money? They decreased the number of non-injury accidents in this period by 42 per cent. and the number of accidents involving injury by 7½ per cent. They decreased the number of fatal accidents by the remarkable amount of 22 per cent., and the number of serious accidents by 24 per cent. At the same time, they found about 12,000 reportable cases and gave 36,000 verbal cautions, and about 3,000 people were given advice by the police. The hon. Member for Somerset, North mentioned that during the experiment the police picked up a bonus by arresting 296 people, having caught many of them red-handed, with the goods on them—indeed a worthy "fall-out" from this experiment.
I share many of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds about the manpower situation and I was particularly pleased to see some of the suggestions made by the working party—although I do not go all the way with all of them, and I intend to pick some of them apart. It is true that there is a shortage of policemen and that there has been a shortage for a long time. The figures given by my hon. and learned

1909
Friend earlier show that it might be possible for the gap to be closed; and certainly if the unit beat police system could be introduced to give maximum cover throughout the country, a great improvement would be made—although I very much doubt whether the system could be introduced everywhere with the same amount of success.
The first thing to be done is to reach the present establishment figures. It must be an indictment of our statistics that we do not know exactly how many policemen are needed to police the country properly. This must be frustrating to the Police Federation—this artificially low ceiling of the number of policemen throughout the country—when the Federation argues its case for better pay and conditions, a matter to which I will come later.
It is and always has been vital to attract the right type of recruit into the police force. An article appeared in The Guardian on 6th February in which reference was made to adding education to police intelligence. The article forcefully brought out the fact that while only a small number of graduates entered the force and while that number would probably always remain small, one of the principal problems was that of the general level of education. The level of education is an important subject when one bears in mind that more than half of the people recruited do not have any O-levels and that only 1·9 per cent. of recruits have two A-levels. It is obvious, therefore, that the general educational standard of entrants should be improved. Only in this way will we attract the right type of person.
I welcome the desire of the police authorities and the Home Office to increase the number of graduate entrants. It would be nice for a chief constable to have one or two B.Scs., B.As. and Ph.Ds walking the beat, but that is hardly the best way to use manpower of that sort. I do not, however, decry the desire to obtain more people of that calibre. Indeed, it is a valuable education in itself to be a policeman and any graduate would benefit from that education, although there must be a restricted use for people with such qualifications.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred to what was known as the Hendon Scheme which operated before
1910
the war. It never was successful. It was viewed with great suspicion by members of the police force, who thought that it was designed to bring in the "officer class". That was resented by men who were waiting for the very promotion which they thought would be denied them as a result of the scheme. This is a question of balance and it must always be considered when speaking of the recruitment of people who are academically highly trained. I do not believe that they should be given immediate and accelerated promotion, although they probably merit it. A sounder scheme was that put forward by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds. He was right in saying that there are in the police force at present many people of the right calibre for the top postings. This is where the Police College at Bramshill has a vital rôle to play.
In referring to police cadets I should, perhaps, declare an interest in that I spent a short period as a police cadet before I went to sea. It was a sort of fill-in job. I am not pleading for police cadets because of my experience as one, because that was an experience more years ago than I wish to recall. I make a plea on their behalf because when a police cadet joins the police force and stays in the force I do not see why his service prior to the age of 19 should not be counted towards his total police service. It is true that he is not doing the full range of police jobs, but, then, very few policemen do. Over a period of years the full range of jobs is done, but they are not done at any one time. A police cadet is really doing the whole range of jobs, but gradually, and many of the jobs he does as a cadet are repeated later in his full service. I therefore see no reason why his earlier service should not be counted towards his pension rights and so on.
Several hon. Members referred to the use of traffic wardens for various types of police duties. I do not object to that, although—and I say this with diffidence lest I get pinched for leaving my car in the wrong place—we should consider whether we need a better standard of traffic warden before, holus-bolus, thinking of giving him or her more authority. I accept that there are many traffic wardens who could undertake traffic control

1911
duty. The Devon police force, about which I know something, has been employing people who are not even traffic wardens for point traffic duty, and many of them have done an excellent job. This was mentioned by the Chief Constable of Devon in his evidence. If we are to give traffic wardens a great deal of additional authority, we must accept that we shall need a higher standard of recruit, and that, in turn, that will require a national scale of pay and conditions of service which will be beneficial to traffic wardens in the long run.
One can sum up the manpower situation by saying that if we do not pay the proper rate for the job we will not get the police we need. I do not entirely agree with that part of the Estimates Committee's Report which put forward a method of making sure that people remain in the police force after 25 years' service. It would be better to have a general increase in pay, both at the lower and maximum scale. I suggest that that would keep policemen in the force for a longer time.
This problem is discussed on page 270 of the First Report from the Estimates Committee, where it is pointed out that 25 per cent. of policemen leave after 25 years' service. After pointing out that a balance must be struck, the Report refers to:
"The possibility of lifting the whole scale so that there is improvement at both ends. This is nothing more than a direct pay rise and would of course be very popular with the Staff Side".
I am sure that it would, and that on this subject the Report is right. That is the way to tackle the situation if we are to get the best possible people to join the police force. No one who has not lived very close to a policeman's job could realise just how anti-social it is for the people who work in it. Everything which we in this House can do to make the Police Force more efficient, we should do. I am sure that the Report goes some way along these lines.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Hector Monro: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) has made a very thoughtful and constructive speech. I am only sorry that he is an example of "premature
1912
wastage". I am sure we welcome what he has said today.
There are many wise and sound recommendations in the First and Fifth Reports of the Estimates Committee. I want to approach this debate from a rather different angle from that from which most hon. Members have spoken. I speak as chairman of a joint police committee in Scotland. That is the equivalent of a watch committee in England. I am particularly glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been on the Front Bench throughout the debate picking up points from our English colleagues. I hope that he may have some comments to make for Scotland later.
The vast bulk of the Report concerns England, but I am glad that it had a specific chapter on Scotland and went into the problems there in a fair amount of detail. Many of our problems are of course very similar to those in England. I am glad to say that except in areas where there is a small population solutions are more easy to find. As in so many spheres of administration, money is a prime factor, although it is not the only factor.
This Report excluded consideration of police pay, but I know that it is very much in the minds of all the members of the Committee. It is absolutely essential that a fair and generous award should be settled as soon as possible. If we want more able men—we do not want those who would not be an asset to the service—they must be offered attractive payment. In the last two Reports by H.M.I. in Scotland it was shown that the most prevalent reason for resignation from the force is poor remuneration, and the most serious wastage is in Glasgow.
Following directly from the question of pay is that of increased pensions. The value of a good pension in the 'sixties and the 'seventies would be a great attraction to bringing in more recruits. There is a good case for this. Because of their loyalty to and love of the service, officers who have already retired should receive adequate consideration. It is a great asset if those retired officers can feel a strong pull towards the service and bring in recruits by talking in favourable terms about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) made a valuable

1913
point about the compulsory retirement after 30 years service of police officers from certain forces in Scotland. This is an extraordinary waste of manpower. The Secretary of State is quite rightly prepared to lay down the law about amalgamations. He should also be prepared to lay down the law about the compulsory retirement of police officers in Fife.
While speaking about attracting recruits and specifically mentioning pay, I bring in the question of housing because good modern accommodation must be available, particularly in rural forces such as the one of whose committee I am chairman. The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) made very valuable points about asking officers to move from their homes in borough forces into rural areas when forces are amalgamated. This problem is bound to arise, but, if a force has already provided good modern homes, there will not be such a major disadvantage. We must provide good homes because the whole country owes tribute to the extraordinarily valuable work done by police officers' wives. For that reason alone they should have as high a standard of housing as a police committee can afford.
Many hon. Members may consider that in the fight against crime the sophisticated weapons of wireless and finger-printing and so on are the first consideration, but I do not think that any dramatic results will come unless there is happiness within the service. Therefore, I cannot over-emphasise the importance of a good pay structure and good housing. The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have made plans for amalgamations. I cannot, of course, speak for English opinion, but in Scotland I think this is warmly supported. Hon. Members on this side of the House gave speedy and constructive help to the passage of the recent Bill.
I should like to know the position of those chief constables who will lose their jobs through amalgamation and thereby very likely become deputy chief constables perhaps doing the work of superintendents. In years to come will they see a wage structure which will allow them to have increases as if they had continued as chief constables? The only word of warning I utter about amalgamations is that we should proceed no
1914
further than those presently projected until we have had the reorganisation of local government in Scotland. In our country a geographical area is of greater importance than the establishment and strength of a force because distances are so very much greater in relation to the area covered by each police committee.
I am slightly critical of the time which the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking to deal with the problem of establishment. Police committees are rightly concerned with the cost of the police service and to see value for the money that the ratepayer provides. When a chief constable asks a committee for an increase in establishment, that is very carefully considered. It is then put forward to the Secretary of State only if opinion at local level is absolutely certain that it is justified. When that has been done, the Secretary of State should approve the proposal much more quickly than he has done in the past.
He may say that hardly any force in Scotland is up to establishment, but a number of them are within five or 10 of establishment. The situation there is very much better than it is in England. Chief constables rightly like to keep a few vacancies in reserve for police cadets or for exceptional candidates who may come forward. We need to be generous in regard to establishment.
I wish to put on record the opinion held widely in Scotland of the exceptionally high standard of the police college there. We have heard about the English one, but the Scottish one at Tulliallan Castle is also very good indeed. On recent visits there I saw the new swimming bath and the other new buildings which have been erected. I wish to put on record the outstanding work which is being done by the H.M.I. The annual report is excellent. The visit to the force by H.M.I. is always stimulating and constructive. I am, however, critical of the fact that, although we have a very good and constructive Police Advisory Committee, it is all too seldom graced by the attendance of a Scottish Minister.
I should like to talk about our great advance in radio and communication between forces in Scotland. It is much better than most people think. There are wireless masts dotted about most of Scotland so that forces can be in constant touch one with another. The Dumfries

1915
and Galloway police can easily get in touch with the Cumberland and Westmorland Constabulary, and so on.
Most of us have followed with great interest the experiment at Accrington. In some rural forces in Scotland it is rare to find a policeman on the beat in the countryside without a van of his own in radio contact with his headquarters. In this way, in perhaps a slightly different sense, Scottish police are just as advanced in their thinking and policy as is the force in Accrington.
I want to bring to the Secretary of State's attention a difficulty which should be settled soon. As the A74 dual carriageway has extended virtually now from Glasgow to Carlisle and is in effect a motorway in Scotland, it puts an enormous burden on the police forces from whose areas it runs. It is unreasonable that these forces—the Lanarkshire and the Dumfries and Galloway forces—have to bear the exceptionally heavy cost of the extra patrols on a road which is primarily for through traffic from Glasgow to London. People as far away as Stranraer—100 miles from the dual carriageway—might well rightly resent paying a proportion of the expense of the traffic patrols on the road. This is clearly a case for an official grant.
A word on police cadets. I have studied the English Report and the Scottish Report, which is probably called the Scott Report, and looked back as far back as the Oaksey Report of 1949. They are all most interesting and valuable, but they are all too rigid in their recommendations. Flexibility must be the keynote in dealing with cadets, particularly in Scotland, where each force is of a small numerical strength, with the possible exception of Glasgow. As I was critical earlier of the Secretary of State in that I believe that a recommendation, or perhaps more than a recommendation, should be made to Fife, may I say that I believe that strong recommendations should be made to those forces in Scotland, particularly Glasgow, to get on with the introduction of cadets into their service.
Boys become cadets because they want to be policemen. In saying that I may or may not carry the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East with me. Cadets do not join because they want two or three
1916
years' high pressure education. This is why I am far from certain that the suggestions made for residential police colleges are right. An attempt should be made to secure that cadets stay in their own homes so that at night and for part of the day when they are off duty they are not specifically connected with the police. Their police work should come during their normal office hours when they are under instruction from police officers. They should not be 100 per cent. under police control. I do not encourage the idea of residential colleges.
I strongly oppose the recommendation in the Reports that there should be only a percentage of police cadets in each force. This is an incredible deduction. We want as many cadets as we can get, because they are the boys who want to make the police service their career. They are full of enthusiasm. It would be wrong that any chief constable should suddenly say, "I cannot recruit any more police officers from my cadet strength, or I should have 30 per cent. or 40 per cent."—whatever the prescribed figure will be—"of ex-police cadets in my force". This would be an untenable position.
The general tenor of the debate has been to pay a tribute to the police forces. We want to see a better wage structure, a better pension structure and better conditions of service. It is up to the House to ensure that all police officers are given the right tools to do the job and the right help so that the relationship between the public and the police is of the very highest order.
7.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I will take this opportunity of making a brief intervention. The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) will realise why it is to be brief—we do not want to make long statements at this stage. Certain points raised by hon. Members require an answer.
We have been treating the Fife matter extremely seriously. Fife requires all officers to retire after 30 years' service. The argument seems to have been based on Regulation 67, which provides for compulsory retirement in the interests of the efficiency of the force. The way

1917
in which Fife has been using this Regulation assumes that after 30 years' service a policeman is no longer efficient. There might be some force in this as regards the man on the beat. Many of us think that there is very little in it as regards senior officers. I hope at an early date to be able to discuss the position with the Fife authority. It has a point of view. I think I should listen to that point of view.
I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that Glasgow has now decided to recruit a cadet force. I expect to hear from Glasgow very shortly, when it will be asking for formal approval—and it is very unlikely that this will not be given. We are as pleased as the hon. Gentleman will be that Glasgow has taken this decision.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: While the Under-Secretary is on the subject of Glasgow, can he tell us what is the present position of wastage in the Glasgow force which a year ago was extremely serious, particularly in respect of emigration?
Mr. Buchan: I had hoped not to be subject to intervention. It was almost a gesture by the House in allowing me to intervene at this time. The shortfall position in Glasgow is not the worst in Scotland. Dundee is slightly worse. The Glasgow figure is about 13 per cent. I have not got the precise figure before me, but we can leave it at 13 per cent., if that will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Dumfries pressed upon us the necessity for one of the Scottish Ministers to visit the Scottish Advisory Board. I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is to take the chair at the next meeting of the Board on 17th February. There is a full agenda covering many aspects which have been dealt with in this debate. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that a very far-reaching and useful meeting will take place for all of us concerned with this aspect in Scotland.
7.48 p.m.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: The position of Members of Parliament and that of the police has one thing in common. Most of us work all hours of the day and night. We have a myriad of problems of all kinds. We
1918
are expected to be able to answer almost every question as if we were jacks of all trades and masters of none.
I, too, wish to pay a tribute to the Estimates Committee. It has made a thundering good Report. It is a first-class job of work. Many recommendations are made. I regret to say that the Government have not done anything more than taken note of them: they have not committed themselves.
I want to deal with what I conceive to be the two major issues affecting the police today. Governments for the past two or three years have done absolutely nothing to deal with the antiquated, Victorian structure upon which the police forces are based. Second, they have done little except to waffle over the necessary decisions required for modernising and reforming the police. They have delayed for at least two years unnecessarily, in my judgment, in action which is required to meet crime. I regard those as valid criticisms against this Government.
The first question must be that of structure. I am convinced that, if the structure of our police forces is correct the other twin problems of wastage and manpower and relations with the public which lie at the back of success in detecting and convicting the criminal will be much nearer solution. One most important aspect of the question of structure has not been pursued in the Report. Policemen are of two totally different types, two different animals, so to speak. During the early part of the war, I had the pleasure to command a platoon in the Welsh Guards which comprised 40 Cardiff City policemen. They were magnificent men, the whole lot of them. But of those 40 only one could possibly have been made into a detective, and in fact only one did become a detective. On the other hand, there are many smaller men, 5 ft. 3 ins. or 5 ft. 4 ins. in height, the Cockneys to be found in the East End of London, perhaps, who would make splendid detectives. But what a ludicrous sight they would be in any county constabulary.
We have, therefore this major problem. Senior criminal investigation officers based in London and elsewhere favour a system which would enable the C.I.D. to be under the separate and direct control of the Home Secretary in a Queen's Constabulary running parallel

1919
with but quite separate from the ordinary police force. It is one task to train a man to be a policeman in a county force, perhaps to become a man on the beat in a village or to become a successful county officer, with the myriad functions and duties which the police are called upon to undertake. That is one task which calls for one type of personality, and it may well be that standards of height, physical requirements and so forth are relevant to that police force.
All who have spoken in the debate today have talked about our police forces as though they are all one, all composed of one type of man. They are not. The failure of the whole system at the present time stems entirely from an inability to recognise that criminal investigation is a science which calls for a certain class of character in men who can make good detectives. To achieve this aim, there must be a fundamental reappraisal of the structure of our police forces. In my judgment, this is the really important factor.
If we were to set up, as we should—we are moving slowly and cumbrously towards it—the right structure under the Home Secretary, with a Queen's Constabulary to deal with the detection and conviction of serious crime, this would in no way render nugatory or valueless the detective departments in the county constabularies which could continue to run in parallel. It would not mean the nationalisation of the police. But it would mean that, under the Home Secretary, there would be a force responsible for detecting serious crime, and this would be a national force.
How would it operate? The Committee's Recommendation No. 3 was that the Minister of State should have sole responsibility for crime, delinquency and prisons, together with the fire services. In my judgment, this is absolutely right. What we are doing should be recognised as a war. It is the flabby attitude of the present Government in their approach to crime which is part cause of the difficulty. I say that although many of their ideas are sound and much of what they are trying to do is feasible and along the right lines.
There are many opportunities to learn the facts and the lessons to be drawn. It is interesting that the Report before us
1920
proceeds very much along the lines that many of us who have been considering the matter separately have been following. There is a growing measure of agreement on these issues. There must be amalgamation of our forces down to 40 or thereabouts, and we must amend the Police Act as soon as possible to enable those amalgamations to be rapid and effective. At the same time, we should introduce the C.I.D. constabulary to which I have referred, working in parallel with the other forces. In that way we can succeed in tackling crime, setting about it as a real war effort.
What are the reasons for wastage and for bad public relations? I have had interviews now with 50 or 60 people in the detective forces and with eight senior detectives of high rank who have recently retired. My analysis shows that for detectives—I think that their reasons are different from those of the ordinary policeman—it has nothing to do with pay. It has entirely to do with the serious frustration which they feel in the work which they are trying to do. To be a good detective, a man works all hours of the day and night, but, when he has finished a long case on which he has worked 14 hours a day, perhaps, for six or seven days, he hopes that he will have a reasonable period of leave. He does not get it. The case book is overloaded.
The trouble is not that detectives object to trying to do the work. It is that they cannot deal with 14 cases at once. At Rochester only a few weeks ago, the senior officer had himself and two men to do a case-load of 14 serious criminal cases. It is possible to do only four of them properly, so they had to select four or five and the other nine or ten could not be done at all.
One could give many examples of this sort of thing. There is frustration in the uniformed branch. Let us bring it out. It is there. Uniformed policemen feel that they are kept back, that they are not able to engage in their work as they want to do it. There are restrictions on them, the idea being that they ought to go home in a bowler hat at the end of the day, that they ought not to mix in clubs lest it be thought that they are frequenting with undesirables, and so on. There is the lack of secretarial assistance. All these things and others lead to frustration

1921
and thus to wastage, and the whole question must be reviewed.
These, and others like them, are the reasons why the young detective is leaving the force. There is the difficulty of the Judges' Rules, and the general complexity of the matter which sometimes takes away the imaginative enterprise which men want to show in their work.
Why are relations with the public bad?—because, unfortunately, there is a small section, a very small section, of the police who have not been telling the truth in cases. This gets around. A very small section gives a bad name to a magnificent force. The few individual cases of corruption—they are few and far between—receive publicity. The real problem here is to get rid of the "verbals" and change the system. It is antiquated. There is no proper forensic department. Scotland Yard is hopelessly out of date and the experts are hopelessly overworked. For example, there is no expert on textiles or fibres, and no industrial expert. The research and planning branch needs a complete revolution. We need the creation of a special university department to assist research and planning into modern criminal methods and techniques. We need to evaluate methods that will enable us to reduce crime, and that does not merely mean computers but something wider.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) mentioned tape recorders. They are an absolutely vital part of officers' equipment when they go out on duty, but they do not have them. If a detective takes a tape recorder he can record all the data on the scene and conversations made at the time with any person, including any person who is later accused. In addition, when he returns to the police station the whole of the information can pass automatically into one machine there and be compiled, thus eliminating a need for all the manifold reports which are the real reason for the police frustration.
In turn, we should insist that the recorded voices will be the acceptable evidence, not the disputed "verbals". In many trials, days are spent because a police officer says, "Well, he said to me, 'The game's up. I give in, guv'nor'." Of course, recognising that that is one of the old "verbals", counsel
1922
for the defence proceeds to cross-examine at great length, and in the end the accused goes into the witness box and says that that is quite untrue. Hours are then spent determining who is telling the truth. It is ridiculous that in the modern age we must go through that paraphernalia in the courts week after week and month after month, when we could insist that if the prosecution wants to produce evidence it shall be the recorded voice of the accused taken at the time.
The C.I.D. constabulary to which I have referred is the beginning of the sort of revolution I want to see, for it is my profound conviction that one cannot change and tackle crime today by using the old structure of the old Police Force. There must be an entirely separate wing.
One hon. Member said that the graduates would be specialists. Of course they will, because there is a tremendous career in being a great detective. If one has a double First that might make one into a great detective. A double First honours graduate from Oxford or Cambridge should be proud to enter the service if he is to be a detective, but he does not want to be on the beat. Similarly, a little cockney from the East End of London, who has perhaps come up the hardest way in life, may have a wonderful eye for detection and become a great detective, but would look idiotic on the beat.
If we approach the matter in a new and imaginative way and recognise that detection and conviction of serious crime are separated from and above the duties of the ordinary constabulary; if we do and say in the House what every single leading detective will tell one—I was with one on television—if one gives the detectives the chance to be separate from the uniformed branch, then and then alone shall we begin to conquer crime and succeed. There are many recommendations in the Report which are wholly admirable and which will help towards progress along that way.
Although I think that we are justified in attacking the Government for the inaction over the past two years, I have a sneaking feeling that the present occupants of the Front Bench recognise some of those things and I feel sure that they want to put them into effect as swiftly as they can.
8.5 p.m.
Mr. Ben Whitaker: We all welcome the work put into the Report and the time given for the debate, because so often the voice of the police goes unheard. All too often they are mentioned in Parliament, or their names appear in the Press, only as a result of a dramatic incident. By their disciplinary rules they are unable to answer back.
I think that part of the respect in which they are held is because they are quite divorced from politics, but one result is that that increases their isolation and distance from the public who should be so grateful to them. There is increasing evidence that that social isolation is the cause of premature wastage. It is an isolation which is inevitable not only by reason of their extra hours of duty, which we share to some extent in this place, and which also extends to wives and children, who are also divorced from the public.
It is therefore very important that their housing should be interspersed among members of the public as far as possible and not be together in "barrack blocks". One very good result of the neighbourhood scheme which I believe started in West Sussex, was tried out more extensively in Accrington, and will now be tried in many other parts of the country, will be to diminish that isolation. It will restore the policeman as someone whom the public know by name and as a human being—in much the same way as a village knows the village constable—and not, as is so often the case in urban communities, as a mere anonymous symbol of authority, either helmeted on a motor cycle or driving about in a motor car, whom the public fail to recognise as a human being with as many problems and frustrations as they have.
Even more than matters of pay which have been mentioned tonight, the problem is ultimately one of increasing the policeman's status in our society. That can be done only by extending and developing his training and recognising that he is now called upon to do the duty of a skilled social worker. He is so often the first person to encounter the various deviates and inadequates of our society, and if he has some knowledge of elementary mental problems, of crowd psychology, and of immigrant attitudes,
1924
those are the new skills which will help him as much as the mechanical aids he is now being given.
We all welcome the new vigour of the Home Office in attacking all the problems of the police. None of us in the House begrudge the money that will be spent on their new equipment. I would like to go even further than the Home Office have had so far the courage to go. Although for many years I have been a keen member of the National Council for Civil Liberties, I would welcome a fingerprint register in this country, because I believe that it is a basic freedom that people should not be wrongly identified. That would be a stronger deterrent to crime than any other feature that has been suggested. It would be of great value in identifying drunks, suicides and people who have lost their memory. I cannot see that it is an infringement of civil liberty to have an efficient police, able to act on accurate information rather than the reverse.
We all recognise that the police deserve every aid that money and our efforts here can give them. But, equally, there are reciprocal responsibilities on the police, because ultimately they function on behalf of the public. It is for the public to determine the form which they wish their police to take.
I should like to make three suggestions about the ways in which I would prefer the police to develop. Recently, we have recognised that there should be an independent person to investigate complaints against civil servants. I have reached the conclusion that there should be independent investigation of serious complaints by members of the public against the police force. I know that the Home Office recognises that there are vocal members of the police very much opposed to this; but through the kindness of the Chief Constable, I was enabled to carry out a sample poll among all ranks of a typical English county police force. To my surprise, a slight majority of all ranks were willing to accept such independent investigation. The most pungent argument advanced by policemen against it was to ask why lawyers, for example, should not have the same institution erected to investigate complaints against them. I am also in favour of extending it in that direction.

1925
The second point on which the police are unnecessarily opening themselves to criticism is in what one might call the unhealthy and unnatural pallor of members of the police force. At present about 2 per cent. of our population consists of coloured immigrants—approaching about I million in number. One therefore might expect, on a pro rata basis, there to be some 2,000 coloured police officers in the country. Unless one shares the racial theories of Dr. Vorster that colour inevitably signifies lesser merit—and I am sure that no one in this House subscribes to this—one is extremely surprised to find that there are only two coloured regular police officers in the country. We are glad that they have been appointed—both during the last 12 months.
Mr. Taverne: I realise that the number is still not great but it is more than two. I believe that a total of five have been appointed—four definitely and the fifth on the way.
Mr. Whitaker: I am delighted. One unfortunate feature however is that in the Metropolitan Police, which is about 6,000 under strength, there is at present no coloured police officer. I very much welcome the Home Secretary's reiteration that he would welcome a coloured police officer here as soon as possible. But, when a coloured police officer is appointed, I hope that there will be no nonsense about his being allowed to operate only in immigrant areas, because nothing would do more to contribute to good relations between the immigrant communities and the police and also for racial relations in this country than to see a coloured police officer in London being treated in exactly the same way as any other police officer. One does not want the first one appointed just because of his colour, because that would be racial discrimination in reverse. One wants the man to be treated in exactly the same way as a white-skinned person—on merit.
Mr. David Winnick: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it seems to be the policy, certainly in large areas and in London, that people should not be allowed to join if they are coloured? Although this policy is not official, it seems that this is how it works in practice.
Mr. Whitaker: It is difficult to say without knowing personally the coloured applicants who have been refused entry recently. But I think that it is stretching coincidence too far that none of them was up to standard, especially as some have had police experience in the West Indies.
My last suggestion for improving relations with the public is through a democratically elected police authority. The London Metropolitan area and the City of London are the only parts of the country to be without such a police authority, and I would ask my right hon. Friend either to decide that police authorities do no good, in which case they should be abolished in the rest of the country, or, if they do do good, to decide that the Metropolitan Police Force should also have a democratically elected police authority, particularly as we in London have, I believe, a higher police precept in our rates, than any other part of the country.
This would improve police-public relations in London. It would keep the public, through their councillors, in touch with the problems of the police, giving an additional link with the Metropolitan Force in the feeling that it was part of their own democratic authority. I ask my right hon. Friend either to bring London into line with the rest of the country, by appointing a police authority, or to bring the rest of the country into line with London by abolishing police authorities.
Anything that we can do to improve the lot of the policeman will act to the benefit of society itself If we in our speeches today criticise the police, the effect of the suggestions which we have made, if put into practice, will increase public co-operation and confidence in the police service, and this will help the police themselves in their lonely but essential struggle on our behalf.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: Like everyone else who has spoken, I welcome the Reports and the very hard work that has gone into producing them. I believe that there are two underlying themes. The first and most obvious is that we are faced by an overwhelming shortage of police. The second is that, even if the adage is not necessarily true that what Manchester thinks today the rest of the

1927
country thinks tomorrow, in police matters it is true to say that what Manchester did last year, the rest of the country is possibly considering doing next year. Looking at all the recommendations in the Reports, one sees that many are based on experiments which have taken place in Lancashire in recent years.
I want to turn to the question of the overwhelming shortage of police because I think that the Under-Secretary of State would agree that clearly this is in direct relationship, in many ways, to the amount of crime and that those towns where crime is increasing the most are those where the detection rate is the lowest and where the shortage of police is the greatest of all.
If one looks at the figures of the Metropolitan area, one finds with horror that the number of police is apparently less now that in 1921. Crime has gone up enormously in that period. So I am sure, like almost everyone else who has spoken, that the most important thing of all is to get an immediate and vast increase in the size of our police force.
It appears from the figures given by the Under-Secretary of State that recruiting is standing up fairly well. The trend was said by the Estimates Committee's Report to be upwards and I believe that that trend has continued since it was published. The things which can be done, such as increasing the age limit, will probably give a slight advantage in that direction.
But far more important than the question of recruiting is that of the premature wastage that is occurring. The figures here are getting steadily worse. Whereas the Estimates Committee refers to, I believe, 2,000 a year in premature wastage, the Working Party document for 1966 shows that the wastage was 2,300 for the first nine months alone.
In trying to judge the cause of the wastage, one must accept that what W. S. Gilbert said many years ago is still basically true—that, for many reasons, the policeman's lot is not a particularly happy one. We as a society impose a great deal on the police. We expect from them courage which we do not expect from others. We expect from them the highest possible standards of honesty and intregrity. We expect them to be willing to take and be open to a great deal of criti-
1928
cism from various sections of the community.
In addition to all that, we impose upon them very long and irregular hours of work. All that we can put against this are two things. One is respect for them, and this is where the relationship between police and public is so important. There is a need to retain respect for the police. Secondly—and this is where I believe that the Government can help most of all—we have to say that the police deserve a better pay rate than they are receiving.
Not only is it necessary to say that the policeman should be paid an equivalent rate to what he could receive in outside industry, but it is also necessary to compensate him for the burdens placed upon him; to compensate for the hours that he works, the amount of weekend working, the shift working and the number of times that he has to go out for long hours at short notice. If we are to get the police officers that we want, we have to be prepared to say that they should not necessarily get the equivalent rate which would he paid outside, but that they should be paid more.
Questions of conditions and shortages are all part of the same vicious circle. Conditions cause the frustrations in the force, which cause wastage, and one cannot put those conditions right unless one increases the rate of entry into the force, which means that one has to put up the rate of pay. Knowing that the Home Secretary is extremely anixous to do all that he can to combat crime, I hope that he will see that the Treasury does not let him down, or let all of us down by preventing us from getting the type of police service that we require.
I have read the Estimates Committee's Report and the Working Party's Report about graduates in the police service, and I am sure that there is room, although limited, for more graduates in the police force. Perhaps more important than getting graduates, is extending the scheme, such as was started in Lancashire, of sending people in the force to nearby local universities as part of their training. I would like to know how this and other similar schemes are going, and whether there is an expansion of the idea. This overcomes the difficulty of bringing in people who might in some way interfere with the existing career structure. Instead, one takes the man who has been in the

1929
force for two or three years and done his basic training. He is encouraged to go to university and then return to the force.
I should like to say a word about amalgamations. I am convinced that the Home Secretary is right not to wail for the local government reviews, as was almost suggested by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). The whole House will be pleased to hear what the Under-Secretary said about the amalgamations which have gone through. I am sure that he would agree that, for example, the amalgamation of the Cheshire County Force and the borough forces in the area, is a very good example of a voluntary amalgamation—not a shotgun wedding as was suggested by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. It is one which will lead to an improvement of police administration in the area.
Mr. Braine: Crime knows no boundaries.
Mr. Carlisle: Some of us on this side of the House wrote a pamphlet with that very title, "Crime knows no Boundaries", and we put in that pamphlet many of the recommendations which the Home Secretary is putting into effect.
To return to the question of recruitment, it seems that amalgamations of the size that we are contemplating are in danger of creating certain difficulties for individual members of the force. One thing that impressed me when, with one or two of my hon. Friends, I spent a day with the Lancashire Police, was that the number of transfers from the county force to the borough forces were greater than in the opposite direction.
The reason almost always given was that the policemen, or more particularly, the policeman's wife, does not like the idea of having to be moved long distances during her working life, moving from one tied house to another. It is felt that if the couple move into the area of a smaller borough force, they can get a home of their own and establish themselves while their children grow up. I hope that the Home Secretary will see that in these amalgamations, which are necessary for efficiency purposes, whenever possible officers are not moved long distances but are encouraged, and given the opportunity to buy their own homes, so that al the end of their working life they have a home of their own, rather
1930
than suddenly finding themselves out of a tied house. We should also be prepared to accept that sometimes the police officer, like others, may travel short distances to work instead of moving home.
Are we doing enough about the adequate use of police time? With a shortage of policemen one has to see that their time is used properly. I am convinced that a lot is being done, and the Home Secretary through the Criminal Justice Bill is attempting to deal with some of the problems of time-wasting in courts. But is he pressing enough to get rid of police officers acting as ushers in courts? My impression is that this is coming slowly, but that it could come faster, and that it is coming faster in the higher courts than in the magistrates' courts. I wonder whether more pressure could not be put upon the court authorities to make use of civilian ushers.
There is also the point about greater use of traffic wardens, by giving them increased powers, and so taking some road traffic work from policemen. I was slightly disturbed to hear the Under-Secretary say that, although he welcomed the proposals in the Estimates Committee Report, he did not foresee when Parliamentary time would be available to give the necessary additional powers to traffic wardens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) referred to the Research and Planning Branch of the Home Office. Reading the Estimates Committee's reference to it, I was depressed to see how small it was and the vast number of subjects with which it was apparently trying to cope. We have heard today about the successful Accrington scheme. A similar scheme is being carried out in the Birmingham area. We know of the scheme for motorising the police at Kirkby, near Liverpool. We know of the juvenile liaison officer scheme which is being carried out in Lancashire and in other forces.
If these schemes are to be of any value, they must be analysed and the results must be considered by a body in the Home Office which can decide whether the reason for the reduction in crime in, say, the Accrington area is the effectiveness of the new form of patrolling or merely the effect of the publicity which that scheme has brought to the area. If the necessary research is to be carried

1931
out, I should have thought it essential that the Home Office should have a larger and more active Research and Planning Branch than it had when this Report was written and, indeed, larger than it still has, although I gather that it has increased in size.
It is the number of police and the relationship between the public and the police which can probably do more than anything to reduce crime. We in the House have a considerable part to play in the relationship between the public and the police. By our debates we can set a standard of respect for the police which has been shown in every speech made today. It is easy to get into the headlines by making a critical remark about a police officer. As the Home Secretary knows, the occasional cases of policemen getting into trouble inevitably receive publicity. If we could set an example by expressing respect and admiration for the policemen in what they do and get that attitude adopted throughout the country, we might do away with the feeling of social dissociation which policemen now have, and many of the causes of premature wastage would disappear.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I have sat through most of this very important debate, and the outstanding feature of it has been the concern expressed about the police force and the level of comment.
I listened with care to the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). He made an excellent speech which contained some throughtful comment and admirable suggestions. However, he made a slight error which I was glad he attempted to correct. He said that during the past three years the Government have waffled over police structure and have done nothing. However, he rightly indicated that the Government Front Bench had shown considerable interest in trying to correct that situation. The standard of debate has been so high that it was unfortunate that in a very good speech the hon. Member attempted to make a political point which only confirmed that the problem existed before the Government took office.
Everyone will agree that this problem has been growing over a number of years.
1932
We are living in a nation where violence and crime are becoming like a cancerous growth. An hon. Member said that crime has no bounds. There are people in this excellent country taking advantage of the welfare provisions long accepted by both parties for the good and health of the country. They have respect for neither person nor property as long as they can get the maximum gain for themselves at other people's expense. This is the kind of problem with which the police forces have to deal.
When we are discussing the relationship between the police forces and the general public, we must try to understand the psychology which is evolving in this climate of crime and violence. One of the most serious problems is that when the general public want to assist the police, on those occasions when the police need assistance, they are reluctant to do so because the consequences, within the welfare state, of this interference are so great to themselves. To put it in a nutshell, if a man who is buying a house, who has a family to look after, and who faces the cost of living at today's standards of life, suffers physical hurt in assisting the police, the consequences for his family, as he sees them, are very great.
It may sometimes be felt that the public do not help the police because they do not want to help them, when the truth of the matter is that they have larger considerations in their minds. The police, on the other hand, may feel that the general public are not co-operating. I suspect that there is a much greater public opinion in support of the police than many of us realise and that the reputation of the police among the general public is much higher than is sometimes suggested.
When we discuss the rôle of police in society, it is essential to consider how best, through the Government, we can give them moral and material support in their task of protecting the public. In other words, we ask ourselves the simple question—are we getting value for money. I do not ask whether they are getting too much or too little, but is the money being used in the right direction? Have we the right priorities?
Let us consider the Home Office responsibility for the police as reflected in the Estimates. Ten years ago the expenditure

1933
was £43 million. The Estimates for 1966–67 is just over £100 million. At first glance one would conclude that this was a tremendous increase in financial support, but from time to time the Estimates Committee has pointed out that there are priorities on which this money could be much better spent. I will draw particular attention to that later. I understand that all these figures take into account that the Exchequer grant to local police authorities is up to half their expenditure. The remainder of the Estimate is spent on these items: £516,398 on special grants for the Metropolitan Police; £208,000 on salaries and expenses for the Inspectorate of Constabulary; £2,877,000 for special establishments, such as police wireless, forensic laboratories, training centres and the police college; and £350,000 on training, which seems inadequate to meet the problems which I have described. Appropriations in aid amount to just over £500,000.
The priorities for this kind of financial support may be crystallised when the Home Secretary's recommendation for amalgamations begin to be implemented. They will also be crystallised with the implementation of the proposals of the Local Government Boundaries Commission and the Royal Commission on Local Government, and especially with the implementation of the reports of the three working parties into manpower, equipment and operating efficiency. Four advantages resulting from these inquiries can be underlined immediately—the erosion of many of the problems which have been mentioned, an increase in efficiency, the creation of better promotion possibilities and the establishment of an instrument sharp enough to deal with the problem of increasing crime and violence.
The 117 forces in the country are eventually to be reduced to 49. Whenever amalgamations take place in any part of our society, whether in local authorities or units of commerce or industry, there always arises the problem of how best to deal with those already serving in the present system. Manpower shortages and present conditions and pay and the number of duties outside priority functions appear to be disincentives to recruitment. I hope that in the process of amalgamation the greatest care will be taken to
1934
see that there is no demotion or worsening of conditions to create further disincentives. This is the most important aspect of the exercise of amalgamation. The interests of those already in the service, at whatever rank, should not be allowed to suffer, for that would increase the disincentives which are now worrying the police
There should be a reduction in the range of duties outside the immediate priorities of police work. I am thinking not only of traffic work, but of police acting as court bailiffs or ushers. I hope that, in accordance with recommendations already before my right hon. Friend, those duties can be reduced to a minimum so that we can get not only greater physical efficiency of organisation, but nearer to the individual's view of the priorities of his work.
In order to give time to an hon. Member opposite to speak I shall say a brief word only on the question of research and planning. I was rather surprised not only when I looked at the whole range of functions which the research planning unit is supposed to be doing but when I looked at the Estimate Committee's Report and the evidence of Mr. K. A. L. Parker, the Under-Secretary in charge of the Police Department, when answering the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on this subject of research and planning. He had this to say on the subject of the personnel in the Department, and it is recorded at page 38:
"They are all Government scientists, members of the Scientific Civil Service who have served in other Departments before—very often in the Service Departments. Some have had previous experience in our own Scientific Advisers Branch which in the past has been concerned mainly with civil defence but which is now taking a much wider responsibility for other aspects of the Home Office work, and in particular the police side of things."
On the question of qualifications Mr. Parker added:
"The Scientific Officers are graduates; the Experimental Officers may be; but the Scientific Officers correspond broadly to the Administrative Class in the Civil Service and the Experimental Officers to the Executive."
One should pause for a moment to look at the range of qualifications, and the size, in terms of numbers, of the research and planning centre, though I must remind the House of the date of those statements, 7th February, 1966, and one

1935
must expect that there must have been changes in the numbers and possibly some change in the emphasis on qualifications. There must have been time since that date to bring about, in such an important part of the organisation as this, the kind of change to inject into the whole system the amount of research, the amount of planning, and the right kind of it, which are necessary.
Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary, in addition to all the other things which, I am sure, he has taken into account, will bear in mind that not only must the police forces be improved in quality, not only must they enjoy the right kind of conditions and of pay, not only must they have the right kind of injection of training of cadets—and, we must not forget, adults for the force—not only must the right amount of money be there to cover the overall duties and the general provisions of the service and of the common services for the police, but that also they must have the right kind of efficiency which can be brought about only by physical, material changes in the institutions which are supposed to give the maximum amount of support to the police. Therefore, we want a larger, more competent, more highly qualified research and planning unit or centre.
I close by saying this. During my own public life I have never understood why it is that we take so long to answer many of the questions which beset us. Possibly that is intrinsic in a democratic system, and we must balance our liberties against rates of progress.
In this matter, there is great urgency. I appeal to the Home Secretary not to take too long awaiting the Reports of working parties and commissions. The problem is identifiable. If at the moment we cannot get all the answers, we must provide auxiliary forms of assistance. One that I have put to him as an area of further examination, in addition to civilian staff, special police and traffic wardens, is the employment of non-uniformed auxiliary services in the field—people who not only have the right of arrest but who have official support in law as non-uniformed officers, so that they can help the proper examination of the whole of the area of their community, detect where wrong is being done and, in that way, help the police do a job
1936
which the present thinly spread forces are incapable of performing.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. Richard Sharpies: The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter), like everyone else who has spoken in the debate, made a speech which was both constructive and helpful.
I should like to begin, as others have, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and members of the Estimates Committee upon the Report which they have produced. They have had the satisfaction not only of producing a report which is first-class in itself, but also of having the majority of their recommendations accepted by the Home Secretary within a very short time. They have also had the satisfaction, perhaps, of providing the basis of a debate which has cut right across party lines and shown the House of Commons in one of its best moods.
This is not a debate on crime. However, the background to the debate is the rising crime rate. The provisional figures which have been quoted in the Press show that last year, in 1966, there were 1,133,862 indictable offences in England and Wales. If that figure is correct, that was 6 per cent. up on 1965, which in turn was 6·2 per cent. up on 1964. As the leading article in The Guardian on 31st January said:
"The robbers are winning, which is another way of saying that the community is losing."
This is not a debate about robbers. It is a debate about the police. The whole tone of the debate has shown the respect which hon. Members feel towards the police, and our wish to try to help them in every way that we can in facing the many difficulties which beset them.
The Home Secretary has had no lack of advice as to how he might go about his task. Nearly two years ago, the Police Federation produced its pamphlet, "The Problem", which set out in considerable detail and with many constructive ideas the way in which the Federation thought things ought to be solved.
Today we have the Report of the Estimates Committee, and we have also had in time for today's debate the Reports of the three Working Parties on Manpower, Equipment and Efficiency

1937
which were set up by the right hon. Gentleman. We have also, if I might introduce this note into a debate which has cut across party lines, had the Conservative Party Report, "Crime Knows No Boundaries", from which I am glad to say many ideas have been incorporated into the Estimates Committee's Report, and into the reports from the three Working Parties.
All the knowledge that we need is probably there. The recommendations about what needs to be done are also there, and I was encouraged by what I heard the Under-Secretary of State say this afternoon. The test of the Home Secretary will come in the drive with which he carries out what we all agree needs to be done.
Some of the recommendations, particularly those of the three Working Parties, will be fairly expensive, and I shall say something about this a little later. Some of the recommendations will certainly be controversial. Some of the amalgamations which the Home Secretary is putting through at the moment are undoubtedly controversial, but I believe that this policy of amalgamations, which was initiated by Mr. Henry Brooke when he was Home Secretary, is absolutely right, and it has my full support.
I believe that we are moving in the direction of regional forces which will be backed tip and supported by a central intelligence system, and by common services provided centrally. This is the direction in which I hope we are moving. I do not want to go as far as a national police force, but even going as far as we are doing produces many problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) spoke of the problems of the individual police officer who joins a comparatively small force and then may have to move his house and his home to another district if his police force is enlarged. I do not know the solution to this problem, but I believe that it is one to which the Home Secretary should be giving serious consideration if he has not already done so.
I said that many of the recommendations, particularly those with regard to equipment, would be fairly expensive, and the working party on equipment says on page 74 of its report:
"It is implicit in all we say that the cost of equipping the police service of the future
1938
will be heavy—a good deal heavier than it has been in the past."
It goes on to say:
"The important thing is to ensure that limited manpower is supported to the full with modern equipment."
I do not think that anyone would disagree with that verdict.
The cost will certainly be heavy. The Report calls for an additional 3,000 motor vehicles of a saloon type for ordinary police duties. It calls for the provision of dictating equipment and tape recorders to save the tedious writing out of reports and to enable the policeman to spend more time on carrying out his police duties. It also calls for full scientific aids for traffic control, and for modern communications both by radio and by line. The Under-Secretary of State told us this afternoon about the provision of personal radios for policemen. I do not underestimate the importance of that, and I was glad to hear this afternoon about the progress made in this direction.
Of equal importance is the establishment of an adequate line of communication and the linking up of police forces by teleprinters, and so on. We can greatly increase the efficiency of our forces in this way. Finally, there is the call for a national computer network, of which we were told something this afternoon. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to carry this matter a little further than his hon. and learned Friend did. I was left with the impression that although the recommendation is accepted in principle, it may be a long time before we see a national computer network in operation.
These things will be expensive, not only in terms of running costs but in terms of the outlay of capital. One of the problems which the Government will have to face is that of financing the capital expenditure which is needed if we are to give the police the tools they need to carry out the job. There is an urgent need to consider the whole question of financing our police forces. We must look again at the proportion of the cost which should be borne by the central government.
Equipment can help the police to be more efficient. Properly used, it can enable a better deployment of the manpower we have. But in the end the efficiency of the Police Force will depend

1939
not upon its equipment but upon the men and women serving in it.
One of the problems that we have discussed is that of premature wastage. No one can be complacent about its present rate. On page 20, the Report of the Working Party on Manpower says:
"This year … has been marked by a serious deterioration, for in the first nine months of 1966 the total was 2,301. If this level of wastage were to continue the total for the year would certainly be the highest since 1954, and possibly the highest for very many years."
We have not had the final figures. The Under-Secretary gave figures for total wastage, but I should like the Home Secretary to tell us the total figures for premature wastage for 1966, and to say how they compare with former years, in the light of the statement from the Working Party to which I have just referred.
I should like to know the figures for men with two years' service or more. It is when a man has done two years' service that he becomes of the greatest use to the police force. He has the experience and the training, and a great deal has been spent on him. The real tragedy concerns the men who leave the force after having completed their initial two years. The Police Federation has given a great deal of thought to the problem, as has the Estimates Committee.
Undermanning is the cause of many of the problems at present facing the police, including that of wastage. Under-manning leads to weekend working, long hours and split shifts. It is the cause of much dissatisfaction and there is great force in the contention of the Federation—reported in paragraph 51 of the Report of the Working Party on Manpower—that
"… it is often the inconvenient times of day and week when the police officer has time off, and the lack of a five-day week, that adversely affects wastage …".
There is much truth in that. A policeman is entitled to expect a family life in the same way as anyone else. Like an M.P., he probably has a wife who has reasonable grounds for complaint if her husband is not occasionally home at a reasonable hour.
I understand that the Home Office Research and Planning Board will be reporting to the Home Secretary on the causes of premature wastage. When is that
1940
Report expected, and can we be assured that it will be made available to the House? My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) referred to the problem of premature retirement among senior ranks and I hope that the Home Secretary will also deal with that matter.
Much has been said about civilianisation. Both the Estimates Committee and the Working Party on Manpower made strong recommendations about the increased use of civilians. There is no doubt that many of the jobs now being performed by the police could be performed equally well by civilians. I am thinking of work in the police courts, work in police stations—typing and so on—and work in records offices. For this type of work assistance from civilians can be important. We should also be able to make greater use of retired policemen. They have a police background and are valuable, particularly from the security point of view. Having said that, there are definite limits to the jobs which civilians can do. They can help the police, but there are a vast number of duties which can be performed only by policemen. We cannot replace large numbers of policemen by the importation, so to speak, of large numbers of civilians. Civilian help can make a big contribution, but it cannot solve the problems facing the police.
All the Reports call for the greater use of traffic wardens. If they are to be given further duties they will be unable to perform them unless we are prepared to give them at least the minimum powers they require to do these jobs. I recall that during the 1965 debates I strongly argued that police wardens be given increased powers to enable them to carry out their traffic duties. I was told at the time that those increased powers were not necessary. They are necessary, and while traffic wardens do not need the powers of policemen, they should be given sufficient power to, say, order a vehicle to stop or order a driver to obey certain instructions.
I wish to ask about the recruiting of traffic wardens in the Metropolitan area. Can the Home Secretary say what are the numbers serving today in the Metropolitan area? What will be the number required when the new parking areas come into operation? Is it a fact, as has been

1941
stated in some quarters, that the extension of those areas in Greater London is being delayed by the inability to recruit a sufficient number of wardens? I realise that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to produce some figures at short notice. If he is not able to do so now, perhaps he will let me know.
I refer to another special aspect of police work, the work of the fraud squad. It is true that the number of cases has been decreasing in recent years, but I wonder whether this reflects the true position. The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis said in his Report for 1965, when referring to this decline in the number of cases:
"A contributory factor may be the greater tendency to trade as an incorporated company. There are outstanding signs that as cases of increasing complexity and importance are referred to the Branch, the actual number of cases concluded will not necessarily any longer accurately reflect the volume of work undertaken."
I think we have sufficient evidence to realise that this type of crime is probably growing at present and is likely to grow quite extensively in future as the criminal branches off into this type of activity, which of course can be highly profitable. The sums of money involved are out of all proportion to the kind of sums involved in more ordinary crime. Can the Home Secretary give an assurance that the fraud squad and those dealing with this type of crime will be able to draw on all the outside professional assistance which they may need? I am sure that we will have read the disquieting report on the City page of the Sunday Telegraph of 15th January, which said that 18 men from the total staff of the City fraud quad alone
"investigated cases involving a total of more than £15½ million."
Those figures are frightening. I am sure the Home Secretary will pay particular attention to this aspect of police work and the equipment which the police have to deal with this growing problem.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken of the problem of the relationship between the police and the public. This was touched on by the Estimates Committee in its Report. There is no doubt that as the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis said in his report for 1965, the almost universal ownership of motor cars
1942
has contributed very greatly to this problem. On the other hand, events like the tragedy of last year must bring home to the public that the policeman who is questioning a motorist about some minor traffic offence may within minutes be facing a situation such as that which faced those three brave men.
I believe that the relationship between the police and the public is improving. I believe that the public has a much more real appreciation today than it had even a year or two ago of the very real problems which face the police in carrying out their often very dangerous duties. In this connection of the relationship between the police and the public, the increased use of traffic wardens and the growth of fixed penalties for motorists has done much to help. Often the trouble with the general motoring public and the differences which arise with the police comes where the line of demarcation is not very clear. Often differences arise when a motorist parks his car and is not sure whether he is allowed to park there and is then had up for obstruction by a policeman. The greater use of parking meters and greater clarity in instruction to motorists can do much to help.
If the Report on management and efficiency is accepted, there is no doubt that the beat system will go out as we knew it in the past. There is a danger that, if we were to put nothing in place of the beat system, we should get into a situation that exists in so many parts of the United States where the police act only as a kind of fire brigade arriving on the scene after a crime has been committed.
I very much welcome such experiments as that which has been taking place in Accrington. Equally, I welcome the Under-Secretary's remarks that it is intended that this system should be extended wherever possible. We all recognise that this system probably would not work in the centres of the large conurbations. I should be interested to know what ideas the Home Office has for meeting the problems in such areas.
The individual policeman, knowing his area and those in it, backed up by all the resources of modern mobile well-equipped forces, is what we want to see wherever possible. The difficulty is in achieving this in modern conditions.

1943
Finally, the Police Federation in its news letter of January, 1967, described the situation which we have now reached as "the chance of a lifetime". Whether or no we are able fully to take that chance will depend, as we all know in the House, just as much upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer as it does upon the Home Secretary. All that I can do tonight is to give the assurance to the Home Secretary that if he carries out the reforms, which we now know are needed, with all the vigour which the situation demands, he will have the full support of those of us who sit on this side of the House.
9.20 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): To some extent—I make not the slightest complaint about it—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) went a little wide of both the Report of the Estimate Committee and the Reports of the three working parties, raising a number of issues about police policy generally. He said that the debate had shown the House of Commons at its best. I agree that all the speeches were extremely constructive, though I think it possible that the House of Commons is at its best when it is a little fuller. Arguably, acute though the problems of undermanning are in the police, they have been at least as acute in the Chamber today. But, subject to that, I am with him.
I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'AvigdorGoldsmid) and his Committee for the extremely valuable work they have done in producing this Report. As the hon. Gentleman knows and understands, I was not, to my great regret, able to hear his speech today, but I read his Report extremely carefully. In my successive offices. I have found that he provides Reports of great value. When I was Minister of Aviation, I found his Report on the working of the Air Corporations a document of great importance, and I find his Report on the police of no less value today.
The hon. Gentleman raised one matter on which he wanted rather more information than my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave in his speech, and the same question was touched on by several other hon. Members. I refer to the request for a little
1944
more information about wastage in 1966. There is no question but that the wastage situation in 1966 was unsatisfactory, though to be seen in context it must be set against very satisfactory recruiting figures. But, of course, the two are to some extent separate.
The final figure for wastage was 2,965, that is, wastage as opposed to retirement on pension. One big ray of light in this connection is the recruiting figure for 1966, 6,900, which is just about as good as in 1965, so that those two years are the best two years for a very long time past. Purely on the question of wastage there is also a small ray of light in that—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will probably recognise this as he quickly does his arithmetic—the figures for the whole year were not quite as bad as the figures for the first nine months would have led one to expect them to he. In other words, the last three months of the year were about the best three months, so that there was a slight tailing off in wastage there.
I think that it would be for the greatest convenience of the House if, after a debate in which everyone has made a constructive contribution, I took up points made by hon. Members roughly in the order in which they spoke. I propose to do that rather than raise general themes as my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State did at the beginning.
I thank the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) for his constructive approach as well as for the valuable work which he does as adviser to the Superintendents' Association. He raised the specific question of retirement of superintendents in the Metropolitan Police District at the age of 55. He put the case with great force and persuasiveness, so much so that it may have appeared to the House that everyone was on his side. I am not necessarily saying that I am against him on the issue—there are many arguments on both sides—but it is not he case that this is an act of stubbornness on the part of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
There is a deep division in police service opinion on the question. It is not that the official side of the Police Council is holding out against the unanimous view of the service side. Far from it. The question came up for discussion on 30th March last year. It was adjourned at the

1945
request of the staff side. It came up again on 25th October and the same view was taken. There are great difficulties about it, but I recognise that there is some force in what the hon. Gentleman said. I shall look into the matter myself. But the Commissioner, very much with the best interests of his force at heart, as he always has, takes the view that the present course is the right one. He is supported by a great deal of opinion within the police service, but I shall none the less have a careful look at the issue myself in view of what the hon. Member said this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Ensor) spoke of the importance of support from the public for the police, and that theme has run through the debate to some extent. It was taken up later by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). We all agree that this is a matter of crucial importance and that police-public relations—good relations both ways—are very important as a factor in enabling the police to do their job of protecting the public properly.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of proper rates of pay for the police, and that question was, of ocurse, raised also by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who raised a number of other points as well to which I shall come later. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State singled out the police for special mention in his statement introducing the White Paper in November. Those were no idle words, and I hope that we can negotiate a settlement which will be fair to the police and everybody else concerned in the not too distant future. We are certainly not going to sleep on this matter.
I think that a well-organised, contented police force is of crucial importance in the fight against crime. As hon. Members on the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill know—some of whom I see here, and see only too often these weeks—we are locked in Committee not in dispute but in long debate on the Bill. It is clear that while it is highly desirable to have the best criminal law possible, one can have the best criminal law in the world and it will avail one little unless one has the police force to make it effective. I have no doubt that an effective police force, well-organised
1946
and well-equipped, with a high morale and able to be a deterrent because of the high chances of detection, is the best deterrent and the best safeguard against crime that we can have.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) raised a number of points about police manpower and its most effective use. He mentioned in particular that the 12 policemen directing the traffic in Parliament Square struck him as a waste of police manpower. That matter is before the House at present. I am very anxious that police manpower should not be dissipated, and when I took office as Home Secretary, I felt, possibly rashly, that I could save the time of one, or indeed, three, policemen by dispensing with the police officer who had traditionally stood outside the house of the Home Secretary for a long time past. I am also looking into whether we need the 12 policemen in Parliament Square. That matter is currently before the appropriate Parliamentary Committee and if the House decides that we should do without them it would be very welcome to me and would be a useful saving of police manpower and time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) spoke about police amalgamations, as did a number of other hon. Members. He said that he was certainly in favour of them in principle, and I am very glad to say that there has been no opposition to them in principle. The only opposition—mild opposition—which has come in practice rather than in principle, has been from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East who said that he was not quite sure about the position in the West Riding. I can understand a Member from Bradford taking that view, because Bradford is one of the biggest forces to be amalgamated.
Equally, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) was not too keen about the amalgamation of Buckinghamshire with other Thamesside county and borough forces. So also my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow in Furness (Mr. Booth) expressed a little doubt about the way things were working in practice, even if not in principle. He suggested that it would have been better if we had tried to amend the Police Act before the amalgamations rather than afterwards. I do not think that that would have been the right course to take.

1947
To have amended the Act would have been a much more complicated matter than is sometimes thought. Many issues would have been raised. I think also that, to have amended it in such a way as that which no doubt would have been in the minds of many hon. Members—that we could do what we cannot do now and amalgamate parts of police areas rather than whole areas together—would in some ways have created a greater problem from the point of view of local authority control of the police than is created merely by amalgamating existing authorities.
It is by no means clear how one achieves the representation upon a police authority of a segment of a county which was cut out of the county as a whole and put in between several boroughs. Therefore, I thought it right to proceed. I think that it is a matter demanding urgency. It would have been wrong to do nothing while awaiting the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.
Had one done nothing, one would have been confronted with a strong demand to go much further and perhaps to take the police away from local government altogether—a result which I would have deplored. I think it right to proceed as quickly as one can within the existing powers. When we get the Report, we shall look at the matter again and see whether the areas it recommends broadly speaking accord with police areas of about the number we are suggesting. But I am sure that we do not want to go back to a larger number of police authorities than the 40 or so which will result from my proposals.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, who is extremely expert in these matters and has very close connections with the Police Federation and therefore speaks with great authority, put forward a number of points. I am grateful to him for the way in which he did so. To some extent he took issue with the hon. Member for Walsall, South on the question of graduate recruitment to the police force. This was touched upon by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but I would like to say a little more about it because it is an issue to which I attach the greatest possible importance at present.
1948
We should try and see the issue in proper perspective. I do not for a moment take the view that we should or shall move to a situation in which the top posts in the police would be open only to graduates. I think that that would be a grave error. We find in our political life, and in many other aspects of life, that, even if we have a healthy leavening of graduates, it may well be that top or near-top posts are nonetheless occupied by people who are not graduates.
But we have to face the fact that the population of our universities is rising very rapidly and therefore there is inevitably a creaming off to the universities of the most able people who leave school. The police force must therefore increase its proportionate intake of graduates and use them not only for the topmost posts but throughout a wide range of ranks within the police service, and it would be a great mistake for the police to approach graduates on the basis that it wanted them only for chief constable or even assistant chief constable posts.
One needs them in a wide range of posts, as well as having some non-graduates in the highest posts. But in the whole development of our modern education and of society, unless we get into the police force a proportion of graduates substantially higher than 16 out of 6,000, which was the result in 1966, undoubtedly this will be a difficult situation that will be one which will work against the police force attaining the proper professional status that it wants and that I want and which I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members want to see it have in the coming decades.
The Bramshill system is very valuable and we shall press forward with it. It is useful therefore to send people who have already entered the police forces to university. I do not believe that these two methods are in themselves the complete answer to the problem. I do not want the police service to be too much apart from ordinary life. I want people in it who have been to universities before becoming police officers as well as after. I also want the force to recruit people who have gone straight to universities from school, because to an increasing extent people of great talent will do this. The matter should be seen in proportion. It is not a question of reserving the top jobs for graduates; it is a question of

1949
getting more graduates than we have been getting recently, in the interest of the service.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In Cambridge last week I saw a student, about to become a graduate, who had spent six weeks at the Bristol police headquarters to discover whether he wanted to join the service. He decided against it simply because he thought that the prospects and the pay were not adequate. Will the Home Secretary deal with the general point as well as the particular one?
Mr. Jenkins: I am aware that the question of prospects in the service is of great importance. There is also a special problem about graduates who necessarily and inevitably enter the police service at a later stage in their lives than non-graduates. We cannot pretent that that aspect of the problem does not exist, and we must try to find some method of dealing with it.
The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds also raised a more specific point about the protection from transfer of officers in county forces after amalgamation. I want to give as helpful a reply as I can. As he knows, there is statutory protection for policemen serving in a borough force from being moved after amalgamation without their consent. There is no similar protection for county policemen, and there never has been, because a county has always been so big that they might have had to move in any case, independently of their amalgamation.
Despite this, the Home Office has asked the chief constables, not informally but in a circular, to see that as far as practicable, former county members should not be assigned to duties involving a move to a different area from that of their old force area. The Police Federation has made representations that ex-county policemen should be given the same protection as borough men. I have no grounds for thinking that chief constables have not been acting in the spirit of the advice given in the Home Office circular, but I am considering whether anything more can be done to deal with this aspect of the problem.
It is a complicated matter, and I cannot say that one can indicate a complete solution, but I am anxious that these
1950
amalgamations should go through with the minimum of friction and hardship for all ranks in the police service. The amalgamations are supported by the bulk of police at all ranks. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), made a number of points arising out of the Estimates Committee's Reports, and out of the Reports of the three working parties. He strongly supported the point to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, to some extent took exception, the majority recommendation of the working party Report that height restrictions should be somewhat reduced. He also placed considerable emphasis on better leisure periods and on doing away with unnecessary and excessive discipline. What can be agreed, and two of the Working Party Reports touched upon this, taking an extremely forward-looking attitude over discipline and management, is that the Home Office has made it quite clear that out-of-date disciplinary practices which are unnecessary and a bar to recruitment and an effective modern police service, ought not to be kept in being.
I think that I would pitch my sights rather higher than the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. I hope that the police can look forward to a better family life with more time than is available to most Members of Parliament. What we are all most anxious to do is to give the police more time off in accordance with the normal pattern of working compatible with, but in no way decreasing, the protection to the public.
The Accrington experiment is not unique to Accrington. It is a development of the Kirkby experiment and the work going on in the Speke division of Liverpool. The great interest and attraction of this experiment is that it shows that by using new methods policemen can save manpower, have more time off and give better protection to the public. This is a remarkable achievement. It shows the great attraction of not being hidebound in one's approach.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), apart from supporting strongly the general proposals on amalgamations, raised some points about the Police Research and Planning Branch of the Home Office. This branch was set up in 1963. A good deal of groundwork was required to establish it on a sound

1951
scientific basis on which a good research framework could be built. It has been expanding rapidly. In 1966 the number of officers in the branch doubled to 40. This is a rapid rate of expansion. I cannot make any firm proposals about the future. We may not be able to keep up that rate of expansion. It may not be right to go at that rate. But we attach the greatest importance to the work of the branch and hope that it will play a substantial part.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) mentioned the point with which I have to some extent dealt—the extreme importance of protecting those in the police, at all ranks, from demotion or hardship as a result of amalgamations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) mentioned some points about graduates, which I have also dealt with to some extent in commenting on the speech of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
The police are facing a period of considerable challenge but in a spirit of experimentation and movement such as we have not seen for quite a long time. The proposals for police amalgamations amount to the biggest scheme of police reorganisation which we have seen for over a century. The present programme of equipping individual policemen with personal radio sets revolutionises the equipment position as it concerns individuals, and brings about a striking change in police methods in the interests of the work and the effectiveness of the individual policeman. That is going on very rapidly, and a large part of the programme will be complete in about a year.
We have a great number of reports on police work. We have the Reports of the Estimates Committee which is the peg for this debate. We have the three working party Reports. All ranks in the police service, with Home Office help and some outside help, sat down and worked together at their own proposals in a way rarely achieved before. There is a great spirit of movement and experimentation throughout the police service. I am glad that Sir Eric St. Johnston, who has a considerable record of achievement in Lancashire, has just taken over the job of Her Majesty's Chief
1952
Inspector of Constabulary in this exciting and challenging time. He will do a great deal for the police service during his period of office.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam quoted the leading article in the Police Federation Newsletter this year entitled "Chance of a Lifetime". In the debate about a year ago he quoted accurately—I tried to catch him out on a date and failed; he was right and I was wrong—a rather gloomy editorial in that publication about low morale. The fact that its editorial this month did not talk about low morale but was entitled "Chance of a Lifetime"—not certainty, but chance—marked a considerable improvement in the prospects for the police service. I hope that in the coming years we can make a reality that greater feeling of hope for the future which I believe there is in the police service. That will depend not only on the Government but on the support which the Government get from Parliament in facing these problems. We are, therefore, particularly grateful for the Estimates Committee's Reports and for the way in which it has been debated.
Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) about coloured policemen? Is there a rule that coloured policemen should not be recruited? It seems that there are only five in the country.
Mr. Jenkins: There is no such rule. I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) is not here. I was not able to be present to hear his speech, but I answered a Question of his yesterday, which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) may have seen, in which I indicated why the recruitment of coloured policemen in the Metropolitan Police area had not gone as well as I had hoped in the last year. We have recruited coloured policemen elsewhere in the country. We have I think five at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South frowns. I attach great importance to the recruitment of properly qualified coloured recruits to the police service. I do not think that anyone would suggest that the police should recruit those who are not properly qualified, and inevitably larger numbers will

1953
be coming forward when, as is now becoming the case, we have a lot of coloured people who have been brought up and educated in this country. This is now rapidly becoming the case and I hope that in the Metropolitan Police District we can see a number of suitably qualified coloured policemen recruited in the coming year.
Mr. Rees-Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman deal with the point which I was making and which I believe to be of considerable interest to the country? Does he not think that the time has come for considering whether there should be a special constabulary for the criminal investigation departments? This would not be a national police force, but there is throughout the whole of the criminal investigation department a genuine belief that this should be dealt with and——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may ask the right hon. Gentleman a question, but he has exhausted his right to make a speech.
Mr. Jenkins: This is clearly a question which merits consideration. There are some arguments which run the other way, because there is a very respectable view that it is desirable to keep C.I.D. officers in the closest contact with the uniformed branch of the forces in which they serve. Were one to organise an entirely separate national C.I.D. service,
1954
this would run counter to that proposition. I am not saying that that is necessarily in all circumstances a decisive argument, but it is one which has to be set in the balance against the persuasive arguments which the hon. Gentleman deployed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the First Report from the Estimates Committee and of the Fifth Special Report from the Estimates Committee relating to Police.

TOKYO CONVENTION [MONEY]
[Queen's Recommendation having been signified]—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision with a view to the ratification on behalf of the United Kingdom of the Convention on Offences and certain other Acts Committed on board Aircraft, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to any of the provisions of that Act in the sums falling to be so paid under any other Act.—[Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Ten o'clock.

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Economic Development Committees (Independent Members)
  Economic Development Committees (Independent Members)
  Lower Paid Workers (Weekly Wages)
  Lower Paid Workers (Weekly Wages)
  National Plan
  National Plan
  Planning, East Anglia (Consultation)
  Planning, East Anglia (Consultation)
  Grocery Items (Price Increases)
  Grocery Items (Price Increases)
  Consumer Interests
  Consumer Interests
  Economic Growth (Assessment)
  Economic Growth (Assessment)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Staff)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Staff)
  Prices and Incomes (Increases)
  Prices and Incomes (Increases)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  "A" Licence Applicants (Morse Test)
  "A" Licence Applicants (Morse Test)
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Unshared Lines
  Unshared Lines
  Shared Lines (Termination of Service)
  Shared Lines (Termination of Service)
POST OFFICE
  Charges
  Charges
  Post Offices, Willingborough
  Post Offices, Willingborough
  Rhodesian Mail
  Rhodesian Mail
  Equipment Orders (Scotland)
  Equipment Orders (Scotland)
WALES
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
  Migration (Mid-Wales)
  Migration (Mid-Wales)
  Trunk Roads (Maintenance)
  Trunk Roads (Maintenance)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Anglo-Soviet Exhibition
  Anglo-Soviet Exhibition
  Temporal Bone Library
  Temporal Bone Library
  Subnormal Children (Speech Therapy)
  Subnormal Children (Speech Therapy)
  Pupils (Annual Costs)
  Pupils (Annual Costs)
  Reading Research Unit
  Reading Research Unit
  Government Research Establishments (Fishermen's Diseases)
  Government Research Establishments (Fishermen's Diseases)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prison Officers (Training Course)
  Prison Officers (Training Course)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Licensed Betting Offices, Greater London
  Licensed Betting Offices, Greater London
  Commercial Gaming
  Commercial Gaming
  Easter (Fixed Date)
  Easter (Fixed Date)
  Gaming (Young Persons)
  Gaming (Young Persons)
  Mr. Kwesi Armah
  Mr. Kwesi Armah
  Road Safety, Stratford (Letter)
  Road Safety, Stratford (Letter)
  Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964 (Convictions)
  Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1964 (Convictions)
  Anti-Histamine Drugs
  Anti-Histamine Drugs
  Prisoner's Letter (Delivery to Member of Parliament)
  Prisoner's Letter (Delivery to Member of Parliament)
  Murderers (Country of Origin)
  Murderers (Country of Origin)
  Death Certification (Departmental Committee)
  Death Certification (Departmental Committee)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Bell's Asbestos and Engineering Limited
  Bell's Asbestos and Engineering Limited
  Sailing Tickets (Change)
  Sailing Tickets (Change)
  Wool Textile Imports (Tariffs and Quotas)
  Wool Textile Imports (Tariffs and Quotas)
  Airlines (Capital Debt)
  Airlines (Capital Debt)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Applications)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Applications)
  Capital Expenditure (Wales)
  Capital Expenditure (Wales)
  York Trailer Company Limited, (Llantrisant Factory)
  York Trailer Company Limited, (Llantrisant Factory)
  Travel Agents
  Travel Agents
  Air Services (North-West Region)
  Air Services (North-West Region)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Graduates (Pay Increases)
  Graduates (Pay Increases)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Industry (Government Loans and Grants)
  Industry (Government Loans and Grants)
  Purchase Tax (Swill Bins)
  Purchase Tax (Swill Bins)
  Dividends
  Dividends
  Travel Allowance (Foreign Exchange)
  Travel Allowance (Foreign Exchange)
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  EGYPT (BRITISH PROPERTY)
  EGYPT (BRITISH PROPERTY)
  MOROCCO (MR. REDICAN)
  MOROCCO (MR. REDICAN)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (AMBASSADOR'S SPEECH)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (AMBASSADOR'S SPEECH)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Military Aid
  Military Aid
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Fiji (Defence)
  Fiji (Defence)
SCOTLAND
  Local Government Officials (Pay Award)
  Local Government Officials (Pay Award)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Eggs (Imports)
  Eggs (Imports)
  Animal Feeding Stuffs (E.E.C.)
  Animal Feeding Stuffs (E.E.C.)
  Fertilisers (E.E.C.)
  Fertilisers (E.E.C.)
ROADS
  Accidents
  Accidents
  A370 (Speed Limit)
  A370 (Speed Limit)
  North Circular Road-Heather Park Drive Junction (Traffic Signals)
  North Circular Road-Heather Park Drive Junction (Traffic Signals)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Cyclists (Safety Helmets)
  Motor Cyclists (Safety Helmets)
RAILWAYS
  Track Density
  Track Density
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
  ORDER OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  MR. KOSYGIN (TALKS)
  MR. KOSYGIN (TALKS)
  COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION
  COUNCIL OF LEGAL EDUCATION
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aircraft Industry (Government Assistance)
  Aircraft Industry (Government Assistance)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Simonstown Agreement
  Simonstown Agreement
  Royal Navy (South Africa)
  Royal Navy (South Africa)
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Defence Expenditure)
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Defence Expenditure)
  Malta
  Malta
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Minor Works, Somerset (Grants)
  Minor Works, Somerset (Grants)
HOUSING
  Planning Permission (Lymington)
  Planning Permission (Lymington)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Drilling Rig "Sea Gem" (Inquiry)
  Drilling Rig "Sea Gem" (Inquiry)
GAS
  North Sea Supplies
  North Sea Supplies
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  British Aid (Statistics)
  British Aid (Statistics)
  Malta
  Malta
  World Food Board
  World Food Board
  Turkey
  Turkey

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The Lord Riverdale—Took the Oath.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford—Took the Oath.

DECIMAL COINAGE
3.5 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: 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 postpone decimalising the coinage until such time as there is a common European currency.]
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords. There is no firm proposal at the moment for a common European currency, and in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government it would be wrong to defer the benefits of decimalisation against the possibility that such a currency may come into being.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government should not reconsider this question very carefully because, the way things are going, there might well be a common European currency soon? Do they not think, therefore, that if they go ahead with their present decimalisation of coinage there will be a risk of imposing on the British public two difficult and costly changes within the next twenty years or so?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am advised that a European common currency is a very long way away. The discussions are only in their very early stages, and Her Majesty's Government do not think it right to delay the implementation of decimalisation, which is a matter, as the noble Lord is aware, we have been discussing for some 150 years.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the "benefits of decimalisation". Would he describe what they are, and whether in his opinion they outweigh the disadvantages?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is Question Time, and I should not wish to delay the House. If the noble Lord reads the Halsbury Report, I am sure he will find the necessary information.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, would my noble friend tell me when it is likely that there will be a common currency in the British Isles?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords. Decimalisation will come into effect in 1970.

CATHEDRAL FABRIC ALTERATIONS
3.7 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: 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 it is the law of the land that a cathedral chapter can effect alterations to the fabric of their cathedral without reference to such advisory bodies as exist.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, any alteration to the fabric of a cathedral which would materially affect its external appearance requires planning permission, as in the case of any other building. Internal alterations which do not materially affect the external appearance of the building may be carried out without reference to the local planning authority. While they are under no legal obligation to do so, I understand that it is often the practice of deans and chapters to consult the Cathedrals Advisory Committee of the Central Council for the Care of Churches before undertaking restorations or alterations to the fabric of their cathedrals.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, which goes a long way to confirm my worst suspicions. Can he give

1473
me any encouragement that his Department and Her Majesty's Government will do what they can to encourage deans and chapters to consult with the cathedral advisory body before they make any changes in the fabric of their cathedral?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am not sure that it would be right for the Government to say anything to deans and chapters about how they run their affairs. But I am glad to say that the Cathedrals Advisory Committee are coming to see me in a week or two to review the way the present system works.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in many cases cathedral chapters consult with the Royal Fine Art Commission when making alterations of substance to the interior of cathedrals?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords, and the Government are very glad that they do.

MR. KOSYGIN'S ADDRESS TO BOTH HOUSES
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make a short Business Statement? As your Lordships know, we shall be adjourning during pleasure as close to 4.30 p.m. as is convenient, in order that Peers may attend in the Royal Gallery to hear Mr. Kosygin. Peers are asked to be in their places no later than 4.40 p.m., so that the procession including Mr. Kosygin may have a free entrance at about 4.45 p.m.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Chairman of Committees.)
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I am not attempting to make a controversial issue of this Bill as I know that that would not be in Order, but may I be forgiven for mentioning the fact that Clause 43 of the Bill seeks powers to register premises for tattooing? In view of the fact that I had the temerity one day last week to raise the question of tattooing in a debate, which became memorable because of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, I cannot resist the temptation of saying how delighted I am that a great corporation like Portsmouth is on the same side as I am on this matter.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the noble Lord is no doubt aware that this is an opposed Private Bill, and will therefore go to a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and petitions will be received against any part of the Bill to which anyone may object.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
THE CITY UNIVERSITY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committe on Unopposed Bills.

MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (DISSOLUTION) ORDER 1967
3.13 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on the 17th of January. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Order is to absorb the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources into the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, with the exception of a few functions in respect of Wales and Monmouth shire which go to the Secretary of State for Wales, and functions relating to forestry and the

1475
Forestry Commission which are transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The forestry functions came from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1965, and included responsibility for the whole of the Forestry Commission, jointly with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales.
Certain changes were made in the management structure of the Forestry Commission while it was under the Minister of Land and Natural Resources to enable it to operate as much in the field of marketing and selling timber as in producing it. Certain other responsibilities, which were transferred from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will, on the dissolution of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, go to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They are, first responsibility for the Ordnance Survey. The Minister of Land and Natural Resources announced a major expansion in the work of the Ordnance Survey a year ago. The need to bring the large-scale Ordnance maps and plans for the country up to date is urgent, and provision has been made for the completion of this large-scale survey of the built-up areas by next year, and of the smaller towns by about 1970. Plans for the remainder of the country, where there is less development, will all be up to date by about 1980 under this new provision.
The second group of responsibilities in this category—namely, those which have passed from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, and now to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government—relate to common land and allotments. The Commons Registration Act 1965 provides for the registration of common land and town and village greens in England and Wales. Registration began last month, and is expected to be complete in 1972. The Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Wales, will be responsible for framing proposals, when facts are established as a result of this registration, for legislation to provide wider facilities for public access and enjoyment, and increase in the productivity of these lands. The functions of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources in regard to National Parks and to water return to
1476
the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Minister of Land and Natural Resources was charged especially with responsibility for the multi-purpose water projects, of which the Morecambe Bay barrage project is one on which the House has recently touched, because of the announcement that a full-scale study was going to be carried out. This is an outstanding example of such multi-purpose projects.
One of the main activities and pre-occupations of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources during its short existence was the drawing up and passing through of the Land Commission Act. The Land Commission is now in existence, and this was one of the things which made it expedient to have what my right honourable friend the Minister called a "core Ministry"—a small Ministry with few officials who were pulled out of their existing Ministries for a short time in order to carry out certain jobs, of which perhaps the Land Commission was the biggest. The legislation to provide for leasehold enfranchisement, which is another major Bill coming from this Ministry, is already far advanced in its preparation and is to be published shortly.
The integration of the staff of the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources with that of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government was announced in May of last year and has been complete for some time now. We are here praying for the dissolution of the Ministry. My right honourable friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources is to be dissolved as the Minister in charge of a separate Department, but I am glad to say that he is to be precipitated again as a Minister of State under the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
There was criticism when we set up the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources and there is now criticism when we bring it to an end. I think this is to be expected. One would always expect an Opposition to criticise virtually any change either way in the machinery of central Government bureaucracy. We did it when the Party now in Opposition wound up the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and there have been plenty of other occasions. Governments of all colours are continually starting and winding up Ministries. I think there is no need to be defensive about it; it is

1477
right that the central Government bureaucracies should behave rather like those marine organisms which split readily into two in response to a new situation and are combined again into one in response to another new situation which may arise. I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources (Dissolution) Order 1967 be made in the form of the Draft laid before this House on the 17th of January.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for explaining to us the purpose of this Order which is to dissolve this Ministry. May I assure him straight away that I am not going to behave like a marine organism (or even like a jellyfish, I hope), because I welcome the ending of this Ministry. My only regret is that it cannot take its works away with it. That would really be a good day's work.
However, before the Ministry goes I should like to congratulate it on putting on the Statute Book the Registration of Commons Act. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would allow me to give credit where credit is due, and to say that this Act was drafted by a Conservative Government. Of course, the water activities to which the Minister refers with regard to the Water Resources Board's multi-purpose projects have been entirely helpful.
So far as the Minister, Mr. Willey, is concerned, I should like to praise him, not like Mark Antony but without Mark Antony's dissimulation, because I believe he has done an admirable job in a particularly difficult Ministry. I have seen a good deal of his work in the world of local authorities, where we have felt that he has been entirely helpful and most patient in dealing with the many difficulties with which these new bodies have had to deal. It seemed to me, looking at the Ministry as a whole, that no Minister could have put a better face on an impossible assignment, and it is bad luck on Mr. Willey that his name should go down to posterity as the Minister responsible for putting the Land Commission Act on the Statute Book. This arouses mirth amongst noble Lords opposite, but I do not believe that this Act
1478
will arouse mirth with the people of this country as they come to realise exactly what it means. It cannot but add to the cost and complexity of every land transaction in the future, and I am quite certain that it will attract to itself the maximum of unpopularity. It was said in Whitehall that this was the previous Minister's reason for denying himself the privilege of handling it. As I say, I only wish to-day we were saying the last rites over the Land Commission Act as well as over the Ministry.
Turning to the main purpose of this Order, in November, 1964, the Prime Minister said that there was to be this Ministry, a Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, which was to be responsible "for future policies relating to the availability of land as the community needs it". At that time much was said about the need to separate strategic from tactical planning. I am bound to say that this always seemed complete unreality to me, and some of us said so. This Ministry had an inherent defect in it from the start. A Ministry of Land and Natural Resources which did not have planning powers could never deal effectively with land problems. Of course, as we know, in the tug-of-war between Government Departments, particularly, I imagine, between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Agriculture, to bring this new Ministry into being, this was one of the struggles which was decisively lost by the progenitors of the Bill and won by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and it was not long before the Ministry became known as the "waif of Whitehall". I may say in conclusion on this part of my comments that this was the major purpose of the Ministry when it was set up. It could never succeed, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government are right to recognise this fact and wind it up now. As I have said, the basic defect is that they did not have the planning powers.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, one or two questions about the final winding up. The Order says in paragraph 3(2) that there is to be an additional Minister of State, which increases the total number of Ministers of State from 20 to 21. Does this mean that the Ministerial salary will be continued at £8,500 a year as at present, or is it to be set at some lower level?

1479
This Government's record in the creation of Ministers and Ministries must surely constitute a record in the history of this country. To-day there are no less than 112 Ministers and Junior Ministers, and this has to be taken together with the huge growth of the Civil Service in the last couple of years. I saw the figures for the nine months from January to October last year, and there are an additional 17,000 civil servants. All this must be paid for by the taxpayers, and this is at a time when all other incomes are frozen.
I make the point most cogently to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet: is it really right to create a new post of Minister of State in a Ministry which, surely, does not need another Minister of State and which should not have had one in the past? This is no reflection, of course, on the noble Lord. Here in this House he covers an immense range of work. But in the other place the equipment of Minister and Junior Ministers is higher than it has ever been, and I feel that there is a heavy onus on the Government to explain why it is necessary to put this further burden on the taxpayer.
Finally, with regard to the civil servants at this Ministry, could the noble Lords tell us what number they eventually reached, or what their strength is standing at now? And also what economies will be made in the winding up of the Ministry, and to what extent there will be transfers to the other two Ministries? I welcome the Order. I congratulate the noble Lord on bringing it before us and, as I said, I am only sorry it cannot takes its works with it.
3.28 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, while associating myself with the tributes paid to Mr. Willey personally, I feel that there are so few occasions under this Government for a little light relief that we ought not to allow this Order to go by without observing with interest the creation, with great expectations, of this Ministry, its complete failure ever to obtain the powers that were intended for it, and now finally its early and unregretted demise, unwept, unhonoured and unsung. I am sure we shall all join happily in the Prayer to bring this Ministry to a conclusion. It is just worth recording some of the things said
1480
by the Prime Minister and his colleagues at the time when it was set up only two and a quarter years ago. He said on January 25, 1965:
"We have made the biggest reorganisation of the machinery of Government that has been carried out in peace-time in the last half century."
The Minister of Housing and Local Government, not to be behindhand in welcoming this possible but already defeated and almost abortive rival of his, said:
"We have made more changes in Whitehall in our short time in office than they"—
that is the Conservatives—
"made in 13 years."
If the Government go on reversing now what they did only a few months ago they will continue to retain their record.
It was, I think, as a result of advice given by academic professors of planning that the Prime Minister had the bright idea of setting up again a Ministry of Town and Country Planning. That was, I think, essential when it was originally set up, and very distinguished work was done during the time when it was presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. But I have long been convinced that it is impossible for planning to be effectively carried out in this country except by the Department which is responsible for the building of houses, for the provision of water, for the control of the finances of local authorities and for the general rating system. Therefore, I thought it was quite obvious that no separate Ministry of Planning was ever likely to be effective and that there must inevitably be friction and conflict with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. How right I was!
In the early days—I do not think it extended quite to a week—after the Socialist Government came into power there was engaged one of the great battles of Whitehall. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, then Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, was quite convinced that it was hopeless from an administrative point of view, and undesirable, that the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources should have any control over the planning of land; and so then was engaged a great battle.
There are many of these battles in Whitehall. There is a well-known code

1481
governing them. The rules of the game provide for ambush, for outflanking, long-range bombardment, trench warfare, attack at dawn, and indeed for hand-to-hand engagement. But, of all these battles at Whitehall, none will be longer remembered than the occasion when the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government defeated the Prime Minister in the Cabinet Office, so that all the responsibilities for the control and use of land originally laid down by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in his Act of 1946, have been retained by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Old Caspar would say, "This was indeed a famous victory". Indeed, I can assure your Lordships that around the fireplace in the drawing room of the Athenæum where Permanent Secretaries assemble after lunch, from one generation to another will be passed down the story of how that most distinguished first lady Permanent Secretary was able to retain within the Ministry of Housing and Local Government these extensive and important responsibilities which it had been intended to transfer to the grandly named Ministry of Land and Natural Resources.
We have heard about tactical and strategic land planning. It was the Prime Minister who drew that distinction, and Mr. Willey, when he was petitioning another place for his own earthly dissolution, talked again about tactical and strategic land planning. After the conflict I have been describing tactical land planning was retained by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. But, with this new reorganisation of Whitehall by the incoming Prime Minister, it should not have been overlooked that a Ministry of Economic Development had been set up, and that they were responsible for strategic planning of land use. So the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources found that, as regards land, they were deprived of the tactical control and were simultaneously deprived of the strategic control.
If they were not going to have any control over land, perhaps they might have some control over water! Perhaps the real purpose was to carry out the nationalisation of water, which has been in the Election Addresses of the Party opposite for a long time. But it was only recently that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, indicated to us that the nationali-
1482
sation might not take place during the present Parliament. As a matter of fact, at no time did the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources exercise any effective control over water at all, because once water was in a reservoir or in any way made available for use, it then again came under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It was only water resources that were under the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources: in other words, water, so long as it was not available was under them; and when it was available it came under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
Now what was to be done? Here were earnest and zealous, imaginative, and I dare say ambitious, Ministers who were most anxious to justify their position and earn their salaries. Of course, there was the Forestry Commission. So the Forestry Commission was taken away from the Ministry of Agriculture and given to this Department. It will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that, after this interval of two and a quarter years, it is now being returned to the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture from which it was originally taken.
Then, of course, there was the Commons Registration Act. That has been put on to the Statute Book. But, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford said, it had in fact been drafted in the Ministry of Agriculture while the Conservative Government were in power. I noticed that, when the Prime Minister was explaining what valuable work the Ministry had done, with his usual modesty he did not refer to the Commons Registration Act. But what he did say was that it had done very good work in passing the Land Commission Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was just a little too modest when he said that it was not the main purpose of this Department to pass and administer the Land Commission Bill, because Mr. Crossman in another place, speaking on March 25, 1965, said:
"The Ministry of Land and Natural Resources arose to start with out of one simple and practical fact."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons: Vol. 709, col. 941.]
He went on to refer to the Land Commission Bill and said:
"this tremendous measure of reform which, when it is completed, will alter the balance of power in the Government."

1483
He said that he was not going to predict what the exact balance of power would be in Whitehall when the Land Commission were in full operation, but he went on to say:
"but it will be different from to-day, because it is not possible to create a Land Commission without making big changes in the structure of Whitehall."
I feel sure that there will be grave apprehension among Ministers and among civil servants now that this Land Commission, with its earthquake-promoting propensities, is on the Statute Book. He continued:
"It will not be possible to have it all under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as it was before. That is the basic reason why there are two Ministries."
Then he concluded with the remarkable sentence:
"It is because we have foresight."
There were also proposals for leasehold enfranchisement. The Prime Minister said it was so important to have this Department in order that they should prepare these proposals. Well, the preparation of the proposals has now been passed to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. So when we look back upon it we ask ourselves: what, during its two and half years of office, has this Ministry done? It has set up the Land Commission and passed the Land Commission Bill. It has reorganised the Forestry Commission, and returned it to the Department from which it took it. It has appointed a new National Parks Commission. Having said what I have, I think we should all join heartily in the Prayer for its abolition.
I should like to end on a cordial note, by quoting a few memorable lines from our great national poet, which seemed to be strictly applicable to the demise of this Ministry.
"Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
1484
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yes, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind."
3.41 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not wish to spoil the atmosphere which has been created by one of the jolliest epitaphs for a Government Department I have ever heard from the Opposition Benches. I must congratulate the noble Lord on the vivid panorama of Whitehall gossip with which he regaled us, which only from time to time coincided with what I have been able to observe of its true history. But whether it coincided or not, it was inimitable, and I thank him for it. I am glad to say that several substantial traces of this Ministry are being left behind in different places, in particular the Minister himself who will be fully reintegrated after his translation, wearing another hat.
I am sorry I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, how much the salary is going to be; it has not yet been decided. I commend his diligence in inquiring. We have not 112 Ministers; we have only 110. Attention to detail is always commendable. It is a large number. This Government think that is a good idea. There is much to be said on both sides. It has not been done inadvertently or out of sheer profligacy. It has been an act of policy to have a large number of Ministers; and we think it is paying off in various ways—although this is perhaps not a matter which the House is supposed to be discussing this afternoon. With those, I hope, uncontentious remarks, I will leave this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to: The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a.

WEST INDIES BILL
3.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): 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 West Indies 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 AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It may be recalled that it fell to me last year to speak for Her Majesty's Government on four Bills conferring independence on former colonial territories. Though some of these territories were large in point of area, none had as many as a million inhabitants and one had only some 250,000. Some Members of the House, notably I recall, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, questioned the wisdom of giving independent nationhood to such small populations. The majority of us agreed, however, that it was not for us to deny self-government and independent status for a viable and definable community against the declared wishes of that community, and accordingly those Bills are now law. But there remained, I think, a question in all our minds: where was this process leading us? On how small a community of peoples can be set the full, and expensive, panoply of statehood?
During this period, while the other Bills were under discussion, the then Colonial Secretaries, my noble friend the Leader of this House in the early part of the year, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster from April onwards, together with their devoted officials, were at that very time engaged in a series of negotiations with the Governments of six small island territories in the Caribbean and facing constructively this very question. I hope your Lordships will indicate this afternoon that in this Bill a wise solution has been found. The territories are,
1486
going down the Leeward and Windward chain from North to South, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Antigua, Dominica, St. Lücia, St. Vincent and Grenada. None of them is more than 20 miles square, the population of the largest is only a little over 100,000, and their economies are heavily dependent on the outside world for markets, for aid and for tourism.
I know there are many, in both Houses and outside Parliament, who hoped that some federal pattern would be possible for these islands. A series of efforts to bring them together, first with other larger territories in the Caribbean and later in a Federation of the smaller islands, ended in failure. It became clear that, for the time being at least, no solution was to be found along the federal path. The island Governments, however, pressed for further constitutional advance and greater control over their own affairs. We naturally felt sympathy for this demand—the peoples of these islands have a long connection with Britain, long experience of democratic Government and a long-established culture of their own. Man for man, they are no less worthy of independence than others whose countries became independent long ago. The truth is that the sheer expense of completely independent sovereign statehood makes disproportionate demands on the resources of such small communities—the more so because the Caribbean is a sensitive area in international affairs, and the islands themselves are so vitally concerned with international trade and communications.
In 1965, therefore—and here I am going back to before the negotiations began—my right honourable friend the present Minister of Housing and Local Government, who was then Colonial Secretary, began to look for a quite new status that might be offered to these territories. The general problem of the "smaller territories" had by that time become a sort of ritual ordeal to which Ministers were subjected from time to time. On each occasion, after exhaustive discussion, it had eventually to be set aside when some urgent problem supervened; six months' later, in an interval between constitutional conferences, one would turn to it again. Fresh complexities would have been discovered, but we should be no nearer a solution.

1487
My right honourable friend devised a new approach to the problem. In July, 1965, he invited a small number of people who had expert knowledge of the smaller territories and the Colonies generally to a week-end conference in an Oxford College. They included private individuals as well as officials from the territories and from Government Departments. No report was published, and no recommendations were made about the future of any one territory. Not long afterwards, however, the proposals which eventually took shape in the Bill we are now considering were roughed out. The proposals are modelled on the association—at that time newly established—between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, an association which gives the islanders full control of their internal affairs and a standing option to proceed to separate independence, in a legal way, if they should so desire. These and other features of the Cook Islands arrangements were incorporated in our proposals. But, of course, the Cook Islands are some 2,000 miles from New Zealand and their international relations are uncomplicated. I am sure your Lordships will understand that to work out similar arrangements for the relationship between ourselves and these Caribbean Dependencies was not a matter of simply copying what had been done there. Nevertheless, we gratefully acknowledge the value of the New Zealand Government's pioneering work.
I want to emphasise that Her Majesty's Government do not look upon the Associated States to be set up under the Bill as temporary or transitional. Their inauguration marks the end of the colonial era for these islands and substitutes for the colonial relationship one that will genuinely satisfy the aspirations of the island communities. The option of independence which they will retain is an essential part of the new relationship. We should be sorry to see that option invoked, not because we see material advantage for ourselves in the continuance of the association, but because its disappearance would mean that all our efforts to find a satisfactory and satisfying place in the world for these island communities had failed.
I am not suggesting that this device of Associated Statehood will prove to be applicable to all our other small overseas
1488
territories. Every one of these territories is a special case and there are no stock answers to the problems they pose for us. It is, of course, important that, when the time comes, the people of each territory should choose for themselves between independence and some other post-colonial relationship with the United Kingdom. We were immensely concerned in this case to make certain that there was an informed choice. The outline proposals published in Cmnd. 2865 were discussed at constitutional conferences with delegations from each of the islands —including not only the Chief Ministers and other members of the governing Parties, but also members of all the Parties represented in each Legislature.
Altogether three conferences were held between February and May last year: the first with Antigua alone, the second with the four Windward Islands territories, and the third with St. Kitts. Separate outline Constitutions were worked out for each territory with its representatives, and our proposals were revised to take full account of their wishes. All the delegates signed the Conference Reports, which were published as Cmnds. 2963, 3021 and 3031. The Opposition Parties in two of the Windward Islands territories made certain reservations, almost entirely concerned with the internal Constitutions of their territories. The proposals as a whole have since then been approved by each of the territorial Legislatures.
My Lords, it is customary to explain each clause on Second Reading, but I have in mind the other special calls on our time this afternoon and I hope it will be for the general convenience if I do not follow the procedure of going through the Bill clause by clause on this occasion. I shall of course, be glad to answer any questions, and we shall have a Committee stage. However, I must mention certain essential features of the Bill. Clause 2 divests the United Kingdom Government of all responsibility for the government of an Associated State, with certain specified exceptions. The principal exceptions are defence and external affairs. Her Majesty's Government is the arbiter of the extent in detail of these continuing responsibilities.
The salient feature of associated status which distinguishes it from other constitutional arrangements previously made for colonial

1489
territories is that the Associated State may unilaterally terminate the association by a law made in accordance with a special procedure. Clause 10, read with Schedule 2, makes provision for this carefully designed procedure. Provision is made in Clause 9 for possible changes in units of government, including changes in which an Associated State and another British dependent territory in the area are involved, and in Clause 10 there are simplified procedures under which an Associated State may legislate for federation, or unification or association with an independent Commonwealth country in the Caribbean area. This indicates the way we should look for future development in that area.
If Parliament provides, as I hope and expect it will, the necessary statutory authority, St. Kitts and Antigua will celebrate the assumption of Associated Statehood on February 27, Dominica and St. Lucia on March 1, and Grenada on March 3. There is no significance in the different dates: it is simply to enable various social functions to be carried out and for a Minister to be at each of these celebrations. St. Vincent is also included in the Bill but, as the House will recall, there were certain difficulties which arose from the closeness of the result of their Parliamentary elections. These difficulties happily are resolved, and St. Vincent will be able to have her celebration by June 1.
I must make mention of the economics involved. We recognise that these States will still need financial assistance. They will need help with their development expenditure and some of them with their budgetary expenditure as well. At all the Conferences we gave assurances which were recorded in the respective Reports. We confirmed that the British Government would carry out in full the undertakings already given in connection with the Overseas Development and Services Act 1965. We confirmed that they would be prepared to provide budgetary aid when the need for this was established. As for the level of aid, the British Government representatives pointed out that during the last financial year British aid to the Windward Islands had been increased compared with previous allocations and represented roughly £6 each year for every man, woman and child in the islands. Although we could not promise any increase in the allocation already made,
1490
we had plans in mind which would help to ensure that the aid was spent more effectively.
These plans are now coming into operation. The British Development Division in the Caribbean was set up by the Minister of Overseas Development in February, 1966. It is now much more fully staffed. In addition to the head of the Division there are advisers in the fields of economics, agriculture, education, engineering and finance. The Division advises the British Government on the scope and content of its aid programme to the area. It also provides technical advice to the local Governments, and this will be available particularly in connection with the formulation and co-ordination of development projects.
In addition, in 1966 Britain took part, along with the United States and Canada, in sponsoring the tripartite economic survey which covered the Associated States and, in addition, Barbados and Mont-serrat. The survey was carried out by independent economists from the three sponsoring countries. It recommended the establishment of a Regional Development Agency which would provide technical services on a regional basis and also establish a development bank for the area. The Report of the mission has been under discussion, and it is very much hoped that as a result the United Nations Development Programme will undertake a study of a Regional Development Bank which would, of course, have a wider area of operation than these six small Associated States. For their part, the island Governments have agreed to form a Regional Development Committee with which the sponsoring Governments would be associated.
If there is anyone who feels that in setting these territories on their own feet we are really only trying to shift our former responsibilities, I hope that these new initiatives in the sphere of economic development on the eve of the new status will provide convincing evidence to the contrary. In fact, the constitutional change does not of itself entail a change in our wish to assist so far as we are able in the continued economic development of the territories. Their main exports will continue to benefit under the existing arrangements; we have given them the best assurance we could of

1491
continued aid; and we are ready to play our full part in the new machinery for helping them to make better use of all the assistance that is available to them. At the same time our willingness to retain responsibility for their defence and external affairs will relieve them of any unnecessary costs of representation overseas. There is, it seems to me, no question here of shuffling off responsibilities, but a readiness to help in every way within our means so that they can enjoy the full internal self-government without the intolerable trappings of sovereignty. I trust that noble Lords will agree that an enlightened and imaginative solution has been found for the future of these island communities, and will accordingly agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)
4.1 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I personally view this Second Reading as a happy event. We are marking a decisive stage in the constitutional progress of some lovely islands which have been closely linked to us in history and by bonds of affection. We are also giving effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has pointed out, to an agreed solution—a solution agreed not only between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Governments of the islands but also by all the Parties concerned in these island communities; and it is an occasion happily not marred, as seemed possible only a week or so ago, by St. Vincent being the odd island out.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the way in which he has explained the purposes of this Bill to your Lordships' House, and to say I am also grateful to him for not having taken us through it clause by clause. Of course, a great many cooks have been involved in concocting this particular and, I would agree with the noble Lord, very ingenious constitutional broth. If I may, I should like to recall from these Benches that I think it was the noble Lord's colleague, the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, presided over the first of these Constitutional Conferences, and to pay my tribute to the work which the noble Earl did in that important respect.
1492
I view this not only as a happy event but also as a very interesting one, for much the same reasons as the noble Lord: that this Bill marks the birth of a new form of relationship—that of association within the Commonwealth. That is interesting in itself; and it is also interesting in that this new principle of association (with, of course, wide differences in practice) may well be applicable to some of the other at present colonial territories.
That said, I feel I must make it clear that this is not the solution which many of us would have preferred as first choice. Most of us had high hopes that a full West Indies Federation would be created and would survive: that a Commonwealth grouping would re-awake in the Caribbean; or, failing that, that a smaller East Caribbean Federation would be created. That was not to be, at least for the time being. Yet, as I understand it, nothing in this Bill stands in the way either of a federation among the islands themselves or among some of the islands, or of one or all of the islands and some of their larger Commonwealth neighbours in the Caribbean, or a larger Federation as a whole. I hope that within the limits of the new relationship which has been established, and with tact and with due regard to the very different personalities of these island communities, we shall continue to do all we can to foster the wider approach. This is desirable, if only for economic reasons—and a glance at the Tripartite Economic Survey, to which the noble Lord referred, makes it quite clear that these islands would gain immeasurably if their economies, at least in certain fields, could be dealt with on a collective basis.
I should like very briefly to explore one or two possibilities here. On the political plain, clearly, we should do all we can to foster this wider approach; and I wonder, in that connection, whether it is really sensible to envisage, as I understand is envisaged under the present arrangements, separate Governors for each of these six islands. I wonder whether it would not be possible to have one Governor or a Commissioner, with Deputy Governors for the separate islands. I apologise for dwelling on this question of governorship, which may not be strictly relevant to the Bill itself, but I have a certain hereditary interest in

1493
this matter as a grandfather of mine, as a young cadet, had the misfortune to "dunk" one of the Governors of these islands in the surf, as a result of which there were two debates on the Ajournment in another place. But that is another story.
My Lords, on the economic plane there is, as the noble Lord remarked, perhaps even more that can be done to foster the wide approach; and I would echo what he has said—and I am very glad he said it—about the recognition by Her Majesty's Government of their continuing economic responsibility towards these islands. I was glad to hear the unequivocal words which the noble Lord used there. There are clearly very big tasks ahead here still for the Ministry of Overseas Development, for agencies like the Commonwealth Development Corporation and for institutions like the new British Development Division in the Caribbean. I was particularly glad to hear what the noble Lord had to say about the British Development Division in the Caribbean, as this particular agency, as I see it, can do a great deal to foster the wider economic approach.
In that connection, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us what has happened to the recommendations of the Tripartite Economic Survey. He will recall that it was recommended there that a Regional Development Agency should be set up, presumably wider than the Development Division, and that there should be a Regional Development Bank. That would have the important advantage, if these schemes could be dealt with regionally, that they would be eligible for assistance from the International Development Agency. I understand there was a conference in November to discuss the recommendations of the Survey, and I personally should be grateful for anything which the noble Lord may be able to say about Her Majesty's Government's conclusions following that conference, which I understood recommended that a Regional Development Committee composed of the three Powers—the United States, Canada and ourselves—should be set up to work in close relationship with the islands themselves. I should be glad to learn from the noble Lord how those recommendations are being implemented.
I do not wish to dwell on the details of the Bill—we shall have a chance of
1494
raising one or two points of relative detail at the Committee stage—nor, in view of a forthcoming event, do I wish to trespass on your Lordships' time now. I would confirm from these Benches that we support the Bill and that we wish these islands, with which we have been so closely linked in the past, all possible good fortune in the future.
4.10 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Bill, as in fact there is no alternative to it. We had all hoped that there would be some sort of Federation, but that went by the board. This is the only practicable solution to the problem. I am very glad that the Government have not agreed—although the proposal was put to them—to make independent nation States of these tiny islands. In my view we have had far too many lately. They become full members of the United Nations; they impose on themselves the obligations to have Ambassadors and High Commissioners about the world. Many of the new States with the population of a small English town, are no larger than, if as large as, the Isle of Wight. It is absurd that these countries should in addition have a vote in the United Nations which, on the surface, is equal to that of the Soviet Union, the United States or ourselves; although of course, the position is nothing like that in reality.
This is not the case in this Bill. I am very glad that the Government have arrived at this solution. I hope it will form a precedent for other countries who are in the same position. We shall watch the experiment with interest; but we must realise that the system which the Government are adopting is a very difficult one. Those of us who have memories of the1920s and 1930s in South-East Asia and the Far East will remember the old system of diarchy in India and Ceylon, and also a similar system in Malta. It is not at all easy; the opportunities for strains and difficulties are numerous. To a large extent its success depends on the good will of those who are operating the United Kingdom responsibility and of those who are operating the responsibility of the Island Government itself.
I hope that there will evolve a large number of common services between the

1495
various islands. In Clause 6 of the Bill there is a provision for common courts. It would be absurd for the whole panoply of the courts to be imposed on a little island which in this country would not have even a county court. But I think that this important proposal for a common system of courts for all six territories could be expanded. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that there is a proposal for a Regional Bank. It would, of course, cover a much wider area than these territories. That, too, is a good idea. I should like to ask the noble Lord—and perhaps he could answer now or, if not now, later—what, if any, proposals there are for a customs union, for a joint communications system and the like; and whether, under this Bill—it is not apparent on the face of it—there is any provision for that sort of common service.
I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether, if there is a desire in the islands to join with other territories not "Associate-States" in a system of this kind—say, a customs union—there is provision by which that can be carried out. On reading the Bill, that seems to have been missed out. So far as I can see, there is no provision of that kind. That would be a matter for the United Kingdom Government, because the United Kingdom Government are responsible for external affairs. This is just the sort of problem which might give rise to tension and disagreement. Local Ministers might wish to have an association with some other territory—perhaps not even a British one —in the area; and the United Kingdom Government, for one reason or another, might not want that. I could imagine that it might not be too popular in certain circumstances if they wished, for example, to combine with Cuba—not that I hope or believe that they would so wish.
I should like to know what the financial arrangements are, for how long we are expected to pay, not by way of aid, but by way of balancing their budgets; for I would guarantee that not many of them will be able to balance their budgets every year without some subvention from this country. But that is to be expected; I make no complaint about that. We must remember that all these territories were at one time rich; and that they considerably enriched this country. Many
1496
of our leading families were enriched by them; and that of Mr. Gladstone was one. Many of your Lordships' forbears, too, were enriched by these little islands. Their riches have gone; they were based to a large extent on slave labour. But other sources of investment are coming up in their place, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, among other Agencies, has been and is trying to develop tourism, the hotel industry, a better strain of cocoa and matters of that kind.
Finally, I should like to support what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said about Governors. Some years ago, when we discussed the problems of these islands in this House, I suggested, as he did, that to load on these islands a Governor with all his aides, an Executive Council and Authority, a Prime Minister, other Ministers and a Legislative Council with all the Members of Parliament, is rather too much harness for a very small horse. I suggested that perhaps in an island of this kind there could be an Honorary Lord Lieutenant, a distinguished Islander, who might undertake the task. Many of the islands are the size of a small English county. I suggest that a Lord Lieutenant could undertake that office and obviate the expense of sending out a Governor from here. I think that we ought to cut the coat according to the cloth available. There is a great deal of expense to be borne, either by the British taxpayer or the islander, or both And the unfortunate islander often has a very low standard of living. Anything that we can do in this way to limit the costs of the Government is all to the good. With those few words, I should like to support the Bill and wish the Associated States every happiness and prosperity.
4.18 p.m.
LORD HAILES: My Lords, in view of my former close association with these six West Indian Territories which I know so well, I felt I could not let the Second Reading of this Bill pass without saying a few words. I believe this Bill, in view of the failure to form even a lesser Federation in the Eastern Caribbean, is the best which can be devised. Indeed, I hope so; because the people of these islands, rich as they are in so many qualities, are extremely poor in worldly goods; and it is certainly not their fault

1497
that the Federation, which would have meant so much to them, came to an end. With the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I should like to pay tribute to the careful thought and ingenuity which has been put into this Bill, both here and in the West Indies.
My Lords, while welcoming this Bill, it would be idle to deny a nostalgic feeling of regret because this Bill does, after all, represent a further fragmentation in the West Indies. During the last few years your Lordships have passed three separate Independence Bills for the West Indies; and although this Bill proposes, as the noble Lord said, a very interesting new procedure, a modified and unique form of freer association with us, one could call it the "fourth" West Indian Bill. I do not want to spell out at length what has been so often said before—although, perhaps, it cannot be said enough—which is that no one who knows the West Indies well has any doubt for a moment that closer association between these far-flung Territories, which was once within an ace of achievement, is not the best, indeed the only, answer in the long run to West Indies problems. Not just because it would be tidy; not only—though this is very important—because everyone would like to see the West Indian people take their proper place on the world stage, which their high qualities of heart and mind entitle them to; but, above all, because of the grim economic facts of life out there, and the great advantages which a wider and more varied economy would bring to them.
My Lords, I am quite sure that in the long run, or perhaps even in the shorter run, closer association will come. The former Federation may have been the wrong blueprint, and there may be an even wider association in the Caribbean, but there will be a closer association; and not the least agreeable part of this Bill is that it leaves the way open for such association to come in the future, and lays down, I think I am right in saying, a simple machinery by which this could be achieved. Therefore, while wishing all my old friends in these Territories Godspeed when the Bill becomes an Act, I ask them, as indeed I ask all West Indians, not to begin looking more and more inwards within their own Territories—which is, I am afraid, rather a
1498
well-known old West Indian custom—but to keep their eyes always fixed towards wider horizons.
Although the constitutional changes which have come have not been what we expected, we should count our blessings. It has often been said that the ending of the West Indies Federation was a tragedy. It was certainly a heart-break. Things happened that were hardly known about in this country, but which were very terrible for those who were closely involved—such things as the break-up of the splended West Indian Regiment with men drawn from all the Territories of the West Indies serving happily together; likewise the Federation Civil Service working in unison for their new nation to be. But, as we know, it is what happens at the political level that counts. Books might be written about all that, but this is not the occasion to dwell.
Perhaps the simplest answer to the complex story of the Federation is that, added to vast distances of sea, there was not the will, and perhaps not always the good will, at that time to carry through such a very courageous plan. Knowing, as I did, all the stresses and strains—and the personalities—I often used to wonder, even before the blow of Jamaica's departure, whether the Federation could possibly last, even if it had survived until Independence. The more I have thought of this since, the less sure I am that it could have. It gives us cause for thought when we consider that since 1962 there has been no chance of forming either a smaller Federation or any combination of territories at all.
If the dissolution of the Federation before Independence was a heartbreak, dissolution of the Federation after Independence would have been a tragedy, and not least for the very Territories we are talking about; because it would have meant they would have been cast adrift, and, I presume irrevocably, without any hope of our giving them the economic aid and comfort which we can give them through this Bill. Therefore, counting our blessings once again, we can say that, in spite of the waste and heartbreak, nothing in the West Indies scene is irrevocably lost. Nor are there any obstacles to closer association once the West Indians themselves wish it.

1499
I have often felt that it would be only when the West Indians, who are a very independent-minded people, gained control of their own affairs that things would begin to move again towards closer union. I am glad to say one can see that happening in small ways, such as the provision of common services, attempts to get areas of free trade, and so on.
The role of this country in the West Indies from now on will be to give all the practical aid we possibly can, and, apart from the economic aid which we must continue to give them, to offer help and understanding whenever it is called for. In this way, I am sure that when closer association comes we can play our part in the creation of a strong, democratic, non-racial force within the Commonwealth whose influence could be vital, in a part of the world where there has not always been great stability.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, does the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, wish to speak now?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, there is not time.
LORD SHEPHERD: So the noble Viscount wishes to speak later. My Lords, in those circumstances I think this would be a proper moment to adjourn. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
6.8 p.m.
House resumed.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I assure your Lordships that my speech will not be so long as Mr. Kosygin's. I will try to confine my remarks to about five minutes. My reason for saying a few words on this Bill is that I have a long experience of the West Indies. I used to have a property there, a farm in Jamaica, and I know the people very well. I am inclined to take a quotation from Shakespeare when I look at this Bill:
"So call a rose by any other name …"
1500
On the whole, I support the Bill. It takes away the name of "colony" from these Territories, but leaves them with the majority of advantages of being a colony. There is no harm in that. Where the Bill is important is that it lays down a completely new constitutional principle. These Territories, which are to have this new form of association with this country, can break that association if they wish. Personally, I think that they would be unwise to do so. But they can federate among themselves, or with some other territory outside the British Commonwealth. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who suggested that they could federate with Cuba—but I think that that is a rather far-fetched idea.
We are all sorry. I think, and I am particularly sorry, that the greater West Indian Federation fell through, but this is not surprising. The distances are so vast. Some of these islands are a thousand miles from each other. But when the means of transport and communication improve, as they will eventually, I hope that the whole of the former British West Indies, and perhaps some islands outside, will come together in a federation.
The only thing that frightens me is that I cannot see these island Territories ever being economically viable on their own. There is also one danger that I should like to point out to your Lordships. I found that I became extraordinarily lazy in the West Indian climate. Probably I am rather lazy, but I found that out there I became much lazier. I am worried that, when European technical assistance and management gradually leaves the islands, they will go back, their economy will suffer. I have known instances of estates out there which have been divided up into smallholdings, and when the driving force of the management of the estate has gone, the people have been inclined to sit back with their holdings and wait for a coconut to fall off a tree or pick a breadfruit or acki—wild food is so abundant in some of these areas. The land is inclined to revert quickly to the jungle.
Provided that we can have assurances that there is no danger of these islands drifting away from this country and from the help of this country, I have no great quarrel with the Bill. We have had a rather nasty incident lately—I do not

1501
want to elaborate on it—of the corruption in St. Vincent. It may happen, of course, in one or two of the other islands, but I am sure that it will eventually become a thing of the past. We have seen the democratic principle come to nought in Africa. But in the West Indies, where they have a long association with democratic principles, I feel that there is far more hope of this system of Government succeeding and of having stable Governments in all these islands.
One point I should like to make is that we owe a special responsibility to these people, and far more, I may say, than we owe to any other people in the Commonwealth. After all, we brought the people there in the days of slavery; they were uprooted from Africa, completely out of their environment and away from their tribal customs. So we owe them a duty to see that they do not fall on evil times. There are many other races there, of course, because of the indentured Indian and other labour that came in afterwards; the islands are really a multiracial society, and there is hardly any colour bar that I have seen. They have been able to absorb British culture and British customs far more widely than the Africans. We have only to hear in mind the game of cricket. I feel that there is hope in these areas to build something really stable. However, I repeat that I am slightly unhappy about the Bill, because I fear that territories may drift apart.
Under the Bill we have these 90 days (I am talking of the position if one of the Territories desires to terminate) before the Bill can be read in the Parliament of the territory, and there are other safeguards, such as a two-thirds majority in the Senate and the Referendum. But I wonder whether (this may seem to be a committee point) the 90 days' period might not be made longer? Could it not be perhaps six months? In these areas passions often run high. Funny things can happen and you might get people in power who might be rather difficult to dislodge. On the surface they may seem to have been democratically elected, but it may not be so in fact. As I say, funny things can happen. Therefore, I think that any extra safeguard to make sure that the mass of the people in these islands are not "taken for a ride" (that is perhaps not the right expression)
1502
should be used. I stress this point because we have had such unfortunate experiences in other parts of the Commonwealth.
I will not detain your Lordships further. I should like to wish the Bill success, and I hope that any fears that I have expressed will never come to fruition.
6.20 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in view of the opening words uttered by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, may I first say that I am sure the overwhelming majority of us did not find the speech from Mr. Kosygin to which we listened in the Royal Gallery at all long. It was a fascinating speech from a world figure, and I am sure that we all consider ourselves fortunate indeed to have had the opportunity of listening to what he had to say.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the last thing I meant was any disrepect to Mr. Kosygin. I was enthralled with his speech and, so far as I am concerned, Mr. Kosygin has the right to speak for three hours if he wishes. I was making a rather poor pun, and I certainly meant no disrespect.
LORD BESWICK: I am obliged to the noble Viscount. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Hailes, for the way in which they welcomed the Bill, and for the words of congratulation they offered to those who have been responsible for devising this new constitutional formula. I am not too clear whether the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was welcoming it or not, but in so far as, in parts of his speech at any rate, I detected a word of welcome, I should like to say, too, that I appreciate what he had to say in those parts.
It is understandable that in the speeches made by noble Lords, and indeed in my own speech in opening, a note of sadness was struck because we have not contrived to help the communities in that part of the world to get together in some form of federation. It has already been said in connection with other Bills granting independence, notably in the case of Barbados, that it would have been a source of some satisfaction, not least to

1503
those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, strove so hard to bring it about, if we could have seen all the islands in the Caribbean brought together with other territories in the area. However, that was not to be, at that time at any rate. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Hailes, said a word about the personalities involved, and undoubtedly that is one of the factors in the situation. I am inclined to agree with him that in the long run it may work out that, if we start this way and then move together again in one form of association such as economic co-operation, we may find that the peoples there will ultimately achieve a more durable federation.
I have already stated, and reference to it has been made by other noble Lords, that within the constitutional framework the least possible legal obstacles have been raised to any movement towards union between one Associated State and another, or between one or more Associated States and other Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean. It will be interesting to see how this facility, for which provision has been made in the various Constitutions to be adopted, will be used.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, thought it was probably a mistake to have appointed a Governor for each of the Associated States. It would certainly have been more economic to have had one Governor, and a Deputy Governor in each of the other States, but when we start to consider where we should site the one Governor we realise that there are obstacles. After all, we are creating Associated States, each equal with the other and each entitled to say that it wishes to have a separate Governor. This they have stated, and it is not for us to argue against the proposition which they have advanced.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about common services. This is a most important aspect of future co-operation. He himself called attention to the fact that each of the States has agreed to accept a common court. The appeal court serves not only the six territories there but also Montserrat and one other country. It is also interesting to note that at the three conferences to which I made reference, all six territories expressed the wish that appeals to the
1504
Privy Council should continue and that the Constitutions should prescribe in which cases an appeal would lie, and in which only with the leave of the Court of Appeal. So this is another binding factor. The noble Lord asked about the possibility of some form of customs union. This will be a matter entirely for the States themselves. No provision has been made, or needs to be made, within the Constitutions, but it is a matter which I have no doubt will be considered by the States themselves. Indeed it is interesting to note that there has already been a movement towards a free trade area as between Antigua Barbados and Guyana, and there is no reason why this Caribbean free trade area set-up of those three States should not be widened by the inclusion of others.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Is it entirely so? He said it was a matter entirely for the States, but in fact it is a matter of external affairs so far as each Associated State is concerned, and that, of course, comes not under the Government of the Associated State, as I understand it, but under Her Majesty's Government.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord will see, if he reads the Constitutions and agreements, and as I indicated in my opening speech, it is a matter for the United Kingdom Government to determine by certificate what matters relate to external affairs. I am advised that the question of a customs union or otherwise would be one entirely for the Governments of the different States and, as I have indicated, something along those lines has already been initiated in the one case which I gave.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, also asked about communications. I certainly agree with him that some common organisation would be a great advantage. If the noble Lord will recall some of the efforts which we made in this area when we worked together in the field of civil aviation, he will know the service rendered by B.O.A.C. The British West Indies Airways and the Leeward Islands air transport system provide inter-island air transport which, in a sense, is a common service, established as a federal form of operation, which I should have thought he would welcome. It is also

1505
a fact that there still is in operation a sea transport company, operating two ships which were donated, I believe, by the Canadian Government. These are operated by the organisation set up under the old federal system serving the islands from Jamaica through the six islands to Trinidad.
I was also asked by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about the developments following the tripartite economic survey. I am not able to give him any details of any concrete development. The Mission itself provided an outline for the economic growth strategy for the islands. It indicated the main restraints on their development and how these may be overcome, and commented upon certain individual projects in the different islands. Its main recommendation was that significant development could be achieved only if there was this full regional economic co-operation.
The machinery is being worked out, but again it is machinery which must be devised by the Governments themselves, and the more they can be seen to be initiating this themselves, the better it will be for future development. I understand that they have already set up their inter-Governmental committee. They have agreed on the formation of machinery. This provides for the kind of consultation which is an essential prerequisite, and the machinery of economic working on which they agree will be one for their decision, although in this connection I would again stress that we have in our own Overseas Development regional office the technical assistance which will be readily at the disposal of this committee when they really get down to the work indicated by the report of the Mission.
I was asked about the Regional Development Bank, and whether there had been any further progress there. I understand this project is still being considered by the United Nations Development Programme, and one hopes that, as a result of the consideration being given by that Organisation, it will be possible to make some progress; but at the moment I am not able to say more about that.
1506
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, asked if I could give undertakings about the future behaviour of the people in these Associated States. I cannot give him any undertakings. I cannot here speak about the future political wisdom of these people. I cannot even say from this Box that the people of this country will not be so ill-advised in the future as to return a Conservative Administration. I referred in my opening speech to the fact that these people, man for man, are entitled to have their future within their own hands, and although they will make mistakes I think they have to be given the opportunity to make those mistakes. We, for our part, will give them all possible assistance, political advice if they wish it, economic and technical advice when required and, in addition, we shall make available to them development aid.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked about budgetary aid. I am not able to give any figures for the future, because it will be a matter for discussion between the different governments and the United Kingdom Government. All I can say is that in each of the last two years the amount made available has been of the order of £900,000. That is the figure which may well be found, on discussion and examination, to be the sort of amount on which we might be able to agree in the future.
As all noble Lords have said, in this new prototype form of independence we have an undertaking which is new, which has the advantages of independence, and which has the political status of independence without some of the economic disadvantages. We have all expressed the hope that the future of these small islands will be bright, and it would be nice to think that, when my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development takes part in the independence celebrations there, he will be able to say that all Parties in both Houses of this Parliament wish them well for the future. With that I trust we can now agree to the Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORLD POPULATION PROBLEMS
6.35 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what part they propose to take in furthering the campaign to counteract the dangers of the threatening over-population of the World. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. This specific subject was last debated in your Lordships' House on a Motion by my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who was then the Chairman of the United Kingdom branch of the International Family Planning Campaign, in July, 1964, since which date the population of the world has increased by 170 million—at least, that is the estimate. I am Chairman of the Scottish branch of this Family Planning Association and we have an extremely active committee. Indeed, my committee is more active than the one in England at the moment, for reasons I will explain. This committee have urged me to put down a Motion for some time, and during last summer my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton agreed with me that the time had come for another debate, and that is how the Motion, which has stood in my name for so long, appeared on the Order Paper at the beginning of the Session.
Meanwhile, Mr. Edwin Brooks has tabled a Bill, the National Health Service (Family Planning) Bill, which is to be debated on Second Reading in the House of Commons on February 17. This move takes care of the immediate family planning issue in this country; and many of us hope that this Bill will soon reach this House, when it will be time to debate the specific issue of this country. It is not my intention, therefore, to make further reference to his Bill, other than obliquely, or indeed to the United Kingdom situation, directly in this debate, because it would be improper for us to do so while the Bill is on the Table in the other place. However, we shall contribute by this debate a background for any later discussion on this country's needs in this respect. The strength of the speakers who have put their names down is gratifying, especially as it has simplified my task, and it is only for me to set the ball rolling, as it were, which I shall do as briefly as I can.
On January 27, last year, the noble Lord, Lord Todd, promoted a debate on technical assistance to developing countries; and on November 10 last your Lordships debated the Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Hunger on an Unstarred Question by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. During these debates, of course, constant reference was made to population pressures. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder—who, I am glad to see, is to speak to-night—in the F.A.O. and World Hunger debate looked forward to this present debate, as indeed I do.
My Lords, I need not go over all the population calculations which give rise to the world's present anxieties. The situation is well known to your Lordships. The salient facts are that, from the beginning of mankind till 1830, the population of the world grew to 1,000 million. A century later it had doubled. To-day it is over 3,000 million, some say 3,400 million. And in another thirty years—within the ordinary span of a number of Members in this House—the growth rate indicates that the world's population will be 6,000 million at least. Almost more significant to me is the fact that, at this moment of time, to-day, and despite the best efforts of UNESCO and such organisations, the number of illiterate adults in the world grows apace. Even basic education is failing to keep abreast of the ordinary increment of men and women.
If disaster of some sort is to be avoided, a measure of population control will have to go hand-in-hand with increased food production. In advanced countries improved standards of living and higher levels of education have already begun to have the effect of limiting procreation. Not so in the underdeveloped countries. However, in the more enlightened ones, such as India and Pakistan, strenuous efforts are being made to stem the flood. But unaided, even they will be overwhelmed. There are great experiments, with progress being made in North Africa, in Tunisia, at this moment. Great efforts are being made, but unaided they are likely to be unable to stem the flood.
What form of assistance is available to our hands? The International Planned Parenthood Federation (which I will refer to as the I.P.P.F.) and the Family Planning Associations everywhere have been

1509
studying the matter for many years. But it is not only the techniques which have to be overcome. There are traditions and taboos; there are superstitions and sincerely held beliefs, all of which are formidable obstacles to planned parenthood. An important factor has emerged fairly recently, and that is the indication following the Vatican Council of some modification of the Roman Catholic attitude towards family planning.
What followed almost immediately? The U.S.A. and Sweden subscribed large sums, with a promise of more to aid the I.P.P.F. The Victor Fund in the U.S.A. has added its large resources of money and energy. But money cannot buy trained personnel "off the peg", as it were, especially when they do not exist. This increase in financial resources, as I see it, was so sudden that the I.P.P.F. is taking some time to adapt itself to the new conditions of comparative affluence, and this perhaps is the main reason for the pause, to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, in regard to activities in England.
A conference of the I.P.P.F. is to take place in Chile in April, with delegates from all over the world. The object of this conference is to focus world attention on the world population explosion, particularly as it applies to South America. Let us hope—and there is reason to hope—that something more dynamic than any efforts hitherto made will emerge from this conference. Meanwhile, many willing minds and hands in this country are doing what they can. But, as I see it, some measure of confusion arises from the fact that so many bodies are concerned, and from so many different angles.
Is it possible that the momentum of the United Kingdom effort is being impaired by the lack of some co-ordinating authority? One has only to rattle off the initial letters of the organisations involved—I.P.P.F., N.H.S., F.P.A., W.H.O., UNESCO, F.A.O., M.O.D., UNICEF, W.P.C., O.E.C.D. and others, to realise what exists in the way of what might be called a "polychotomy". May I suggest that some instrument should be forged to coordinate the world efforts in this country? This is my first suggestion. Perhaps some specific proposal may emerge from this debate.
I think it is a justifiable digression to ask how the demographers estimate that this country is going to obtain its food if no other country is going to export. Where does the population of these islands stand? Where does British agriculture stand in this event? Is it possible that wholesale emigration is the solution? Would such a co-ordinating authority act, as I visualise, as a guide or early-warning system? What about the desperate problem of immigration? Incidentally, the President of the British Association suggested last year that 40 million might well be the long distance target figure for the population of this island. We have 54 million to-day, and a forecast of 64 million in the 'eighties; so that would be a long-range forecast. Incidentally, an article in this week's Economist, with a bearing on the working population, deserves some study. I will make only a passing reference to that angle.
So much for my first suggestion. Let me now turn to the other suggestion I have to make before I conclude. It is rewarding to study your Lordships' debates and the numerous reports, periodicals and articles on the subject. The most recent of the latter, and perhaps one of the most important for many years, is Sir Theodore Fox's valuable Bloch Lecture, published in the Lancet of December 3 last. He calls it "Noah's New Flood". From all these studies it emerges that the promotion of the various techniques of contraception are of great importance, and, indeed, research is proceeding at such a pace that existing techniques may be abandoned and others take their place with bewildering rapidity. But it is equally clear that, without improved standards of civilisation, without education, without literacy, without the will to learn—without all these, no massive impact can have hope of more than partial success.
During a good many years in India I had some peculiar opportunities of being in contact with, studying, and indeed serving, the needs of backward people. This is not an occasion to go into any details, but, rightly or wrongly, I have always attributed the rapid expansion, the quickening of India's urge for independence during the 'twenties, to the impact of the cinematograph. And why? Because, as I see it, the cinema in the

1511
backblock (if I may use an Australian phrase) brought a window on the world to Indian women. Even the illiterate—and few Indian women were otherwise in the 'twenties—could see how the rest of the world lived.
If this was the case, then what of to-day? To-day the window has been further opened to let in the words of the "talkies" in many tongues, and gradually television is spreading its beneficent tentacles. In this sense they can be most beneficent tentacles. These, and of course sound radio, are the ideal media for communication with the masses. May I ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether it would be possible to arrange that any aid to developing countries should be linked in some proportion to the promotion and visual dissemination of information aid, which would otherwise go abroad without strings? A simpler, and perhaps additional, method would be to substitute for direct aid financial assistance to existing organisations, whether religious or secular, who already have an established web, no matter how tenuous.
At this juncture I express the hope that the Government will revise their decision about increasing the fees of certain overseas students. What is done about the future is another matter, and no concern of ours in this context. But it seems to me not only clumsy, but foolish, to cut down the number of students from developing countries at this particular moment of time. To-day's students will be the leaders of the 'eighties, and the best possible ambassadors of a doctrine of modern life and of planned parenthood.
Many speakers in previous debates have made the point that the emancipation of women is more important than anything else for promoting family planning, and I am sure, from my experience, that they are right. After all, the basic cause of the anticipated rise in the birth rate is the increased expectation of life of women of childbearing age.
It only remains for me to thank noble Lords and Ladies who have put down their names to speak, and I look forward to hearing them. Thus I leave your Lordships with my two suggestions: first of all, some co-ordinating body in
1512
this country—a permanent commission, as Sir Theodore Fox calls it; second, accentuated encouragement to mass communication as part of aid, coupled with as generous provision as possible for training folk who come here from the developing countries to study. Having put forward those two suggestions, I beg leave to ask my Question.
6.51 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for initiating this debate by putting down his Unstarred Question. It is a subject some of us have been living with for a long time—in fact, all of us in these days of automation. Ten years ago when I was speaking or broadcasting on this problem of increasing population I used to say, "Every time the clock ticks there is another mouth to be fed in the world." Five years ago I had to change that to, "Every time your wrist watch ticks there is another mouth to be fed." To-day I have even given that up because every time your pulse beats there are two more mouths to be led. Since the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, rose to put this Question another 2,100 hungry people have joined the queue. The increase is now 8,000 an hour, nearly 200,000 a day, over 70 million a year.
How can you convey such figures to the public imagination? At one time I could compare the daily increase to a Wembley Cup Final crowd or, as we know it in Scotland, the Hampden Roar. But now it is double that. The space age analogy of which one might think is 20 divisions of Martians arriving on this planet every 24 hours without their rations. If that were happening homo sapiens, Thinking Man, would forget his nation or his political blocs or his individual selfishness or prejudices and, as mankind, do something about it. At the moment homo insapiens, Unthinking Man, is doing precious little.
The Food and Agriculture Organisation has told us that last year, with an increase of 70 million population, the world's food supply did not increase. I know that adverse weather conditions had something to do with it, but climate, droughts and floods are a permanent hazard which have to be taken into all our calculations, with the wisdom of Joseph and the fat and the lean kine. It

1513
is an explanation, but it is not an excuse. Of course, the food shortages were worst in the countries badly hit by the population explosion, and only the provision of massive supplies of grain from the abundance of American technologically advanced farming saved India, with its sub-subsistence farm economy, from catastrophic famine.
If it is difficult to convey the number of people involved, it is even more difficult to convey the magnitude of the problem of feeding them. Many of your Lordships may have seen, as I have, the nightmare face of hunger, and I can put faces and even names to statistics. For instance, I was in the Congo when, on top of the famine threatening 300,000 displaced tribesmen, 150,000 refugees poured over the border from Portuguese Angola. The United Nations, with voluntary help from all over the world, had to feed them. All it could provide was a glass of UNICEF milk, a handful of dried fish and a hunk of bread or a bowl of cassava—the meagre survival ration for a human being for a day. But suppose, like the population increase, the influx had gone on for a year. To maintain that survival ration for that rate of influx would have meant 4½ million more cows to provide the glass of milk; five times the annual catch of fish of all the fishermen round the 3,000 mile coast of India and an additional crop acreage as big as Ireland. Such are the dimensions of the problem. And we are obviously not multiplying the cows or the fish catches or the acreages at anything like that rate. So the number of people actually starving is increasing by millions and the number of people suffering from malnutrition is increasing by multi-millions.
I know that there are statisticians who quarrel with the figures of hunger, but it is a callous argument about definitions—nothing more. "Undernourishment", in the gobbledegook of statisticians, seems an adequate term for starvation, and "malnutrition" covers a huge area of damaging deficiencies. Even the hardest of hard-faced statisticians concedes that 300 million people are "undernourished" and suffer from calorie-deficiency, but there is evidence that at least another 1,000 million are not getting protein sufficient for well being.
Your Lordships, I know, will recognise hunger without my recapitulating
1514
the accounts of famine, of corpses in the gutter, of Belsen skeletons, or the evidence of marasmus, the calorie-deficiency of the emaciated children of the OXFAM and War on Want pictures, or of kwashiorkor, the protein-deficiency, which is known as the "sickness the first baby dies of when the next baby comes"—when the child is taken from the mother's breast—or of xeropthalmia, the vitamin-deficiency blindness or hunger toxicosis. I have seen them all in areas which used to export food and where chronic starvation now exists because the population has exceeded the most energetic efforts to increase the food. If you increase food by 2½ per cent. per year—a considerable achievement for peasant farmers—and the population increase is 3 per cent. per year, there is no longer any question of exporting food; the peasant's children are hungry and suffering from famine. I would ask your Lordships to accept my generalisation that undernourishment or malnutrition, whatever the quibbles about definitions, affects half to two-thirds of our fellow human beings. That situation is worsening, I repeat, by 200,000 extra mouths every day. It cannot go on at that rate—and I repeat "rate", because it is the rate and not the ultimate figures that is relevant.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has reminded us that the present figures will double in 30 years. It may be that the estimates of 6,000 to 7,000 million in 30 years' time will prove an underestimate. People get cynical about statistics. They say, "The population experts are always changing their estimates". Yes, but they are always changing them upwards. One of the reasons is that many countries are only now getting fairly scrupulous and reliable census figures. Before it was largely guesswork, like the post-war estimate of 400 million for mainland China when it was actually 600 million, or 8 million to 15 million query for Afghanistan because the Moslem tribes would let their camels, their cattle, their sheep or their goats be counted, but never their wives, which was rather awkward when one was taking a census, particularly when the wives were about to have a baby and would increase the census still further. The revised estimates are accounting for more people than were suspected, and accordingly the fecundity rates have to be adjusted, upwards.

1515
But there is one inescapable figure: the population will have increased by at least 1,000 million more mouths to be fed by 1980. It may be more—in fact I am prepared to risk my neck and say it may be considerably more—but it cannot be less than 1,000 million more mouths to be fed. The reason is that it is a biologically committed figure, because the parents are already growing to manhood, and even if they had only two or three children the 1,000 million would hold. What does it mean? Can we treble the food yields of the world in 13 years? That is what it means. With the present deficiencies and the future increment of population we shall have not to double but to treble the food of the world.
The population explosion is not—I repeat, "not"—a vast orgy of procreation. Parents are not conceiving more children. More parents are conceiving children. More mothers are surviving the hazards of childbirth to go on having children. More children are surviving birth and infancy and what were once the killer diseases of childhood, to marry and to multiply. People live longer; they do not die prematurely, and they have to be fed. The increase is due to the survival rate and not just to the birth rate.
We can date the nuclear explosion—the atom bomb—to the exact count-down second: 5.30 a.m., July 16, 1945. We can date the population explosion with somewhat less precision to February, 1935—ten years before—when a desperate father injected a red dye into the veins of his daughter who was dying of generalised septicæmia. She survived. The red dye was prontosil, the first of the sulpha drugs, and the German father was Domagk, who got a Nobel prize later for its discovery. It was proved at Queen Charlotte's Hospital in London within a year that it was effective in saving the lives of mothers suffering from puerperal sepsis, from childbed fever. But it also demonstrated that specific germs could be killed within the human body.
The importance of this, scientifically, was that this prepared the way for the rediscovery by Florey and Chain of Fleming's penicillin—re-discovery, because it had languished since 1928 when Fleming himself discovered it, and because its famous discoverer had not
1516
recognised its special virtue that it would inhibit germs, not just in surface sores or wounds like other antiseptics, but within the human body. There was then the beginning of a new range which could be directed against specific germs within the living body. How effective it was we all know. More lives have been saved by penicillin alone than have been lost in all the wars of all human history—all within the last twenty years. Other antibiotics followed. We had D.D.T. and the other insecticides to curtail the vectors of disease. We could, by direct intervention, instead of by the laborious methods of public health education—un-known, anyway, in the countries which we are talking about—attack the mass killers, the infections and pestilences and insect-borne diseases like malaria. We achieved, on a universal scale, death control.
Let me give one example of what it has meant. In 1946, in India, the expectation of life of a new-born girl child was 27. To-day it is 48. Your Lordships will realise what this means. The average Indian girl will live through her whole reproductive life—20 more years of possible childbearing. None of your Lordships, I imagine, will suggest that somehow we should have withheld the humanitarian benefits of medical science—I say "somehow" because I am sure you would not have succeeded even if you had tried, because knowledge exists and knowledge once given cannot be taken away. Penicillin plant, for example, was barred from export to Red China, but the Chinese built the equipment and made the penicillin and have a population problem.
But if we have death control, we must have birth control. Homo sapiens is the only creature which can control its environment and master the invisible enemies of disease. Homo sapiens is also the only creature which can separate sex from reproduction. We have to do it. Family planning does not mean not having babies; it means having wanted babies. To have a family at all used to mean having many children, because many died. To-day parents can have just those children they can bring up "in human dignity". I repeat "in human dignity", because that phrase is Pope John's, although he said in the same encyclical that birth-control was not yet

1517
necessary. How can families exist in human dignity when there are more children than they can feed, more children than they can care for, more children than they can educate? People who in poverty breed like animals, live like animals.
What we are asking the Government to do, with all the resources we can offer, is to back up the efforts of Governments in the developing countries to promote family planning. Let us be quite clear. The only thing we can do is to help the countries and the people themselves to do it. Let me say this. If in the days of the British Raj Britain had tried to introduce birth control into India, not only would that have been a fiasco; it would have looked almost like genocide. We were at that time looking as though we were trying to restrain the Indians. But their Government can do it. May I add that there is no place in the world of which I know, except those which follow a certain dogma, where family planning is not accepted. You can talk about Islam, you can talk about China and family worship, you can talk about India and Hinduism and cracking the father's skull and the burning ghat. But this does not affect in any way the practical arguments for family planning which these people need.
It is an enormously difficult task because of the already vast number of families scattered in villages. The provision of the mechanical means is easier than the spreading of the knowledge and the clinical facilities. We in the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, in the Scottish World Population Crisis Campaign, conceive as a most useful function the bringing of doctors and student nurses to this country, and sending out instructors and mobile clinics to the countries which need them; and I may say that with Sir Dugald and Lady Baird, Aberdeen is already doing this. They are sending out a mobile clinic to India. But we should like to see this work extended. I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench, please, to try to use his influence to get it extended by a declaration of Government intent and of Government support; and if this is not a tactless suggestion, following the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—we are all rather sensitive about this in Scotland—when we are increasing
1518
overseas students' fees, we should have increased places for training in our hospitals and in graduate nursing centres such as we have in the University of. Edinburgh. We have the first-of-all graduate nursing centres in Britain.
I cannot sufficiently stress the urgency and importance of such help to population control—200,000 more a day, 70 million a year, at least five cities in India of 60 million population each by 1990, within thirty years. I said that it was not the ultimate numbers which were alarming, but the rate which is outstripping all developing countries' rate of development and the world food supply. Professor Colin Clark believes that the world could support 47,000 million people. We now have a world population of an estimated 3,400 million people. I am not going to quarrel with that figure, because I suppose the world could support it if you could stack all the people up vertically like battery-fed chickens in urban hutches; but that figure is pretty near another estimate, that of 52,000 million, which Professor Harrison Brown has suggested is the limit of the world's capacity. He has suggested that that is the limit of the world's capacity, not only in terms of natural foodstuffs but, indeed, of artificial, because, as he points out, when we reach about 52,000 million we shall in fact be eating rocks; that is to say, we shall be making our food synthetically from the elements.
My Lords, let us pause and think. Whether it is the 47,000 million which Colin Clark is predicting or is saying is possible and tolerable, apparently, or whether it is 52,000 million, at the present rate that figure could be reached in 150 years, which is just as far ahead of us as the Battle of Waterloo is behind us.
7.11 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords will agree that it is high time that this Question which we are debating was asked, and I am sure that we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for raising it tonight. There is surely no doubt, particularly after what has been said by the noble Lord who has just sat down, that we are dealing with a very real and urgent threat. I could reinforce the noble Lord's arguments at some length, but all I shall do is to select a small number of quotations which serve that purpose.

1519
First, in the Food and Agricultural Review of the Decade 1955–1965, we read:
"The population explosion in the developing countries is undoubtedly the most important single factor dominating the world food and agricultural situation during the whole post-war period".
Secondly, the Secretary-General, addressing the United Nations recently, said:
"On present showing there simply is no prospect of growth in agricultural production sufficient to accommodate the rising flood of people".
Thirdly, Her Majesty's Government in Overseas Development: The Work in Hand (Cmnd. 3180), in paragraph 25, say:
"This"—
that is, the restraining of the birth rate—
"is the most urgent task in the whole field of international development".
So there is widespread recognition now from Her Majesty's Government, and many others, of the scale and urgency of the threat that we are debating.
The Question is one for Her Majesty's Government, and asks them what part they propose to play in the campaign to meet this threat. One would hope, having read the passage I have quoted from Chapter I of this Report on the work of this Department, that one would hear something about what the Government are doing to meet what they describe as, "the most urgent task in the whole field of international development". We move on from Chapter I to Chapter II, entitled "International Organisations"; to Chapter III, "The British Aid Programme"; and to Chapter IV, "Aid Management". Then come Chapters V, VI, VII and VIII, and we still have not come to what the Government propose. Then we get to Chapter IX, which deals with the training of dentists. This is also an important task, but it is not "the most urgent task in the whole field of international development".
Then we come to, "Population Control and Family Planning", on page 69. I would submit that here, my Lords, one would expect to find something pretty dynamic going on, if this is "the most urgent task in the whole field of international development", but this is what we find:
1520
"…a growing realisation of the importance of this factor…"
"…a wide range of attitudes to the problem of high population…"
"The General Assembly in 1965 deferred discussion of the population question…"
"The United Nations Children's Fund Executive Board decided, in May 1966, to defer a policy decision…"
"The British Government is deeply aware of the importance and the difficulty of the population problem and of the gravity of the consequences which would follow from neglecting it. Britain's own resources of knowledge and experience are limited. The Ministry seeks to respond to particular requests…"
"We need to improve our ability to help in the future…"
"…the Ministry is considering the possibility of establishing a Population Bureau…",
and so on. My Lords, is this the way to meet
"the most urgent task in the whole field of international development"?
I am afraid that strikes me as being a rather feeble response, and I hope very much that we shall hear from the noble Lord opposite that the Government are going to do something rather better in the very near future.
Now it is possible that there are explanations for this lack of response so far to "the most urgent task in the whole field of international development". There could be the view that family planning is not a matter for Government—and if one is thinking of having health visitors going around telling individual couples what they ought or ought not to do as parents, then I would absolutely agree with that view. But this view does not preclude Government support and Government backing on a massive scale for research, social work and education, in this country and overseas, designed to help couples in the exercise of their responsible parenthood, which is quite a different thing.
On the other hand, there might be the excuse that important religious issues are involved here, in which the Government do not want to get involved. There certainly are most important religious issues involved, because, after all, my Lords, this is a matter of life or death. But there are no standpoints or positions taken by the Churches at the present day which are a bar to the Government's taking action in this field. The Anglican Church gave positive support in quite clear terms

1521
at the last Lambeth Conference. The right reverend Prelate who is going to follow me in this debate will probably want to expand this point, but I should like at this moment to read the relevant resolution:
"The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere: that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should he the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future generations".
There is nothing there, my Lords, to stop the Government from getting on with it.
I believe (though I must admit I have not checked this recently) that the view of the Free Churches is similar to the one that I have just read out. At any rate, Christian Aid, which acts on behalf of the Anglican Church and the Free Churches in this country, is supporting family planning projects in Zambia, India, Nigeria, Brazil and, no doubt, other places, too. The attitude of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue, to which reference has been made, is perhaps at the moment not quite so clear. I asked my colleagues in that Church whether they could give me something which I could see before this debate which could be used in the meantime to indicate their attitude. I have ben given an article from the Concilium which they describe as one of their leading authorities on this subject It reads:
"The solution to the population explosion must come from a responsible attitude to the sacred privilege of passing on new life. Even though methods of family planning still leave much to be desired from the point of view of acceptability, ease of use, safety, thorough clinical testing, cheapness and security, as much use as possible must be made of existing methods which are morally acceptable, and a crash programme of research into new methods must be pursued with unremitting zeal. Obviously, the present rapid increase of population cannot go on indefinitely, and it is completely naive in the new circumstances of lessened mortality rates to expect nature unaided to redress the balance."
That is what I was given for this debate by the Roman Catholic Church. Surely, none of this need inhibit Her Majesty's Government from taking action on the
1522
grounds that there are religious barriers to that action. It did not prevent President Kennedy from leading his Government, when he was in charge of it, to give considerable support to family planning projects all over the world.
There could be a third reason for the Government's inaction in this field, the diplomatic one. How can you go to another sovereign State and say: "Look here, there are really far too many of you Indians or Pakistanis, or Javanese. Let us help you diminish your numbers." As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said, we could not possibly do that. But that is not the position. Take India, to which the noble Lord has already referred. It is the most populous country in the world which we are in a position to help—China is the only country with more people. Here is a country which has already decided for itself that it has more citizens being born than it can cope with; a country which is determined to bring the birth-rate down from 40 per thousand to 25 per thousand as soon as it possibly can. It is a country which is spending—and I am grateful to the High Commissioner for India for these figures—in its First Five-Year Plan, 1 million rupees; in its Second Five-Year Plan, 21 million rupees; in the Third Five-Year Plan (the one we are now in) 257 million rupees; and in the Five-Year Plan which is just about to begin, 950 million rupees. There is no doubt that India is a country which is doing its very utmost to help itself, and which deserves help from us. Surely there cannot be any diplomatic explanation for not offering assistance to countries of that kind.
Note here, again, that there is no religious difficulty. The Indians say they are not experiencing any difficulty—there are no barriers on religious or social grounds, or on the grounds of tribal custom, to the development of this campaign. Exactly the same applies in a Moslem State like Pakistan, for which I have a similar set of figures, but which there is no need for me to quote in support of this argument.
There is another possible excuse for this inaction: a view that this is a problem which will in time solve itself. It is the view that, as people become more prosperous and better educated, the birthrate will fall away of its own accord. This is true; it has happened, and does

1523
happen. The birth-rate begins to follow the death rate down with increasing standards of living and education. But when this happened in this country—and the details I am now giving come from World III which is published by the Overseas Development Institute, but I have not checked them for myself—and when the death rate began to fall in about 1750, it was another 130years before the birth rate followed suit, and it was another 50 years before it steadied at the lower rate. Can we really wait while the most urgent problem in the whole field of international development solves itself? Can we wait for 130 years or even13 years? I submit that we cannot.
The only other possible explanation of this relative inactivity by Her Majesty's Government is the feeling that perhaps we have only limited resources for development aid, and that we must apply them where they have most effect. All I would say in answer to that is that when President Johnson addressed the United Nations General Assembly in 1965, he made this point:
"Less than five dollars invested in population control is worth 100 dollars invested in economic growth."
If the Americans take note of their priorities in those terms, how much more important is it that we should. Quite apart from the urgency of the problem, it is the economic and efficient place in which to apply our aid.
I would conclude with a quotation from the British Development Policies 1966 by the Overseas Development Institute, an Institute which I am sure commands the respect of all quarters throughout the country and in this House for the objectivity and penetration of its research. They said:
"The rapid growth in population may well come to dominate all other problems faced by developing countries. Yet only a minute fraction of resources given in [British] aid is devoted to the search and application…of ways and means to check the population explosion…we are convinced that the low priority assigned to population control is the most serious shortcoming in the present [British] aid programme."
7.27 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, not only for introducing this
1524
debate, but for the terms in which he worded his Question, which I paraphrase:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to combat the danger of the escalating world population."
I am the fourth speaker in this debate, and I think it must be rather unusual for the fourth speaker to agree with everything that the previous three have said. I am very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Sand ford, and I, too, am going to be rather critical of the Government. But I think he should have extended his criticism of the Government to the previous Government. During their 13 years they had a fairly good economic time and fewer troubles than we have had—and they too did nothing about it.
Many people would not acknowledge that there are dangers in the over-population of the world. They are both fatalistic and optimistic about this. I myself, however, can see two immediate dangers in this over-population. One is that millions of people are condemned to the misery of living on the borders of starvation; the other danger is the widening gap, which everyone knows about, between rich and poor nations with the present level of aid, and that the present level of aid is an ultimate threat to peace and likely to lead to both civil and national wars. In fact, I believe that if the present population trend continues, so that in the year 2000 we shall have about 8,000 million people in the world, it is possible that the wars and the pestilence and famine that before 1830 reduced population might once again become the principal agents contributing to that end.
There is little reason for complacency, or even a feeling of security, among the more affluent societies. Aid from richer nations will have to become much more realistic, judged by the poor results we have had so far from the technical and economic aid given, because it has achieved very little in raising the standards of people living in poorer and developing countries. What it has done is to maintain more people to live in poverty. The increase in population has sometimes actually cancelled out benefits accruing from some project even before it has been completed.
In Egypt the Aswan Darn has been constructed to reclaim 2 million acres,

1525
but between 1952 and 1972, when the reservoir is going to be full, there will have been an increase of 13 million more human beings to feed off those same acres. A country can double its population in twenty years; Ceylon and Mexico are two examples. It seems to me, my Lords, that the time has come to have a new look and to make a new approach to the dangers inherent in an uncontrolled population explosion, both for ourselves in the more advanced societies, and for the developing countries.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said, we are not more fertile than we have been in the past, but we have concentrated on death control. We have reduced infant mortality, and one of the results is that millions of children have to grow up in a world where there is not enough food, not enough shelter, not enough education, and where there are not enough jobs for them. To-day, whether it is an affluent or a poor country, the task of government is to consider their economic policy and their population policy together. All planning becomes meaningless when these are considered separately.
I suggest that family planning should be given absolutely top priority in the world to-day, and that we should adopt a much less sentimental attitude to the idea of children coming into the world by chance and not by choice. Let us take Japan. She has cut her birth rate by half within a generation, and is one of the most prosperous countries in the world to-day. Certainly the choice before a developing country is that it can have a great many children, or it can have prosperity and a higher standard of living, but it simply cannot have both. This, to a lesser degree, goes for the more affluent societies as well, like ours, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sand ford, said, giving a quotation from Lyndon Johnson, a small sum spent on birth control is worth a hundred times more than the same sum spent on increasing economic growth.
It was Keynes who said—I am afraid that this debate is absolutely full of quotations:
"A country is overpopulated if its standards are lower than they would be if it had fewer people."
The Government and the Ministry of Overseas Development are aware of all
1526
this, and the complaints and requests for more aid underline the disappointing results of their contributions to poorer countries. The Government have begun to stir. In 1964 the Ministry of Overseas Development said that it would provide help for population control in the official aid programmes, and announced that training and expert advice for family planning would be made available in the technical assistance programmes to those countries requesting it They have recently encouraged the provision of expert assistance by the United Nations. The Ministry of Overseas Development have set up a Working Party which includes representatives of the Family Planning Association and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and other specialists in the population field. But these moves seem to me almost of a token nature; good intentions and declarations. So far, practically all the work which has been done and the results which have been achieved, which are truly remarkable, are due to the endeavours of those two non-Governmental bodies, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Family Planning Association of which it is a member.
What has been achieved by a small handful of voluntary workers in the Family Planning Association during the last thirty years is little short of a miracle. I think that the Government should first build on the experience of these two organisations. I think, too, that the Government might give them some kind of direct financial help. The Government are not in a strong position to set an example to other Governments, and to advise them on family planning and encourage them in family planning, if they cannot show that they are encouraging family planning in this country. The Government praised the ECOSOC Resolution which authorised the Secretary-General to provide advisory services and training on action programmes in the field of population at the request of Governments—then it goes on to say that its own resources of knowledge and experience are limited. But they need not he limited. The opportunity is there, and it is open to the Government to draw on the groundwork and experience of the F.P.A. and the I.P.P.F.
The Government have expressed a desire to set up a population bureau and

1527
training centre, but the International Planned Parenthood Federation has already begun to plan for this. Here both the British and immigrant doctors could be taught all the best contraceptive methods. Few of our own medical schools provide this information and training. It seems to me that once again a non-Governmental organisation like the I.P.P.F. will beat them to it. Altogether the Government have been, and are still, much too hesitant about this terrible problem of population control. They show no great initiative in this matter.
Finally, my Lords, last year no less an eminent person than the Pope came to address the United Nations at the General Assembly. Among other things, he said:
"Your task is to ensure that there is enough bread on the tables of mankind and not to encourage an artificial birth control in order to diminish the number of guests at the banquet of life."
These are noble and compassionate words, but how do they add up with the words of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who said:
"On present showing there simply is no prospect of growth in agricultural production sufficient to accommodate the rising flood of people."?
The sad truth, my Lords, is that to-day millions of children are born, not to be "guests at the banquet of life", but to scrape the begging bowl.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lady a question? I did not want to interrupt her admirable speech, but I want a little information. What I want to know and what I am sure that she can tell me is this. Is it not the case that methods of family planning or birth control have advanced very rapidly in the last two to three years? I agree with the noble Lady, and I am not trying to make a political point, but she said that the last Government had done remarkably little. Has not this Government had more opportunity to do more even than the last Government, because of the advanced methods of birth control? I should like to know whether that is true.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I do not think that that is relevant to the problem. There are many methods
1528
of birth control. Some are very controversial, as the noble Viscount knows. Birth control has been in existence in some form or another since the beginning of Man, but certainly in the last thirty or even forty years there have been satisfactory methods. They have not been absolutely foolproof, but they have been very satisfactory. Again, I cannot let off the Tory Government for doing as little as, if not less than, the Labour Government have done to-day.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lady whether it is not the case that the modern methods are more easily applied from the financial point of view?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am afraid I do not think that even that is true.
7.40 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, first of all, I should like to add my voice to the chorus of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for having put down this Question in order that this burning issue may again be debated in this House. I should like to draw attention to the growing consensus of Christian concern to which the noble Lord, Lord Sand ford, has already referred. In a similar debate in this Chamber in July, 1964, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London referred to the Lambeth Conference Resolution, which the noble Lord, Lord Sand ford, has repeated and which I need do no more than mention. I think that it is significant that, since that 1964 debate, the second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church has been held and there are words in the Resolution of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World which are of significance and carry great authority:
"Parents should regard as their proper mission the task of transmitting human life and educating those to whom it has been transmitted.…
"They will thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which may be foreseen. For this accounting they will reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they will consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society and of the Church herself".
I believe that those words are significant

1529
because in this period when we are awaiting with anxiety further definition of the attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church, it is important to remember the principles stated in that decree of the Vatican Council, which could have a profound effect in interpreting the most authoritative decision of the Church.
The point I want to stress is that both in the Lambeth Resolution and in the Vatican Council decree the essential conception is that of responsible parenthood. In a sense, what we are debating to-day is the meaning of that word "responsible", for among other things it subsumes an awareness of what governmental and inter-governmental action would be needed to achieve a solution. This means an awareness of the different dimensions of the problem in the fully developed and still developing parts of the world. For this is not only an Afro-Asian problem. It has a Western and, therefore, a British aspect, and unless we in this country can learn to take it seriously on our own doorstep, we are likely to be irresponsible in our attitude towards the rest of the world.
Sir Joseph Hutchinson, in his presidential address to the British Association, concluded, after a careful survey of British agricultural and economic resources:
"For, make no mistake, this country already carries a population as great as the environment can support without degeneration, and it will call for all the knowledge and skill we can command to prevent irreparable damage before we achieve a stable population, even if we set about stabilisation without delay."
And he drew attention to the important conception of Allan's critical population density—that point at which the whole surroundings of man begin to deteriorate irreparably. In this country perhaps the more serious aspect to which we ought to attend is that the highest reproduction is among the least stable and responsible element of the population. A medical social worker in Bristol has told me that, of 600 cases in the last 12 months of application for I.U.C.D. advice, the greater part came from "problem families", yet she knew perfectly well that they were precisely those most unlikely to seek advice and therefore the section most neding it. So we find a situation where an ever-increasing proportion of the skill and care which the
1530
community has at its disposal has to be devoted to that part of the population which least profits. We face a bottomless abyss of need, detracting from the resources available.
This touches upon the concerns of a Bill which is being promoted in another place and which, when it comes to your Lordships' House, may add other aspects to the English scene, not least the questions raised by members of the Christian Church about the application of National Health Service facilities to making contraceptive advice and appliances available to the unmarried. This is the type of question which would call for a careful factual survey, because the statistics are not available which would allow us yet to draw certain deductions. I think that we need to look most clearly at the facts, lest we should be in danger, in a mistaken compassion, of proposing remedies which would betray to still greater suffering those whom we intended to help. But all this is part of the awareness that is implied in speaking about responsible parenthood.
When we turn to the underdeveloped countries, the problem is enormously magnified. Obviously, as other speakers have made clear to your Lordships, there is every need for assistance in educational and economic advance. This is a part solution, but it is in itself a losing battle. I, too, was struck by the example of the Aswan Dam, which so dramatises this tragic loss. It is also clear that everything that needs to be done must be done to offer to Governments which would accept it the technological and technical skills needed and which the West has so much more abundantly at its disposal. Again, these measures are inadequate unless millions of ordinary men and women can begin to conceive of new ranges of responsible parenthood.
It seems that one of the most urgent questions we can ask is: What could be the content of that responsibility? If another quotation can be borne, I would cite this passage from Sir George Staple-don, the author of Human Ecology, a great pioneer of agricultural discoveries:
"A change in point of view is comparable with a mutation; it happens suddenly with consequences of profound significance. It is like the bursting of a dam, but instead of water it is knowledge and facilities that suddenly take shape, and flood the world with possibilities for good or evil."

1531
It seems to me that the essential ingredient in this debate would be to ask ourselves what could be the content of a change in point of view which could have this effect of a mutation in man's evolutionary development. For man has become man over endless millenia, and as part of his development an adventurous adaptability has enabled him to master his environment, but hitherto thought of primarily in terms of quantitativeconquest—quantitative conquest of space and resources. Now we must face the fact that continued human progress itself involves a greater degree, not so much of quantitative, but of qualitative conquest. This, it seems to me, gives meaning to responsible parenthood, for such a change of point of view is to go against deeply inherited assumptions.
First of all, it means a much more vivid recognition of limits; a recognition of the limits of the earth's resources and of the earth's area, and all that is involved in that concept; a recognition, too, of the critical population density, which is practically at the point of being global, if it is not already so. There then sets in a deterioration which cannot easily be arrested. There is a limit to the use of the earth's resources and the earth's space, and not least if there is to remain any reverence, any basis of husbandry, as distinct from exploitation.
Secondly, this change in point of view involves a far more conscious recognition that there is a pursuit of both equality and excellence open to us. Hitherto, mankind has had to struggle to achieve any degree of security or satisfied hunger. Now all mankind knows that these things are potentially within reach and must be shared. All mankind knows that we have the resources to control both hunger and poverty, and that these need not last forever. The paddy-fields and the jungles rustle with the rumor that these things can end. This new vision of the fact that both equality and excellence lie within our grasp if we accept responsibility is something which millions of ordinary men and women need to be encouraged to understand.
Thirdly, and above all, it means a qualitative understanding that human life is, above all, personal life; that to be fully human is to live in personal relationships, and that these involve qualities
1532
of personal contact, qualities of decision about family life and its priorities—priorities of mother-child relationship, which alone lay the foundations of outward looking and secure maturity. These are elements of quality in personal living which must become part of the widespread change in point of view.
My Lords, I am really suggesting that the relevance of all this to the Question that has been laid before us is that it is surely the purpose of governmental and inter-governmental action precisely to provide the channels along which such ideas may flow; that all that is proposed in the way of administrative action will sterile unless it can be the means by which countless millions of ordinary men and women get this mutative change of point of view which will enable them to be responsible parents. If there are too many humans, they will become subhuman. That, my Lords, is the state of the question: it is as simple, as urgent, as that.
7.55 p.m.
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for bringing up this subject at this time, because what has been said so far has been well worth while said, and I am sure that we all agree with practically every speaker. I think the object of this debate is to urge the Government forward. There is criticism of lack of action in the past by all Governments. But now the problem is clear before us. We must urge the Government forward to use every weapon at their disposal to endeavour to combat this terrifying prospect.
Before I address the House with the remarks that I wish to make, I should like to express the keen sense of loss of everyone connected with the family planning movement in the passing of your Lordships' friend and Member of this House, the late Lord Brain, who played such an active and splendid part in this work. And I wish to mention the other great loss which the movement has suffered in the last twelve months, that of Margaret Pyke, who was an inspiration in all work of family planning and international planned parenthood for so many years. We owe them both an enormous debt of gratitude.

1533
I wish very much to welcome Mr. Brook's Bill which is being introduced into the House of Commons, and I trust that it will have an easy passage, both there and in your Lordships' House. There is an important point which the right reverend Prelate raised, of the communication of knowledge to the unmarried. On that I would say only one thing. In my opinion, the real sin is bringing an unwanted child into this world. It is interesting to note that Marie Stopes, who with Lady Denham was the start of the Family Planning Association as we know it in this country, at her first clinic in March, 1921, put up a notice appealing to the patients who came. That notice said:
"To hand on knowledge of our existence to others and to create a public opinion which will force the Ministry of Health to include a similar service in welfare centres already supported by the Government in every district."
That was in 1921. Yet, although over the last forty years practically every form of social provision has been taken over from voluntary associations by the Government, in whole or in part, this one fundamental form of social welfare provision has up to now been left entirely dependent upon voluntary help, charitable contributions and occasional ex gratia payments from some enlightened local authority. So when the International Planned Parenthood Association calls on other nations to do something and set their house in order, they can reply: "What are your Government doing at home?" As we all know, we have a Minister of Health now very much in line with us in what we are thinking on family planning, and I hope that the Government will put their whole force behind Mr. Brooks' s Bill and bring it into law as a first step towards bringing the Government actively into association in this country.
I must confess that, like other speakers, I have taken a great deal of my remarks from quotations made by other great people, and I, too, wish to mention the brilliant article of Sir Thomas Fox in the Lancet which has been repeated in the last issue of Family Planning. I trust he will not mind if he hears me taking some of his thunder. We had this debate about two-and-a-half years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has reminded
1534
us, and then it was remarked on all hands what a tremendous awakening was taking place about this whole problem which, up till then, had been comparatively unknown to great masses of the population. The squeamishness, the prudery, in the discussion of family planning and contraception was being rapidly swept away, and I think now it has been completely swept away and people discuss the problems of birth control in this country and family planning overseas with a freedom that certainly was unknown five years ago. This is a splendid thing and it needs to be built upon.
It was claimed in the debate, and was not contradicted by anybody, and I could not help thinking of it again as we listened to that great speech in the Royal Gallery this afternoon, that really the population explosion is the most dangerous threat that we have—more dangerous to mankind even than the hydrogen bomb. Nations, like individuals, are members one of another, and the economic gap to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has referred, is so great and so dangerous that its reduction is an early necessity. I believe is it calculated that 1 per cent. of the total incomes of the richer nations is now subscribed towards helping the poorer ones, but if that were doubled or trebled or even quadrupled it would be of little value unless the nations concerned did something about their populations. We had that remarkable quotation from President Johnson. Nations with growth rates—and there are many of them to-day—of 2½, 3 or even 4 per cent. must see that they are heading for absolute disaster. Probably even now they could regain the road to economic progress if they could cut their birth rates in half over the next generation. Japan has done it, with remarkable results in the increase in prosperity there. But time is running out and urgent methods are necessary.
If a nation has half its population under 15 years of age—and this is by no means the exception in many of the underdeveloped countries—then the number of people who are dependent on the wage-earner to support them becomes quite unmanageable. For example, I am told that the people of Costa Rica have to support nearly twice as many children per head of the adult population as, say,

1535
Sweden. I will quote again President Johnson's remark:
"Less than five dollars invested in birth control is worth 100 dollars invested in economic development".
Some of us have been engaged in collecting money for the international family planning work. America and Sweden and other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, have been remarkably generous, and I do not think this country need be ashamed of the fact that we have raised nearly a quarter of a million pounds over the last three or four years for work overseas. OXFAM and the Nuffield Foundation and other great organisations have joined in this work, but we could have used very much more money if we had been able to obtain it. Requests for help come in from all over the world and only a fraction of them can be attended to by voluntary aid and organisation.
So far as the Family Planning Association is concerned, I understand that for thisyear—and I applaud it—they are concentrating on collecting for the foundation of a training centre, as a memorial to Margaret Pyke. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has put it to us that trained people in this field are a primary necessity if we are going to do good work overseas. I trust that this centre will have all possible success.
But let us not delude ourselves. The principal obstacle to the spread of planned parenthood is still the Roman Catholic Church, and I do not think it is any good glossing over the matter. I have a cutting here which I should like to read to your Lordships. It is from a well authenticated and widely read business magazine in America, the U.S. News & World Report of January 30, 1967. It is headed "Rome" and is as follows:
"A Vatican weekly magazine has taken President Johnson to task for suggesting that birth conrol be used to curb the world's growing population and avert widespread hunger.
"Observers said the magazine, Osservatore Della Domenica, made one of the most outspoken Vatican criticisms of an American President in recent years.
"The magazine said the President's state-of-the-union proposal for family planning in underdeveloped countries posed 'serious problems of a moral nature'. It called the growing public support for birth control 'one of the saddest signs of the times'.
"Mr. Johnson was accused of being unaware of the moral problem. Instead of birth con-
1536
torl, the magazine urged efforts to raise food production."
Is it not lamentable at this time, with all the authoritative statements made by the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, U Thant and all the others that there should come from the ivory tower of the Vatican the statement that all will be well if food production can be increased? I can only hope that the fears expressed in this short article, that
"the article was widely interpreted as a further indication that Pope Paul VI would prefer not to modify the Catholic Church's ban against artificial contraception"
is not true. We can only pray that it is not.
Although this subject is such a serious one and is fraught with such great danger, I would suggest that while it sounds so complex it is in fact comparatively simple. Man is a fertile animal, capable of multiplying rapidly. In the past half-century he has gradually escaped from the high death rate that formerly kept his numbers in bounds and he is now, as we have heard, replenishing the earth at an unprecedented rate. Figures have been given this afternoon of 3,500 to 3,750 million in the world to-day, rising to 7,000 million at the end of the century. I would only say that if this growth rate continues, when my youngest grandson reaches my age there will be something like 14,000 million people on this earth.
The first result of this excessive breeding must be that man remains poor, and we all know that in the mass he is now getting poorer; and the last result must be, if man does not control the position, that war, pestilence and famine will come in to control it for him. But I do not consider that these things are inevitable. The flood is advancing but the remedy is available. It is to show people everywhere that if only they can refrain from multiplying too rapidly then they can live prosperously and decently in the land that the good God has given. We have the knowledge and resources that we did not have fifty years ago. Not to use this knowledge, not to use these resources, now, when we all recognise the danger before us, is for mankind deliberately to choose disaster.
8.10 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, recalled the debate which occurred

1537
in this place some years ago on this subject, but my memory goes further back than that to a debate which I had the pleasure of hearing from behind the Bar. It was in 1926, and in that year, as I think the noble Lord reminded us, birth control was a subject not discussed in polite society; and only a few months previously another place, which prides itself on being a democratic and progressive assembly, had refused to touch it.
In 1926 Lord Buck master moved a Resolution asking the Government, or the Ministry of Health, to withdraw a prohibition imposed by an earlier Minister of Health, a Roman Catholic, on maternity and child welfare centres, prohibiting them from giving contraceptive information to their mothers. That debate was ably supported by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Wrenbury, and it was opposed on behalf of the Government by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Cave, who opposed it, not, he said, on the ground that he was opposed to birth control as such, but that it was really quite unnecessary and would complicate the work of the local health authorities; that women did not really need it because they could always get such advice from a private practitioner or panel doctor—and he added, "After all, everyone at least has a panel doctor". I think that was one of the most astonishing statements ever made in this House by a Lord Chancellor, who showed absolutely abysmal ignorance of the structure of the Lloyd George Insurance Act. But that is by the way. The interesting thing about that debate was that the Motion was carried against the Government by a majority of 57 votes to 44. Some time later the prohibition was removed, and local health authorities were permitted to give such information on health grounds. I may say that for many years very few of them did; only recently have they fortunately become more active in that respect.
What is interesting about that debate is that it was carried on entirely in terms not of population problems at all. Population problems were never really mentioned, except for one speaker who suggested that a diminished birth rate might bring about the extinction, or more or less the extinction, of the British race. It was all discussed in terms of maternity and child welfare. In the years that fol-
1538
lowed it continued to be discussed in this country in those terms, and if anything troubled public opinion with regard to population problems it was the fear that a declining birth rate would bring about the extinction of the British race somewhere about the year 2,000.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, will remember a statistical formula which used to be known as the net reproductive rate, which frightened people very much until it was found to be inaccurate in some way. So much was the fear of under-population, that in 1944 it inspired the Government to appoint a Royal Commission on Population. Happily, at the time the Commission reported there had ceased to be any fear of under-population, and they reported that contraception should be made readily available as part of a national health service, and we can still hope that it will be in a little while.
That may seem rather irrelevant to the questions we are discussing; that is to say, world over-population. There is still, I think, no general fear that Great Britain itself is over-populated, certainly not in the Malthusian sense of fertility outrunning material production. But as I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has suggested, overpopulation can take other forms, because man does not live by material production alone, but also by space and leisure, and "time to stand and stare". It may be that we need a breathing space to catch up with our housing problem, to thwart urban and suburban spread, and to plan our traffic and enjoy solitude, if there are still spaces in which we can find it. I sometimes wonder whether the utter dependence of our 50 million well-fed, highly mobile Britons, on the shifting sands of complicated international exchanges in a world obsessed with economic nationalism, is a really very secure state of affairs. We might, if the great nexus of international exchange were to fail, become very overpopulated in this country, as indeed Austria was after the First World War.
But, of course, it is with areas outside Great Britain, or outside Europe, that we are concerned to-day and, as has been pointed out, the world-wide achievements of very recent years of death control unaccompanied by birth control.

1539
Here, I think the British experience is relevant in connection with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sand ford. He pointed out that in the past this country has had a differential birth rate. It began to be obvious in the last one-third, possibly the last quarter, of the nineteenth century, when we became aware that higher income levels acted restrictively on the birth rate, as indeed they did; as income levels went up, the birth rate seemed to go down, and it was at the lowest levels of income that the birth rate was highest. That was a familiar phenomenon, and the interesting thing is that it just happened; it was not a result of any policy in regard to population, or any national policy in regard to family planning; it was not a result of any propaganda at that time. It just happened. It was a natural reaction of individuals to certain external circumstances.
But how far can we hope that, given the spread of contraceptive knowledge, economic assistance given to less developed countries will have the same effect? The noble Lord, Lord Sand ford, said that if it did have any effect it was going to take a jolly long time. I think that was the point he made. But it did not take a long time in Great Britain; it happened remarkably quickly as an almost immediate response to improved conditions. I agree with the noble Lord that it is unlikely to happen as a solution to our world over-population, but I think there is more to it than the time-lag, and it is this. In Great Britain birth control and death control sprang from the same root of politically conscious indigenous self-help. We cannot, I think, readily assume that in less politically experienced countries, where death control and economic aid are conferred either from outside by international agencies or from above by benevolent dictatorships, that result will occur as a natural reaction to improved conditions. I do not think it will; and we are not going to solve our problem that way. But, of course, time is short in which to mobilise world opinion and bring it into relation with the real menace of overpopulation.
Here I should like just to trace the brief pilgrimage through time which was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol. Since the dawn of
1540
history, and even before, until quite recent times, as he pointed out, human survival has been continuously engaged in a precarious contest with the great killing agencies of disease and famine. Since the dawn of history, and even before, human ideas have reacted to this situation by a glorification, almost a deification, of fertility which has expressed itself strongly in religious attitudes, ranging from primitive, rather crude fertility worship and cults to the sanctions of modern Christian Churches in regard to contraception, sterilisation and abortion.
Now, in this latest age of human history human survival, apart from the menace of nuclear warfare, is no longer on the defensive. It has no need of its fertility cults, whatever form they may take, and ideas are on the move. But we all know that ideas move more slowly than the economic conditions which generate those ideas. The time lag is particularly noticeable when you come to religious sanctions. This is, I am sure, quite understandable. After all, the great religions of the world are concerned with eternal verities, concerning man's spiritual nature and destiny; and the various applications of those eternal truths to changing economic conditions are a little too apt to acquire some of the immutability of the truths themselves. For instance, it is, and I hope it always will be, a precept of the Christian Church not to take advantage of one's neighbour's necessity, from which in an age of simpler and more direct economic relationships the Christian Church deduced the wickedness of lending money at interest. This prohibition was embodied in the canon law which long outlasted the conditions which had brought it into being and justified it, and it had to go through some tortuous evasions during the period of readjustment. But I think that to-day no good Roman Catholic would regard it as sinful to own debenture stock which involves one lending money at interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sand ford, pointed out, it would seem that the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to birth control is undergoing some modification. I hope it is. But if it is, it has been quite recent. Those of us who, like the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, have worked in the family planning movement, know that in many cases local health

1541
authorities have been intimidated and prevented from either grant aiding or providing family planning facilities by really organised opposition on the part of local Catholic churches. I do not know whether that is still going on. I do not think it is, because some time ago I wrote to the Family Planning Association to ask whether they had had any examples of this, and they could not give me any. I hope they have not got any. because it is time it stopped.
But it is still true, as the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, pointed out, that there is a lot of solid Roman Catholic opposition which has cramped some of the international agencies, and which I think possibly affects Governments. It is not long ago that the Governor of Mauritius called for a report on the economic condition of the island which was obviously suffering from overpopulation and insufficient outlets for migration. In fact he called for two reports. One of them was made by Professor Titmuss of the London School of Economics, who based his report on the primary recommendation that family planning was essential. What was the result? The Roman Catholic bishop caused a letter to be read in the churches in Mauritius calling on congregations not to adopt the methods of family planning recommended in the report by Professor Titmuss.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has pointed out, it is but a short time ago that the Pope took the opportunity, when he made a most important speech to the United Nations, in effect to condemn the efforts to limit local populations by family planning. So it would appear that there is still a certain amount of opposition to overcome. Let us hope that our Government will have the vigour to overcome it.
So far as the Vatican is concerned, I believe that the question has now been referred to a conclave of non-medical Italian bachelors, which does not sound too hopeful. But, still, these things move. Churches move. The Church of England has moved quite effectively fairly recently. But still, it has moved. Let us hope that the Vatican will move in due course. Meanwhile, it is essential that our Government should move with great vigour.
8.27 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate, not only for the quality of its speeches, but for the extraordinary extent to which there has been almost unanimous agreement about the appalling implications of this problem of what has come to be called the population explosion. I should like to follow other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for asking this Question and giving us the opportunity to hear some remarkable, deeply felt and deeply thought out speeches. I shall not try to single out any of them; they have all been of absorbing interest to me.
Before I begin the few remarks that I should like to make on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I might perhaps just take the noble Lord, Lord Sand ford, gently to task. He was relentless in his criticism of Her Majesty's Government, but I fear that, so far as I could see, he offered no really constructive and detailed suggestions of his own, other than the suggestion of a programme of massive aid. But he did not enlighten us about where the resources for that massive aid were to come from. Indeed, I must echo the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, when I say that if really all that is needed is a programme of massive aid, I am at a loss to understand why it has not been done long before now. After all, the population explosion did not begin in October, 1964.
But I will not spoil a debate of this quality in Party polemics. I think all of us here agree that there are two major developments that are likely to affect the power structure and the peace and prosperity of the world in the last quarter of this century and beyond. One of these, of course, is the nuclear weapon, and the extent to which we can be successful in bringing it under our control. As quotations seem to be in order in this evening's debate, perhaps I might recall to the House the words of that great American statesman, Adlai Stevenson, when he said:
"It has taken a scientific revolution to produce the nuclear weapon, and will take a political revolution to control it."
As your Lordships will know, Her Majesty's Government are at present

1543
very actively engaged in the negotiations which are going on to conclude a treaty to bring this terrible weapon under control, and to create conditions in which it will be possible to go forward to more comprehensive measures of nuclear and general disarmament.
Although some of the Press reports on this subject may have been a little premature, I think that it is possible to say that, certainly so far as the great nuclear super-Powers are concerned, the United States and the Soviet Union, we are now very near to agreement. Your Lordships will have heard Mr. Kosygin, in his very significant speech in the Royal Gallery this afternoon, say something that must have brought a feeling of optimism to the heart of everyone present. He said that he believed—and he, after all, is one of the two most powerful men in the world—that we are very near to agreement on this problem, perhaps one of the greatest problems that face us to-day. I am very hopeful that when the negotiations begin in Geneva, as they will in a few days' time, we shall before very long be able to report some success.
The second major element in the development of the world's power balance, its prosperity and peace is the question of population, the extraordinary rate at which the population of the world is growing. This growth, especially in what are now fashionably called the developing countries of the world, will of course inevitably have an effect on the foreign policies of those countries. Perhaps the most significant example of this, which has been touched upon only briefly in this debate so far, is in the future of the People's Republic of China. Apart from the fact that it is relevant to this whole great problem that Communist China shows signs of developing into the world's third nuclear super-Power, their population growth is likely to have a spectacular impact on world affairs over the next fifteen or twenty years. Already the population of China is generally estimated as being somewhere around the 700 million mark. If it continues to grow at this rate, the end of this century will see it grow to something like 1,200 million people.
This sort of "population explosion" is taking place, as we have heard, not only in China, but in other countries of Asia,
1544
Africa and Latin America. If we connect this problem, as I think we must, in our minds with the other problem of the possible spread of weapons of mass destruction about the world, I think we can hardly fail to be appalled by the dangers which have been mentioned more than once to-night of a growing conflict between the rich and the poor people of the world. If we contemplate the possibility of a conflict of that sort in a world in which nuclear weapons have become as familiar and as commonplace as tanks and guns and aircraft are to-day, I think we are faced with an awful and appalling possibility indeed.
As I have said, your Lordships will be aware of the efforts that are being made to bring nuclear weapons at any rate under control; and I do not propose to say any more on that subject in this debate. But I should like to take the opportunity to say that on the other problem, the problem of population growth, Her Majesty's Government are as deeply concerned as anyone else about its implications. We do not ignore it or underestimate it. It is the most urgent task in the whole field of international development. The noble Lord, Lord Sand ford, mentioned two fronts on which this problem should be attacked. I agree with him in that analysis; although I would suggest that the two fronts are slightly more equal in their importance and their possibilities than he suggested. The two fronts are, of course, on the one hand, we must see how we can limit population growth; and, on the other hand, we must see how we can stimulate economic development, and particularly, of course, how we can increase the food production of the world. These two things are of equal importance and must be attacked together.
Let us look for a moment at the question of population control—it is an awful phrase, I am afraid, but there is no other simple way of describing it. It seems out of place to talk about living human beings and the miracle of birth in a term like "population control", but I am afraid that that is the phrase we are landed with. In the short term it is probable that some sort of control of population growth, particularly in the developing countries, is going to be essential to their economic and social progress—I think that much is obvious—otherwise the rate of growth

1545
of population will inevitably outstrip the rate of economic growth and, equally obviously, living standards will decline. In the long term the whole political stability, prosperity and economic well-being of the world is going to depend, in large measure, on the adoption of farsighted policies in the field of population control here and now.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, it is not for us or for anyone else to impose population control on other countries. Family planning programmes can be put into effect only by the Governments of countries concerned. We must understand and sympathise with the difficulties of those who, for a variety of social, religious and other reasons, have declined in their countries to adopt active family planning policies. But where such policies have been adopted, we are very ready to encourage them and help them both through our bilateral assistance programme and through the various international organisations that exist in this field. I would draw your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 208 and 209 of the recent White Paper on Overseas Development (Cmnd. 3180) which sets out what we are doing bilaterally to help to solve this problem.
The rôle of the United Nations is of great importance in this matter. It is important first of all that there should be a general awareness and understanding of the problem, and the British Government have worked long in the United Nations to try to get a consensus there in favour of the Organisation's playing an active rifle in the field of population control. In December the General Assembly of the United Nations endorsed an active United Nations work programme, including the provision of assistance for population control programmes at the request of Governments. The United Kingdom co-sponsored this Resolution and it was unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly.
Then, again, we welcome the important declaration on population growth and human dignity and welfare signed by 12 heads of States and published on December 9 by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Now that the General Assembly has unanimously authorised a comprehensive programme of action in the population field, Her
1546
Majesty's Government will co-operate in every way possible with other member States of the United Nations to develop this programme. We shall be looking for ways to improve the facilities available to get better co-ordination between all the United Nations bodies engaged in this field, including the Specialised Agencies. We have already drawn attention to the need for this in the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. We shall also want to make sure that better emphasis is given to measures directly related to family planning.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that no amount of technical aid is of much use if the people for whom it is intended are not receptive to its purpose; in other words, if they are unable to make the best possible use of it because of lack of understanding or any other cause. So, as he suggests—and the Government agree with him—education is a very important element in technical assistance.
I note that President Johnson has recently lent his support to the proposition that a proportion of aid in the family planning field should be used directly for education about the problem. This is certainly a very sound principle and, as has been suggested, this whole business of the electronics and the transistor revolution—the revolution in communications—makes it a more relevant and a more urgent problem than ever. But, of course, circumstances vary greatly from country to country, and it would be very difficult to apply any general rule of thumb about this.
Let me turn for a few moments to the other question of economic development, the other side of the coin of this population problem. Because of various reasons—droughts, floods and other natural calamities of that sort—food crises in certain parts of the world are already with us. Starvation is already with us, and it may get worse. The problem of population and food is, obviously, essentially one of the general areas in which all our efforts must be directed to increasing the general growth rate of the underdeveloped economies. But since agriculture is, of course, the key sector of most developing economies, and growing populations must be fed, with a margin for those shortages caused

1547
by crop failures and floods, much more food production is essential.
It is generally accepted, I think, that food aid from outside is not, and cannot be, the whole or the ultimate answer, although, of course, it is still needed in emergencies and in some cases to assist local development schemes. The main effort—and I think most of your Lordships will agree—must be to get the developing countries to increase their own production, their own growth rate. This is well within modern technical capabilities, but there is no universally valid, no universally applicable, formula for this, and money alone will not do it. I think it is now well recognised that food productivity is linked in a very complex relationship with the rest of the economy, and that institutional reforms, for a start, particularly land reform, and incentives to farmers in those countries arc necessary if this technical knowledge is to be effectively applied.
Apart from food aid, on which, incidentally, our own record in this country, especially considering that we are a net food importer, is good, the role of developed countries, the prosperous countries like our own, is surely to assist the governments of developing countries to create the means by which their farmers can and will have the incentive themselves to produce more and to distribute it better. In addition to our own bilateral aid, capital and technical aid, for crop improvements, land settlement, marketing, co-operatives, and research, we actively support the efforts of the international organisations, particularly the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, in this direction.
The subject of this debate is a major and desperately important world problem and there is, as in the case of most of the other great problems of the world, no simple solution to it. In the last resort, this must he a matter for individual will and individual conscience, and it will really be the decisions of individuals which will count. But, as many noble Lords have pointed out, Governments have a duty to give a lead. Every country should be aware that population pressure is a world problem, and it will ultimately affect all of us, not just those who are at present faced with a rapid
1548
rate of population growth. Every country in the world should be ready to play its part, whether it is national or bilateral or multilateral, in the many different schemes, not necessarily all vast in scale, which coming together in a cumulative whole might help to solve it.
Before I finish, I should like to refer very briefly to a point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. I think it is only very marginally, and in a very elastic way, a part of the subject which we are discussing. But as he mentioned the question of the increase in the fees of overseas students in this country, I think perhaps, without entering into a close and direct debate about this, I should mention three points which might be of interest to your Lordships' House. First of all, all overseas students on British Government or British Council grants in this country will have these higher fees paid by the British Government out of an increase in the Overseas Aid Funds. Secondly, no student who has already embarked on a course will have to pay more than £50 increase in the annual fee for that course. The third point, which I think is relevant, is that we are establishing a fund to reimburse the governments of developing countries with the £50 in respect of students whom they are financing, and who have already embarked on courses. I make those points simply to show that this is a problem which we have very much in our minds at this moment, and will indeed, of course, keep in our minds.
But this is not, and cannot be, simply a matter of organisation and administration. No programmes of aid, no educational programmes, however imaginatively conceived or however efficiently executed, can solve all these complex problems of peace and power and prosperity which will face us in the last part of this century and beyond. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has suggested, we cannot expect that the millions of people in India and China, and South-East Asia and Latin America, will be content forever to see the wealth and the resources and the happiness of the world concentrated in the hands of a few prosperous and developed countries. As the right reverend Prelate said in a memorable phrase, the paddy fields and the jungles rustle with the rumour that these things can end. Unless we, the

1549
fortunate ones, are prepared to regard their problems as ours; unless we are prepared to recognise the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, in many countries millions of children go to bed hungry every night, when they have a bed to go to; and unless we all see this as an intolerable affront to human dignity and to our own concepts of humanity and equity, then we may be sure that sooner or later these people will lose their patience and will take affairs into their own hands.
The problems of population control which we have debated this afternoon are an important aspect of this problem, but they are only one aspect. As I suggested earlier, we shall need to go even further than the constructive and imaginative suggestions which have been put forward in this debate to-day. We shall need to assist in nothing less than a revolution in our political thought and our political attitudes, if we are to fashion a world in which the technological and scientific revolution is used as it should be, to bring peace and happiness and dignity to the whole of the human race. In this, as in most other fields of international affairs, the actions of the British Government and the British people alone will not be enough. But I hope that I speak not only for Her Majesty's Government, as I do, but for all the people in this country as a whole, when I say that we are prepared to play our part in it to the very limit of our resources.

IMPRISONMENT OF RUDOLF HESS
8.50 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are of the opinion that Rudolf Hess should still be kept in prison and, if not, what efforts they have made to try to persuade the U.S.S.R. to agree to his immediate release. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suppose I should regard it as an occupational hazard, but whenever I rise to speak in your Lordships' House I always seem to be doomed to be on the night-shift. However, on this occasion, as on other occasions, it is due to circumstances entirely beyond my control; and although I should like to apologise for keeping your Lordships still further, I am sure your Lordships
1550
realise that it is not necessary for me to do so. The only reason why I put this Question down as an Unstarred Question was in order to be able to tell your Lordships very briefly why I feel that Rudolf Hess should by now have been released from prison.
Of the 22 accused at the Nuremberg trial of major war criminals, 12 were sentenced to death by hanging and 10 were sentenced to terms of imprisonment varying from life to 10 years. Of these 10, only Hess still remains in prison. There are a number of reasons why I think he should have been released before now. In the first place, there were certain factors which should have been taken into consideration in mitigation of punishment at the time of the trial. One of them was that he made an effort—a genuine effort, although it was not successful—to bring the war to an end at the time of that dramatic flight he made to Scotland.
But, apart from such considerations, there is one point which I think is of extreme importance. All the other accused who were sentenced to terms of imprisonment were found guilty on either or both the third and fourth counts in the indictment, which alleged the commission of war crimes and of crimes against humanity, whereas Hess was found guilty only on the first and second counts (which, until the Nuremberg Charter, were not crimes against international law; they became crimes for the first time then) which were the planning and waging of aggressive war. As I say, Hess was acquitted on both the serious counts, the third and the fourth. There would therefore appear to me to be no just reason why he should be the only one still left to spend the rest of his life in solitary confinement, when all the others have been released.
My Lords, there are three distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who I know feel very strongly about this. None of them can be here to-night. I have been advised that, as I have their permission, I may say that they are in agreement and I may read short extracts from letters which they have sent me. The first is the noble and gallant Earl, Field Marshal Lord Alexander of Tunis; the second is the noble Lord, Lord

1551
Shaw cross, who your Lordships will remember was the chief prosecutor for the British at the Nuremberg trial of major war criminals and the third is the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who was Commandant in Berlin between 1949 and 1951. They have all given me permission to say that they feel very strongly that Hess should by now have been released.
May I read very shortly from the letter of the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Alexander of Tunis? He says:
"I entirely agree about that wretched man, poor Hess, and I am so glad that you propose to raise the matter in the Lords. I feel sure that if we alone had been responsible for his fate he would have been released a long time ago—but I fancy the Russians think otherwise about his future".
In a second letter he says:
"You may certainly say that I feel very strongly over the case of Hess. How is it that other Nazis who committed far worse crimes than Hess have now been released?"
The letter from the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, says:
"I do agree with you that Hess should be released…
"I am afraid, however, that I shall be away.
"You may, however, say, if it is any help, that you know I have publicly expressed this view some time ago".
Lastly, my Lords, the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, says:
"I strongly support your contention that Hess should be released. It would not hurt anyone, or divert the course of justice."
"When I was the Commandant in Berlin in 1949–51 I tried hard to get our Allies to move all seven prisoners out of Spandau, particularly on the grounds that it was cruel to keep only 7 men in a prison made for 300. (H.M. Inspector of Prisons agreed with me but it was turned down.)
"How much more cruel to keep one man alone in the same prison.
"I saw Hess regularly on my visits to Spandau and considered him even then a special case to be treated with mercy because of his deranged mind. Sixteen years later the case for release is even stronger".
My Lords, I do not know whether it is true, but I believe it to be the case that the U.S.S.R. is the only one of the four Powers responsible for the retention of these prisoners which has refused to release Hess, and perhaps the noble Lord will tell me in his reply whether that is so. In that event, I should like to ask what steps have so far been taken by our-
1552
selves, either alone or in conjunction with France and the United States, to persuade the U.S.S.R. to change their mind about this. And is it too much to hope that before our distinguished visitor who was here this afternoon returns to Russia Her Majesty's Government might take the opportunity to make their views on this matter quite clear, if they have not already done so? In any event, I trust that even at this late hour Her Majesty's Government will publicly dissociate themselves from the decision which has been made to keep Hess in prison. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
8.57 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAK-RIDGE: My Lords, I have felt it my duty to attend this debate this evening at this late hour in order to give my support to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in asking this Question, because I had a personal responsibility in the matters with which it is concerned. The Nuremberg Commission sat under the authority of the Allied Control Commission for Germany, and I was the Deputy Military Governor at the time. We had a responsibility for confirming the sentences, and in particular for carrying them out, and that included the arrangements for the imprisonment of the men who were imprisoned at Spandau.
If the noble Lord, Lord Strang, were here this evening he would be sitting on my right, I think, as he generally does. Twenty-one years ago he and I sat together at Nurernberg and listened to the sentences, and we studied the faces of those 22 men who were accused. We saw the brazen, truculent face of Goering, and the self-satisfied face of Von Papen who to the indignation of his colleagues got off. All those faces were interesting except one. There was one man there who never lifted his face, but who looked down at his knees or his boots and paid not the slightest attention to what the judge or anybody else was saying, whether to him or to any of the other accused. That was Rudolf Hess, sentenced to imprisonment for life.
Twenty-one years have passed and all the others have gone. They have died or have been released on completion of their

1553
sentences. He alone remains, feebleminded, useless, dangerous to nobody. He is kept there still. It is pointless; it is inhumane. I support the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, most fervently, and I particularly support his proposal that our Prime Minister should take the opportunity offered by the presence of our distinguished guest to mention this fact to him and to ask him to bring the matter to its proper conclusion.
9.0 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I entirely support the two noble Lords who have spoken on this matter. The question certainly comes vividly to my mind because I visited Spandau Prison two or three years ago. I understand that Her Majesty's Government feel that it is very necessary to keep the Four-Power Agreement that we have in Berlin; but it is not very edifying to think that it is maintained because of Hess—for that is what it really amounts to. If we press too hard, the Russians will not give way. I still think it is not what we should do; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will make some effort to bring this matter before Mr. Kosygin, so that something can be done as soon as possible.
9.1 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, when we and the Russians were fighting as allies against the Germans we were being, led by Sir Winston Churchill, some of whose words are particularly relevant to the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has brought to our attention. Your Lordships will remember that at one time Winston Churchill said:
"In peace, good will; in war, resolution; in defeat, defiance; in victory, magnanimity."
I must say that I join with all noble Lords who have spoken so far in feeling that, after twenty-one years, justice in this matter should give way to mercy.
9.2 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I shall be brief. I shall not add to the history of this case which has already been set out most adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I might just add one or two facts which have not yet been mentioned in this short debate. Three prisoners from Spandau have already been released before the end
1554
of their sentences on the grounds of age and ill-health: von Neurath in September, 1954; Raeder, in September, 1955, and Funk, in May, 1957. As to what we have done about this in the past, I may say that in 1964 and again last year Her Majesty's Government, together with the French and United States Governments, made representations to the Soviet Government for the release of Hess; but without success.
If, indeed, Hess is to remain in captivity, then there are, at any rate, compelling arguments for arranging a cheaper, kinder and more humane system of detention. As we have heard, the prison buildings at Spandau are on a scale to hold 500 prisoners. At present—and I think all these facts are relevant—the maintenance and running costs of the prison and the wages of the prison staff, paid for by the German authorities, amount to about £36,000 a year. The military guard, provided by each of the Four Powers in turn, consists of one officer and 28 soldiers to man the watch towers and to provide a guard on the main gate. Five prison warders are provided by the Americans and British, six by the Russians and four by the French. Each of the Four Powers provides a governor and a medical officer. British expenditure on Spandau gaol, in which there is one man in captivity, is almost devoted to the wages of the British warders; and in the last complete financial year it amounted to over £6,000.
The proposal that we should in some specific way reopen this case at this particular moment may be met by the fact that in the autumn of last year the Western Powers again returned to this case and made certain proposals to the Soviet authorities about the conditions of Hess's further imprisonment. The Soviet authorities agreed to discuss these proposals and Four-Power discussions are now in progress in Berlin on this part of the subject. The future of Hess, as the noble Lord pointed out, and the future of the gaol are matters for decision by the Four Powers. As the discussions at present going on in Berlin are confidential, I do not wish to prejudice their outcome by going into details of what the Western proposals were. But we hope that, although it is true that the Soviet Government have hitherto been unwilling to agree to the release of Hess, it will

1555
be possible at least to reach agreement on a less elaborate and more humane method of detention.
Your Lordships will not expect me in this short debate to go into details about Hess's mental and physical condition, but I have to say that the general state of his health is not such as to justify pressure for release on these grounds alone. He receives careful medical attention whenever necessary. But I should still like to make it absolutely clear, in answer to the question put by the noble Lord, that Her Majesty's Government are
1556
not of the opinion that Rudolf Hess should still be in prison. In our view, there are strong humanitarian and practical grounds for releasing him after more than 25 years. But this, I must again say, can be done only by agreement among the Four Powers. This is one of the cases where good will and the action of the British Government alone are not sufficient. Here we must have agreement between ourselves, the United States, France and the Soviet Union.
House adjourned at seven minutes past nine o'clock.