Sitting of 25 July 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
    Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to Order [24th July], and agreed to.

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PETITION

  London Airport
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: This Petition on the subject of aircraft noise is presented on behalf of 4,927 residents in part of Putney, chiefly in the Roehampton area.
  Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will read the Petition and will ask you Sir, if you will require the Clerk of the House to read the Prayer with which it concludes. The Petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the residents of the area comprising the Parliamentary constituency of Putney
  SHOWETH

  1. That the inhabitants of the said area suffer great hardship by reason of the flight overhead of aircraft entering and leaving London (Heathrow) Airport by day and by night.

  2. That such hardships are caused by excessive noise created by such aircraft and by the frequency of flights over the said area.

  3. That by reason of the said noise, many of the said inhabitants suffer in health; conversations are interrupted; public and private meetings, church services, court proceedings and entertainments are disrupted; teaching in schools and colleges is inter-
  294
  ferred with; sick persons in local hospitals and nursing homes, or at home, are deprived of quiet; radio and television programmes are made in audible; outdoor rest and recreation is disturbed; and sleep for all is, by day, made difficult and, by night frequently broken.

  I will now ask the Clerk of the House to read the prayer.
  The Clerk of the House read the Prayer, which was as follows:
  Wherefore, your petitioners pray that

  1. Your Honourable House may take such steps as well reduce the said noise and obviate or lessen the aforesaid hardships.

  2. Such steps may also be taken as will reduce the frequency of flights, by day, over the said area and that, at night, the number of flights be further reduced and prohibited altogether between the hours of midnight and six a.m.

  3. A continuous system of monitoring the noise audible at ground level, in the said area, be established, so that a check may be made on the noise emitted by all aircraft flying over this area when approaching or leaving the said airport, and action be taken in every case in which the noise exceeds the level to be determined.

  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING

    Birmingham
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has yet received a progress report from the Worcestershire County Council on their consideration of the suggested terms of reference and area of search regarding Birmingham's housing needs; and if he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): Yes, Sir. I hope that the study will be completed in the autumn.
    Mr. Dance: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents and myself supported the creation of the new town of Redditch on the firm understanding that there would be no further incursion into the green belt? What is to happen about this? Are we to have a vast great conurbation brought into this green belt?
    Mr. Mellish: Birmingham has very special problems of overspill and its needs must be recognised. I give an assurance that the views the hon. Gentleman has just expressed, and the views of others, will be taken into account. In any case, I have no doubt that the study will go into such matters.
    Sir G. Nabarro: May we peer into the ministerial mind? Can we be assured that when the study has been completed there will be proposals of overspill, together with attendant maps, and that there will be no secret palaver between the Socialist administration in the part of Birmingham affected and Whitehall?
    Mr. Mellish: I give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that there will be no conniving. It is for the authorities to decide for themselves if the results of the study should be published. The hon. Gentleman should know from his experience that in any case, if an area is to be designated, there has to be a public inquiry. Democracy safeguards the interests of all those concerned in this matter.

    Welfare Road Scheme, Stratford
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is aware of the difficulties confronting the London Borough of Newham in developing the Welfare Road, Stratford, E.15, Scheme due to the expenses involved; and, as the proposals outlined in Circular No. 36/37 will not prove of assistance to the council, what action he proposes to take to enable the council to progress with this Scheme and overcome the financial difficulties involved.
    Mr. Mellish: Officers of the Department and those of the council have met to discuss several of the council's schemes, and I understand that the council will be looking at the Welfare Road Scheme again: my right hon. Friend will be glad to look at revised proposals and to give any further help and advice which may be needed.
    Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he be as helpful and as generous as he can to the Newham authority and act as he and the Minister have acted over the years up to the last two or three months, during which they have not been quite so helpful?
    Mr. Mellish: The Newham authority is an excellent and progressive authority. If we can help we will. But the scheme is in the sketch layout stage. I hope there will be no delay, and both my right hon. Friend and I will do all we can to help.

    Rents, West Ham
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has considered the communication from the hon. Member for West Ham, North, together with the enclosed from Mr. D. L. Lee, showing that local rent officers in the London Borough of Newham have increased rents of slum properties scheduled for demolition, where no repairs or decorations have been carried out, internally or externally, by the owners for years past, from £2 18s. per week, inclusive, to £3 per week exclusive; and, at these rents are exorbitant for slum properties situated in slum areas, what action he proposes to take.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): It would not be right for me to discuss tthe merits of individual decisions. If a tenant or a landlord disagrees with a rent officer's decision he can object to it and have the case referred to a rent assessment committee. I understand that in some of the cases to which my hon. Friend refers the tenants have already objected and their cases will therefore be considered by a committee.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the objectives of the Act are being overcome in as much as exorbitant values are being used, sometimes unknowingly, by rent officers because properties becoming vacant in the area have exorbitant rents charged for them and these come to be regarded as area rents? Will he look at this again?
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is keeping the working of the Act under review and we have no evidence that what my hon. Friend says is correct.

    Empty Houses
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many empty houses are now available to Londoners in expanded towns; and what additional assistance he is proposing to ensure that these houses are occupied.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice he is giving to local authorities operating a town development scheme with the Greater London Council on the filling of newly built houses now standing empty.
    Mr. Mellish: At the end of June, 1,109 houses were available in 22 London expanding towns. Some had been allocated or were being held for incoming workers. Only three towns present difficulties and my right hon. Friend has arranged for the Department to have discussions with the local authorities concerned and with the Board of Trade to ensure a better balance between housing and industry. The action to be taken will depend on the local circumstances in each town.
    Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with his co-ordination with the Board of Trade over this matter? If firms are discouraged from going to expanding towns, the whole purpose of the scheme is nullified.
    Mr. Mellish: None of us can be content while houses stand empty, although I prefer that to having no houses at all available for those coming into new towns to work. One of the difficulties is that some of the firms which had decided to move and had obtained licences changed their minds altogether or deferred the move. It is a difficult matter for a new town to co-ordinate all these factors.
    Mr. Hill: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the only way to fill the 150 houses at present standing empty at Thetford and the balance of the 800 now under contract is to enable those who want to leave London for Norfolk to get the appropriate I.D.C. from the Board of Trade? Does not he agree that to delay the issue of these certificates means that the jobs cannot be provided as quickly as the houses?
    Mr. Mellish: In Thetford and Haverhill advance factories are being or are about to be built as an inducement to London firms to move. I am not aware that we are having trouble with the Board of Trade, even if there was trouble in the past.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not time to cut red-tape and remove some of the unnecessary
    298
    difficulties placed in the way of many Londoners who want to move to new towns where empty houses are available for them? Is my hon. Friend aware that I could fill up those 150 houses very quickly?
    Mr. Mellish: So could I. Anyone can say such a thing quite glibly, but if there are no jobs ready for those who move, what is Heaven's name is the point of their moving?

    Mortgage Guarantee Scheme
    Mr. Channonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now introduce the 100 per cent. mortgage guarantee scheme included in the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the date of introduction of the guarantee scheme. In any case the scheme cannot be introduced before 1st April, 1968, since the guarantee arrangements are linked with option mortgages which become available on that date.
    Mr. Channon: The Government said they were not going to introduce the scheme earlier because there was not sufficient finance. But as building societies are now lending record sums, what is to stop the right hon. Gentleman bringing in the scheme on 1st April along with the rest?
    Mr. Greenwood: We said that the beginning of the scheme depended on the economic situation and on the extra burden that it would lay on the building societies and other lending agencies. A record amount of investment is now going into building societies, and advances are also, I am happy to say, at a record level.
    Mr. Rippon: Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the date when this scheme will be brought into operation? Will be give an assurance that he will consider bringing it in at the same time as the mortgage option scheme—on 1st April, 1968?
    Mr. Greenwood: I shall keep this under review. We want to make sure that the building societies will have adequate funds available in order to extend the scheme in this way, and we must also

    299
    consult them about when it would be convenient for them to incur the heavy extra administrative burden imposed on them by the scheme.

    Local Authority Loans
    Mr. Channonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will make a statement about his policy in regard to the availability of local authority mortgages.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, following his letter to the Greater London Council, what alternative arrangements he proposes to make to enable the Greater London Council to continue their home loans scheme.
    Mr. Berryasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has for providing further finance for local authorities' home loans schemes within the Greater London area.
    Mr. Greenwood: I have nothing to add at this stage to the reply which I gave to questions by the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) and other hon. Members on 20th June, 1967.—[Vol. 748, c. 209–10.]
    Mr. Channon: Since there is so much money available for the building societies to lend, why is it necessary to impose so many restrictions on local authorities, which are having a disastrous effect on many local authorities' mortgage schemes?
    Mr. Greenwood: We have to keep some limit upon local authority expenditure. We have said that we would have no objection to local authorities coming to terms with building societies provided we were satisfied that the funds made available in that way were funds that would otherwise be used for housing purposes.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend's letter brought lending by the G.L.C. for house purchase to a complete halt? Is he aware that this has caused great hardship and disappointment to would-be home buyers in this great city? As house purchase, as a form of contractual savings, puts the least burden on the economy of all forms of house provision,
    300
    will not the right hon. Gentleman intervene to see that lendings are resumed and that the homeless are able to get themselves a house in a satisfactory way?
    Mr. Greenwood: Any form of public expenditure which competes with other forms of public expenditure tends to be inflationary in its effect. This year we are making available in the Greater London area £51 million as against £65 million last year, but as against £43 million in the last complete year of the previous Administration.
    Mr. Berry: Would not the Minister agree that the reduction of £15 million in the current year merely means that 7,500 London families will not be in their own homes during the coming year and that, even if the figure be increased by £15 million, there will still be only enough for those needed for medical reasons and gross overcrowding? Should not the Government in their third year do somethink about this urgently?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am not sure on what the hon. Gentleman bases his figures. Out of a total of £130 million made available this year for the country as a whole, as against £135 million last year, £51 million is going to London. I have to try to strike a balance between the requirements of London and the rest of this country. This is a very fair apportionment of the funds available.
    Mr. John Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Greater London Council's lending stands at a record total of £192 million and, on general building society experience, £19 million will be repaid in capital repayments and redemptions each year? Is that £19 million to be made available again for relending or does it form part of the Minister's total of £30 million?
    Mr. Greenwood: The total sum available remains the same. Obviously as more and more is lent each year the repayments also grow. The point that we have to bear in mind is that the in crease in local authority borrowing is an inflationary factor.
    Mr. Rippon: How does the Government justify conditions so harsh that a growing number of local authorities in England and Wales, quite apart from

    301
    London, are having to give up their home loan schemes altogether?
    Mr. Greenwood: At the end of December we had a meeting with the local authority associations. They expressed the view that they did not like the previous system of having categories of loans, that they would prefer a quota, and the suggestion put was that the quota should be based on average lending for the three years ending 31st March, 1965. This was accepted by the local authority associations as a reasonable proposition, although the G.L.C. admitted that it would mean some limitation on the number of advances it was able to make.

    Controlled Tenancies
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to make the order bringing all controlled rents within the ambit of the Rent Act, 1965.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has to remove controls from existing controlled tenancies.
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he will lay regulations allowing landlords to apply to a rent officer for a fair rent in such a case as that of an unfurnished five-roomed flat in the Greater London Area let to a tenant controlled since 1939 and now paying a rent of 37s. 6d. a week, exclusive of rates.
    Mr. Greenwood: I have no proposals for enlarging the field of rent regulation. I think that much more extended experience of this new system is needed before a full appreciation can be made. I intend to concentrate attention on improving the organisation, including changes to adapt it to the expected load of work, and on measures for encouraging and helping people to make good use of the Act.
    Mr. Longden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many small investors—too few numerically, I dare say, to worry the Government politically, but far too many if justice is to be considered—who are receiving an income which is insufficient to cover their outgoings, let alone to yield a reasonable
    302
    return? When will he do something about this?
    Mr. Greenwood: I think the House would agree that there can be hardships on both sides in cases of this kind. The consideration which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned is one that we have in mind in the review we are to make on older properties.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that the Conservative clamour for higher rents will be noted by tenants everywhere? Will he instead, through Press and television, advise these tens of thousands of decontrolled tenants who are paying exorbitant rents to go to the rent officer?
    Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. He will be glad to know that I am having a simple leaflet of advice made available which can be issued with rent officers' decisions.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is it not only social justice that landlords should be allowed to go before the rent officer to make their case? Is the Minister aware that there are rents in the Greater London Area for some of these rent-controlled private flats which are about a third of what is being paid for like flats?
    Mr. Greenwood: I know there are difficulties of this kind, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a proposal of this kind would lead to a radical change in the structure of housing finance. Our experience of the working of the Rent Act is not sufficient to justify jumping to the conclusion which many hon. Members would like us to accept.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many properties are moving out of control anyhow? Will he give an assurance that he will completely resist any attempt to speed this up?
    Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that it is estimated that about 10 per cent. of controlled tenancies are moving out of control every year.
    Mr. Graham Page: That 10 per cent. is a very small number. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the widening gap between controlled rents and regulated rents which are fair rents,

    303
    according to the Statute, for similar properties makes it impossible for the landlords of controlled properties to keep them in repair? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the availability of rent officers outside London to deal with these cases? Would he think about the matter seriously?
    Mr. Greenwood: Ten per cent. may be a small figure, but it is still one-tenth. The point that the hon. Gentleman made at the conclusion of his question was answered in my reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden).
    Mr. Longden: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter of the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    Furnished Houses Rent Tribunals
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will initiate a review of the work of the furnished houses rent tribunals.
    Mr. MacColl: The tribunals' work is under constant review and figures of cases handled are published in the Ministry's Handbook of Statistics.
    Mr. Barnes: Is my hon. Friend aware that once a tenant goes to a rent tribunal it is often the case that there is then a sharp deterioration in his position with the landlord which leads to eviction? Is he planning to take any action following the representations made to his last month by the Neighbourhood Service Unit?
    Mr. MacColl: The fact that it was necessary to improve relationships was a reason why in the Rent Act the period of security of tenure was doubled. There are difficulties about assimilating furnished and unfurnished tenancies in this respect.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present position is absolutely farcical and dangerous because people are led to believe that they can get fair play under the law only to find when it is interpreted for them that it is weighted and biased against them? Will he have the whole situation reviewed?
    Mr. MacColl: If there are any particular cases which worry my hon. Friend,
    304
    I would be glad to look at them, but in general I do not think that that is true of the tribunals, which are working efficiently.
    Mr. Graham Page: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that during the passage of the Rent Act, 1965, the Government gave an assurance to combine with the furnished houses rent tribunals the duties of the rent assessment committees? Have the Government made any progress with the combination of those functions?
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council was specifically referring to the long-run policy. For the short run, we have already taken steps to integrate the staffing of the two tribunals and we are continuing to watch the position.

    Merseyside Overspill (New Town)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in the light of the proposals for a Dee Estuary crossing, he will now consider the practicability of designating a new town for Merseyside overspill in northeast Wales.
    Mr. Mellish: The preliminary feasibility study by engineering consultants is being published on 28th July. The attraction of north-east Wales for population from Merseyside is clearly one of the factors the Government will take into account in considering, after consultation with regional economic planning councils and local authorities, what further studies shall be undertaken.
    Mr. Brooks: I thank my hon. Friend for his assurance that this matter will be looked at. Will he accept that this development is likely to accelerate if and when the Dee crossing is constructed and that the time is now to co-ordinate this development with further employment opportunities?
    Mr. Mellish: I will take note of what my hon. Friend says.

    Constructions and Improvements
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of the total financial investment in the nation's housing stock was

    305
    devoted to new construction and improvement, respectively, in the period 1962 to 1966; and what are the corresponding proportions planned during the period 1967 to 1971.
    Mr. Mellish: In the period 1962 to 1966 some 65 per cent. of gross investment in housing was in new dwellings, 10 per cent. was on improvements and 25 per cent. was on repairs and maintenance. Expenditure on new housing will increase substantially between 1967 and 1971, as a result of the priority which the Government are giving to housing. How this will affect the division of gross investment will depend partly on the extent to which measures which we are developing for stimulating the rehabilitation of older houses may affect expenditure on improvements and repairs in this period.
    Mr. Brooks: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us will welcome the recent stress upon the scope for rehabilitation of older properties, but that Merseyside Members will not be alone in hoping that the Government are not retreating in any way from their target of 500,000 new houses a year?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir. The problem of the rehabilitation of older properties is urgent and my right hon. Friend is undertaking a review of the sort of legislation which we shall need to encourage local authorities to do a much bigger and better job than they have been doing.

    Unfit Houses (Site Values)
    Mr. Julius Silvermanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the facts that the compensation paid by Birmingham Corporation to a firm of brewers in respect of the site value of an unfit house, 42 Phillips Street, Aston, was £208, and that whereas, in respect of the site value of a similar dwelling, 99 Victoria Road, Aston, acquired by Birmingham Corporation, only £50 has been offered to the owner-occupier, whether he will hasten his review of compensation for unfit houses.
    Mr. Mellish: I do not know all the circumstances which might affect these values, and my hon. Friend knows that compensation in particular cases is not a matter for my right hon. Friend; he is, however, considering the general problem
    306
    with others affecting the older housing stock.
    Mr. Silverman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, as the law now stands, there is in effect one law for the rich and one for the poor, and that the owner of several properties may get several times the amount of compensation which is paid to an individual owner-occupier who gets the same site value? Will he therefore expedite his Departmental inquiry; and can he say when he expects it to report?
    Mr. Mellish: I hope that early next year my right hon. Friend will be able to say what he has in mind for dealing with these problems. The whole subject of compensation is very much under review now.
    Mr. Rippon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave and widespread public dissatisfaction with the way in which the present law relating to compensation is being operated? Will he give this review a much higher priority than he evidently has in mind at the moment?
    Mr. Mellish: I accept that there is some urgency in the matter, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others will agree that we ought not to encourage a market in unfit houses. We had better get it perfectly clear that when we discuss site compensation we are talking about some houses which are so unfit that all they are worth is the site value.

    Registered Rents
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware that regulated rents have increased, in spite of the purpose of the 1965 regulations to reduce them; and what action is he taking with a view to securing rent reductions.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the large number of increases in regulated rents, averaging two and a half times controlled rents for these or similar dwellings; and if he will take action with a view to securing rent reductions.
    Mr. MacColl: Registered rents of the smaller type of accommodation with lower gross values are on average less than the previous rents, and I hope that

    307
    the tenants of such accommodation—who are my particular concern—will not be deterred from going to the Rent Officer if they think that their rents are too high. The object of the Act is to reduce rents which are inflated because of scarcity, and I think it is too soon to make a full assessment of its operation.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not too soon for me to say that the forecast made by his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council when Minister of Housing has not been fulfilled in my constituency? Is he aware that in my constituency only a minority of rents have been reduced while the majority have remained static or have risen? What does he propose to do about it?
    Mr. MacColl: Encourage tenants of properties where rents ought to be reduced to apply to the rent officer in large numbers.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my hon. Friend take note of the growing demand that the Minister should ask Sir Sydney Littlewood and his rent assessment colleagues to stop fixing rents which clearly reflect the acute shortage of accommodation, or for rents to be reduced to the controlled rents for similar types of property?
    Mr. MacColl: I was very glad that just now my hon. Friend gave the weight of his authority to encouraging tenants whose rents were too high to apply to the assessment committees. I am sure that that is the way in which to achieve the balance.
    Mr. Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that certainly in some London constituencies, including my own, what deters applications on either side is the delay in the hearing of cases by the rent assessment committees?
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is taking steps to improve the staffing and reduce the delay.
    Mr. Atkinson: The Minister has now been reviewing the Act for about 12 months. Will he now say whether he is either happy or disappointed with the level of rents being fixed by the panels? If he is disappointed, what on earth is he to do about it?
    Mr. MacColl: I would never feel happy if any of my hon. Friends had doubts about the efficacy of the Act, but by and large it has made a tremendous improvement by taking rents out of politics and giving confidence to tenants that they have security of tenure.
    Mr. Doughty: Do not the questions put by the Parliamentary Secretary's hon. Friends show that the majority of rents being charged before the Act came into force were fair, as is proved by the decisions of the tribunals? Will the hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friends that the purpose of the Act was not to reduce rents below a fair and proper level?
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council have always said and the Milner Holland Committee said that it was only a small number of unscrupulous landlords who were causing any problem. The Act has given protection to the victims of those landlords.

    Housing Schemes (Play Space)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the Parker Morris minimum standard for play space will become mandatory in the case of local authority housing schemes submitted to him for subsidy or loan sanction.
    Mr. Greenwood: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) on 18th July.—[Vol. 750, c. 209.]
    Mr. Barnes: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is a pity that one in four of the major housing authorities are apparently not providing play space on their estates with flats? Would he not agree that for families with small children play space is as important as living space?
    Mr. Greenwood: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said. The National Joint Committee of Working Women Organisations raised this with the Ministry in 1962 and we have been carrying out a survey recently under the direction of the research and development group. It is our intention to see that as many local authorities as find it

    309
    practicable to do so provide play space. We still find it difficult to decide what form the play space should take and what kind of play space is appropriate under special circumstances.

    Rent Assessment Committees
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government in how many cases rent assessment committees, when hearing cases, have received representations from Members of Parliament; and what is his policy regarding the attention to be paid by rent assessment committees to such representations.
    Mr. MacColl: I have not the information asked for in the first part of the Question. A Member of Parliament may represent, or give evidence for, a party before a rent assessment committee. I have no doubt that the committee would welcome his attendance and would treat his representations just as they would those of anyone else seeking to represent the viewpoint of one of the parties.
    Mr. King: Does the Minister not accept that it is the function of these committees to have regard not to compassionate circumstances but to valuations and, therefore, evidence which is inexpert is inappropriate, if not improper?
    Mr. MacColl: One of our major problems in the working of the Rent Act is to be quite certain that tenants and landlords who do not find it easy to put their case, get skilled assistance in putting it, and I see no reason why Members of Parliament, any more than anyone else, should not help people in need.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Rate Rebate Scheme
    Mr. Higginsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now introduce legislation to amend Section 49 of the General Rate Act, 1967, in order to bring about a definition of income for the purpose of assessment of rate rebate.
    Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. I think that that would create more problems than it solved.
    Mr. Higgins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a significant difference in the treatment of annuities when defining income? As part of the rebate is financed from the Exchequer, what steps does he propose to ensure uniformity in the definition of income in relation to annuities?
    Mr. MacColl: These matters are left to the discretion of the local authorities under the Act. I think that they should be left to discuss them and to even them out in practice in due time.

    "Torrey Canyon" (Oil Pollution Claims)
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will publish the individual applications for grants received by his Department from local authorities to help cleaning the beaches of oil from the "Torrey Canyon" disaster.
    Mr. MacColl: Many authorities have yet to submit claims, and those submitted may not be complete. I will, with permission, publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the authorities who have applied showing the expenditure in respect of which grant is claimed.
    Mr. Loveys: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some other local authorities have had great burdens to bear in clearing up oil from their beaches and that because the oil did not happen to come from the "Torrey Canyon" they get no grant? Will he, in fairness, extend the grant-aid system to all local authorities affected by oil pollution?
    Mr. MacColl: The Government are considering the future of grant aid as part of their general review of the lessons of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, but I would not hold out much hope of any action being retrospective in its effect.
    Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable discontent about the burden that has fallen on the rates in some areas affected by the "Torrey Canyon" disaster because the grant was not 100 per cent., although inland areas did not benefit?
    Mr. MacColl: I have no evidence of discontent. The figures are still coming in with claims for grant.
    Mr. Rippon: Why will not the Government consider meeting all reasonable expenditure by local authorities in dealing with this matter, which is of national concern?
    Mr. MacColl: The Government are examining the future position. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement about financial assistance following the "Torrey Canyon" disaster which was universally welcomed as being very helpful.

    CLAIMS RECEIVED FROM LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN CONNECTION WITH OIL POLLUTION—TORREY CANYON

    Local Authority

    Expenditure on which claim is based

    £

    s.

    d.

    East Sussex County Council

    526

    14

    0

    Portsmouth County Borough Council

    1,882

    1

    9

    St. Ives Borough Council

    78,318

    0

    0

    Bridport Urban District Council

    736

    9

    0

    Dawlish Urban District Council

    440

    12

    8

    Exmouth Urban District Council

    616

    0

    11

    Northam Urban District Council

    242

    6

    4

    Paignton Urban District Council

    211

    16

    4

    Salcombe Urban District Council

    1,348

    18

    5

    Honiton Rural District Council

    60

    0

    0

    New Forest Rural District Council

    452

    1

    0

    St. Thomas Rural District Council

    62

    16

    9

    Totnes Rural District Council

    25

    13

    10

    Winchester Rural District Council

    87

    7

    1

    West Penwith Rural District Council

    11,994

    0

    0

    Royal Commission on Local Government (Report)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to receive the report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.
    Mr. Greenwood: I hope to receive the Report towards the end of 1968, Sir.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Could we have an interim report? Surely action must be taken this side of the General Election to relieve the property owners from the rising costs of education. Many of these property owners are small people who cannot afford these rising costs.
    Mr. Greenwood: The rising costs of education seem remote from the question that the hon. Gentleman has on the Order Paper. It is most unusual for time limits to be put on Royal Commissions. Lord Redcliffe-Maud has been extremely helpful in saying that he hopes to report by the end of the year. Remembering the
    312
    immensity of the task, we owe a great deal of gratitude to Lord Redcliffe-Maud for the way he has co-operated in this matter.

    Planning Appeals
    Mr. Rowlandasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will review the rule relating to planning appeals, whereby consideration of one appeal cannot be deferred for some period of time to allow consideration of planning appeals for similar projects in the same locality.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Frederick Willey): There is no such rule. If two planning appeals are closely connected, my right hon. Friend considers them together; but every appeal is determined on its merits, and he would not delay one appeal in order to compare it with another unless there were strong reasons for doing so.
    Mr. Rowland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the first part of the answer contradicts a letter which I have from the Parliamentary Secretary? Would he not agree that the kind of case about which I have written to him, namely, two different planning appeals for two golf driving ranges within five weeks of each other, should be considered together rather than the outcome of the second be determined by the outcome of the first? Should we not make sure that the procedure is not the enemy of good sense in this matter?
    Mr. Willey: Obviously my hon. Friend has misconstrued the letter which he got from the Parliamentary Secretary. It does not seem that these two cases are so closely related to justify delaying the consideration of the first. However, if my hon. Friend thinks that there is further information that we should consider and will let us have it, it will be considered.

    Planning Vacancies
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many unfilled vacancies for planners there are in his Department; and what proportion of the total this represents.
    Mr. MacColl: 28 or 16 per cent. of the complement, Sir.

    313
    While it is difficult to establish how many candidates will accept positions, if all those declared successful in recent recruitment competitions do accept, most of these vacancies will be filled.
    Mr. Allason: Has the Minister made any estimate of the further increase that will be required to meet the proposals in the White Paper on planning? Where are these extra planners, both in the Ministry and outside, to come from?
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has made and is continuing to make estimates of what will be required under the new proposals, but at the moment the signs are that recruitment is improving.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the Minister aware that although there may be slight difficulty in obtaining planners in his Department, the G.L.C. has a sufficient number? Would he give an undertaking that when the Thames Mead public inquiry comes to be held there will be a reasonable space of time allowed from the last day for objections, because other authorities have net a surfeit of planners and need time to prepare their cases?
    Mr. MacColl: That does not arise out of this question.

    Hoverport
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government where the international hoverport on the South coast is to be sited, and when; and what information he has about the terminus on the other side of the Channel.
    Mr. Willey: My right hon. Friend has formally before him a planning application for a hoverport at Pegwell Bay. He is aware of a public announcement by British Rail that they intend to start a service from Dover Harbour in the summer of 1968. He decided to re-open the Pegwell Bay Inquiry in order that the relative advantages of using Dover Harbour might be considered. My right hon. Friend's information about the terminus on the other side of the Channel is given in the Inspector's report of the first part of the public inquiry. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: When will the final decision on this matter be made?
    314
    Is it not scandalous that in the country where this form of transport was invented progress should he held up because of the right hon. Gentleman's inability to reach a decision?
    Mr. Willey: I am not so aware. I am aware that the reopening of the inquiry was generally welcomed, and certainly there will be no delay in reaching a conclusion.

    Car Parking Facilities (Planning Permission)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to give further guidance to local authorities about planning permission procedure linked with car parking facilities.
    Mr. Willey: A circular is with the printer and should reach local authorities within three weeks.
    Mr. Hastings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this news will be very welcome as it is a long time since the Minister first undertook to give this guidance and there is still considerable confusion among many local authorities? Can he give some idea of the general lines of guidance which he intends to lay down?
    Mr. Willey: We are obliged for the hon. Gentleman's representations. As he will have expected, the guidance will make it clear that it is a cardinal principle that no payment or other consideration can be required as a condition of the granting of planning permission.
    Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that improper payments in the meanwhile have undoubtedly been made, and will he consider getting reimbursements made in suitable cases?
    Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to deal with individual cases unless he lets me have particulars of them. If he does so, I will certainly consider them.
    Mr. Allason: Has it not taken a very long time to tell local authorities that it is highly objectionable to demand payments in cash in return for planning permission?
    Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have had to consult

    315
    the local authority associations and we have only just received the last of the replies.

    Barnsbury Environmental Area
    Mr. Whitakerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the study of the Barnsbury environmental area will be completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Willey: The study is making good progress. The study team hopes to present its report to the Greater London Council, the London Borough of Islington and my right hon. Friend in the autumn. An earlier interim report was circulated widely to interested associations in the area, who were asked for their comments on it and on the problems to be tackled in the main study. Subsequently the team has described its work in progress to a meeting of Islington Borough Councillors and is having useful and constructive discussions with the Barnsbury Association.
    Mr. Whitaker: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him to ensure the maximum democratic participation by the local inhabitants concerning their environment?
    Mr. Willey: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are most anxious that this should be done. As he knows, in the White Paper we have emphasised the importance of participation, and this is an experiment in that participation.

    Humberside (Survey)
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what progress has been made by the planning unit on its study of Humberside.
    Mr. Willey: The Physical Planning Unit at Barton-upon-Humber has completed its survey of Humberside. The results of the survey have provided the basic physical information for the "feasibility" study which is being undertaken by the Central Planning Unit of the Department of Economic Affairs. My right hon. Friend would like to take this opportunity of thanking the local planning authorities for their co-operation in the work of the Unit.
    Mr. McNamara: While joining with my right hon. Friend in congratulating
    316
    the combination of the local authorities with the central State organisation in getting this physical planning unit review completed, could my right hon. Friend tell us when the information which has been made available to the D.E.A. will be made available to the local authorities and the general public on Humberside so that they can also take part in this debate?
    Mr. Willey: It is available to the D.E.A. now and further studies now progressing will report in due course.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that improved communications, including the Humber Bridge, are being held up until the final study is completed? When can we expect the final development study for Humberside?
    Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister aware that Humberside M.P.s welcome the efficiency of his Department? It is so efficient that it is transferring my Questions to the D.E.A. Will he use his influence with his Cabinet colleagues to be equally efficient in this matter?
    Mr. Willey: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are always seeking efficiency.

    Housing Programmes (Finance)
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has to assist local authorities in their housing programmes by providing capital loans at minimum rates of interest.
    Mr. Greenwood: The Housing Subsidies Act, which received Royal Assent in May, introduced a new system of housing subsidies which provides, in effect, a stable rate of 4 per cent. on loans raised by local authorities for house building. This applies to all houses approved since 25th November, 1965, and, in the case of certain authorities with exceptional problems of slum clearance or housing shortage, to all houses completed after that date.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while this is an improvement, it is not making much of an impact on the general problem of housing. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that high interest rates are strangling the efforts of progressive local authorities in providing

    317
    homes? What is more, it is also bedevilling their planning of buildings generally.
    Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend should really try to observe a sense of proportion about this. The number of houses started in the public sector in the first six months of this year was 23,604 more than it was in the corresponding period for last year. On a typical local authority house costing £3,800, the basic subsidy under the new Act will be £85, which should be compared with £24 before the Act was passed.

    HANDICAPPED CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to make the Secretary of State for Education and Science responsible for the education and training of all handicapped children and young people up to the age of 18 years.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 29th June to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop).—[Vol. 749, c. 129.]
    Mr. Watkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a serious lack of facilities for the education and welfare of these young people, arising in part, at least, from the present division of ministerial responsibility? Will he consider this as a matter of some urgency?
    The Prime Minister: My two right hon. Friends concerned, and all of us, recognise the very serious problem presented. They are in very close consultation on all aspects of the problem, including the question of whether there should be changes in Ministerial responsibility. I am not yet convinced that there should be, but I hope that I may be able to make a statement later in the year.
    Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that advances made in recent years point clearly to the need for making this an educational responsibility? Will he use his influence to resolve this matter at the earliest possible date?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends and I are well aware of the
    318
    recent advances in this. It is not yet felt that this means that the responsibility for all the children concerned should be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, but we are considering very deeply the division of responsibility between the two Departments.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the up-to-date position of the British application to join the Common Market.
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement setting out the progress which has been achieved with the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer hon. Members to the Answer I gave on 13th July to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich West (Mr. Hamling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).—[Vol. 750, c. 1005.]
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people who supported the application are very concerned at how long this application will remain outstanding, and while obviously the Prime Minister cannot set a time limit. would he agree that this application should not remain outstanding for months on end without real progress being made?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must not get faint-hearted in this matter. It is little more than two months since the application was put in, and while we are anxious to make the most speedy progress, a good deal has been achieved in Europe in making our position clear. Of course, we shall be very disappointed if there is a serious hold-up in the process of negotiations. At present the Commission is working on all the matters raised by the British application.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect the Six to reach a decision on our application? Will it be before the summer of 1968 and, if our application fails, has he an alternative policy ready?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that we do not control the actions of the individual members of the Six, and therefore it is impossible to give a meaningful answer to that question. With regard to alternative plans, I have dealt with them very many times, both in the debate on 8th May and since then and at successive Question Times. If the hon. and learned Gentleman missed this, I would be very glad privately to supply him with the necessary references.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the arguments used yesterday by the Chancellor against devaluation apply with equal if not greater force against Britain entering the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. They are two entirely separate questions. The argument used by my right hon. Friend commanded very wide support in this House, among those who know the real facts of our trading position. Those who have studied the opportunities for Britain in Europe would feel that what he said on that question has no bearing at all on the question of entering the Common Market.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that General de Gaulle's outburst in Canada yesterday lacked friendship to this country and the Commonwealth? Was it not most regrettable?
    The Prime Minister: Events which take place within the Dominion of Canada are matters for the Canadian Government, not for me.

RHODESIA
Mr. Elystan MorganQ3. Mr. Elystan Morgan asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a Minister of the Crown to visit Rhodesia to discuss the future of that country with Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole.
The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but my hon. Friend may rest assured that full account is taken of African opinion in framing British policy.
Mr. Morgan: Is it not anomalous for us to quote the feelings of those who represent only 5 per cent. of the people
320
of Rhodesia without also sounding the opinion of those who are the only obvious leaders of 95 per cent. of the people of that Colony?
The Prime Minister: On H.M.S. "Tiger" I raised with Mr. Smith the suggestion that Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Sithole should be released and should come to this country. At that point in history he was prepared to agree to that suggestion. But my hon. Friend will find when I make a statement on Rhodesia, as I hope to do after Questions, that Lord Alport, on his visit, while being refused permission to visit detainees, had very full discussions with representative sections of African nationalist opinion.
Mr. James JohnsonQ8. Mr. James Johnson asked the Prime Minister what contingency planning he has made in advance of the possible collapse of the illegal régime of Mr. Smith in Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to reveal details of such planning.
Mr. Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that each week the illegal régime of Mr. Smith is moving immutably towards the South African pattern? Therefore, our difficulties will be greater if and when we take over. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the help of the Africans will be enlisted in the difficult task of getting the society back on an even keel?
The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about certain legislation introduced into the so-called Rhodesian Parliament which seems to smell very much of apartheid, even though it may be on different lines from that in force in South Africa. But I do not think that our concern about that development, which might affect our attitude to other questions, arises from this Question, which deals with certain action which would follow certain hypothetical circumstances.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Is it not more important for the Government to concentrate, whatever contingency planning it is capable of, on preventing the collapse of the economy over which they presume to have control?
The Prime Minister: I thought that the House debated this matter fully yesterday with a very emphatic result at the end of the day.
Mr. WallQ9. Mr. Wall asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his consultations with Commonwealth leaders on British policy with regard to Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have remained in close touch with our Commonwealth partners over Rhodesia, as on other matters of common concern.
Mr. Wall: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his forthcoming statement has been discussed with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and whether certain Commonwealth countries have asked for the cutting of all communications with Rhodesia, including by mail and telephone? If they have, would not that provoke an outcry in this country?
The Prime Minister: I should think that almost anything concerning Rhodesia would cause an outcry from the hon. Gentleman. I will be dealing with the point made in the first part of his supplementary question in the statement which I hope to make after Questions. On the second part, it is a fact that various Commonwealth leaders, and indeed many Governments in different parts of the world outside the Commonwealth, are considering what should be done, if there is no change of circumstances in Rhodesia, to tighten up the sanctions both in economic and other ways.

SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr. William HamiltonQ4. Mr. William Hamilton asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to set up another independent inquiry, comparable to that of Sir William Beveridge in the 1940s, to investigate and make recommendations on the future structure, scope, and financing of social insurance.
The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government have done and are doing a great deal in this field and I do not think that a new independent inquiry would help.
Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the issues involved as to finance, scope and structure of the
322
social services are so complex that it would be a great advantage if we had such a commission which could take evidence from any outside body which cared to give it and which would be available to the public? These are circumstances which would not and do not pertain to the survey which is being made on a Departmental basis.
The Prime Minister: While yielding to no one in my admiration for Sir William Beveridge and his work—I will be glad to send my hon. Friend a copy of my Beveridge Memorial Lecture, which is being published this week—[Interruption.] That was not a commercial, because all profits accrue to the Institute—I do not feel that a comparable investigation would help. I think that it would severely delay the progress being made. A lot of organisations give evidence to the Government in the work which we are doing—for example, on the earnings-related pension scheme and other matters—and have never been backward in publicising their advice.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Now that the former assistant to Sir William Beveridge has abandoned Socialism by the adoption of yesterday's statement on welfare, should not he go the whole way and have an inquiry into a more selective Welfare State?
The Prime Minister: I do not understand the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. I thought that the rather ill-informed attacks made on my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday were largely due to the fact that it was a further advance in Socialism.

AUSTRALIAN PRIME MINISTER (CONVERSATIONS)
Mr. F. Noel-BakerQ6. Mr. F. Noel-Baker asked the Prime Minister what conversations he has had with the Prime Minister of Australia concerning the stationing of United Kingdom Forces in the Far East; and with what result.
The Prime Minister: I had conversations on this subject with Mr. Holt on 13th and 15th June. As to Forces in the Far East, I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper on Defence published on 18th July and to the

323
Answers I gave to Questions on 20th July.
Mr. Noel-Baker: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in modem conditions it is as unreasonable to expect the United Kingdom to make any meaningful contribution to the defence of Powers in Asia like Australia as it would be to expect them to keep troops in Europe for our defence?
The Prime Minister: In modern conditions, it would be, unreasonable to do anything except what we are doing in the White Paper. I stand by the terms of the White Paper.
Mr. Farr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent cuts in our commitments east of Suez have been greeted with a great deal of dismay and dissatisfaction by people in Australia?
The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the views both of the Australian Prime Minister and his colleagues and of public opinion in Australia on this matter. They recognise that at the end of the day it was a decision which had to be taken by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I gather that there will be an opportunity later this week to discuss this matter more fully than we can at Question Time.

ARAB STATES AND ISRAEL (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
Mr. MoonmanQ7. Mr. Moonman asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of convening a meeting of Heads of State from those nations who have helped to arm the Arab States and Israel, with a view to bringing about on embargo on all such deliveries.
The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have made clear on many occasions that they are willing to consider any steps which might lead to an effective control of arms deliveries to the Middle East. Unfortunately, we have no indication that an early meeting of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend would be likely to lead to positive results.
Mr. Moorman: As this country was one of those who urged a cease-fire on Israel, would my right hon. Friend agree that we have a unique responsibility in ensuring that there is a proper check
324
on arms deliveries, particularly in view of the gigantic build-up from Russia?
The Prime Minister: Yes. But as my right hon. Friend has made clear repeatedly, any control of arms in the Middle East must be multilateral and effective. We imposed a temporary embargo while the fighting was on and immediately afterwards in the hope that it would be followed by other countries, but it was not. That is why my right hon. Friend is working for a comprehensive arms control agreement affecting the supply of arms to the Arabs and to Israel.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is it not clear that we are drifting back into circumstances and conditions which were a direct cause of two wars? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us any more hope of stronger and more strenuous action being taken to get a settlement in this area?
The Prime Minister: I share what I know to be the hon. Gentleman's keen desire to get a lasting settlement of the kind indicated by my right hon. Friend and myself in the House and outside and by other right hon. Members. One of the necessary conditions of a truly lasting peace, apart from all the others, is an effective system of arms control. But I see no hope immediately of getting a system of arms control ahead of a settlement of the other deeper and even more bitter issues.

KING OF JORDAN (CONVERSATIONS)
Mr. ShinwellQ10. Mr. Shinwell asked the Prime Minister if any request was made by the King of Jordan for arms in his recent conversation.
The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
Mr. Shinwell: Would my right hon. Friend tell us what the King came for? If he did not come for arms, did he come for money? Was the visit about refugees, or is it highly confidential? May we know what was the purpose of his visit?
The Prime Minister: The talks were confidential, but, as my right hon. Friend will know, very many Heads of Government and Heads of State come for discussions in this country without asking

325
for arms, and quite a lot come without asking for money. The talks with His Majesty the King of Jordan were extremely valuable. They were mainly about the immediate position in the Middle East and what possible steps forward might be taken, and, very naturally, a good part of the discussions was concentrated on the vital issue of refugees.
Mr. Grimond: Can the Prime Minister say what instructions have been given to the Government arms salesman about the sale of arms to Jordan or Israel?
The Prime Minister: The position is exactly as stated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the last occasion that he answered Questions about arms shipments. The arms embargo was lifted for the reason which I stated earlier this afternoon. All proposals for shipments are considered on their merits at the highest level within the Government. It is not a matter for the so-called arms salesman.

RHODESIA
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I undertook to inform the House of the noble Lord, Lord Alport's impressions following his visit to Rhodesia. Lord Alport has made a very full oral report to my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and myself of his findings and recommendations. He has reported that, and I quote the words he has himself suggested:
"after weighing the evidence obtained by him during his three weeks' visit to Rhodesia—during which he had an opportunity of meeting and discussing with a very large number of People the problems inherent in the achievement by negotiation of a solution honourable to both Britain and Rhodesia and which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared in due course to recommend to Parliament for its acceptance—he has concluded that, while in his opinion there can be no certainty at this stage regarding the eventual outcome of such a negotiation, the prospects of achieving success are likely to become less rather than greater with the lapsing of time. Lord Alport considers that it would be advisable in the interests of British policy, as in those of all races in Rhodesia, that Her Majesty's Government should take the initiative in setting on foot the preliminaries to a negotiation for a settlement."
I should like to express the thanks of the Government for the extremely
326
thorough way in which Lord Alport has undertaken his task. He saw over 1,000 Rhodesians, representing all races and every shade of opinion, on the political future of Rhodesia. The House will be aware that he was refused permission to see certain detainees he asked to see, though he did have the opportunity of talks with other representatives of African nationalist opinion.
While he met a number of people, including influential members of the Rhodesia Front, who are opposed to any settlement which does not amount to a complete surrender by the British Government of the principles we have sought to uphold, he is convinced that a majority of the Europeans, and, indeed, many of the Africans he met, are anxious for a negotiated settlement with Britain.
I must, however, make clear to the House that, despite Lord Alport's very thorough discussion with leading members of the régime, I cannot regard his report as providing conclusive evidence that, to quote the phrase I used when I announced his mission,
"Mr. Smith, with the authority of his Rhodesia Front colleagues, is prepared to enter into meaningful discussions … discussions leading to a solution which Parliament could accept".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1967; Vol. 748, c. 305.]
Equally the noble Lord was not in a position to bring back any guarantee that, if any meaningful agreement were to emerge, Mr. Smith would not once again, as after "Tiger", be overruled by the extremist members of his régime.
Lord Alport, in his meetings with Mr. Smith, felt himself precluded, in my view, rightly, by the terms of his mission from entering into any discussions which might be regarded as a negotiation. Lord Alport tells me, however, that Mr. Smith indicated to him that he had all along said and believed that a constitution based on the "Tiger" proposals—which were themselves based on the 1961 Constitution—was acceptable. But, Mr. Smith told Lord Alport, there were some aspects of the "Tiger" constitution which he and his colleagues would like to see changed; there were, he said, some details which had been arrived at quickly, under pressure of the timetable, and these needed looking at again. Since the "Tiger" talks, Mr. Smith said, one or two other points had occurred to him

327
which he believed were reasonable and would improve the Constitution.
Lord Alport has now recommended that, without commitment, we should proceed to clarify what these points are. The Government are, therefore, authorising the Governor, to whose steadfastness and courage once again I would pay full tribute, to undertake this task.
I must make clear that, in taking this limited step, Her Majesty's Government fully reserve their position on N.I.B.M.A.R., and on the return to legality and the kind of broad-based Government of national unity which would be required for any major step forward. No doubt Mr. Smith, for his part, will continue during this process to assert what he calls his independence.
Our partners in the Commonwealth have been informed of this decision. We shall continue to keep in close touch with the whole Commonwealth and it is intended that the Commonwealth Secretary, during the Recess, should have discussions with leaders of African Commonwealth countries about all aspects of the Rhodesian problem.
Mr. Heath: My right hon. and hon. Friends and myself welcome the statement which the Prime Minister has just made that he is authorising the Governor to enter into talks with Mr. Smith and his colleagues about the "Tiger" constitution and amendments to it. We believe that in those circumstances it is right that both sides should reserve their position about the remaining problems.
Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of questions come to mind, but that I do not propose to raise them this afternoon because I wish the discussions which are to be carried on to be successful? I hope that it will be possible to reach agreement about a constitution which will provide an honourable settlement and that the Government will then find themselves in a position to move on to discussions about the interim arrangements and a final settlement.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that all parts of the House would wish to be associated with his remarks of gratitude to Lord Alport for the work he has done? May I ask, first, whether
328
the noble Lord indicated that Mr. Smith would be more likely to accept a test of public opinion to see whether there was support for independence on the basis of the 1961 Constitution and would abide by it? Secondly, was there an indication of Mr. Smith's willingness to lift those matters of racial discrimination which have been introduced since U.D.I.? Thirdly, is there any acceptance of the inevitability of ultimate African majority rule?
The Prime Minister: Since, as I have said, Lord Alport felt—and this was what we said to him—that he was not to negotiate, he was not, naturally, in a position to press Mr. Smith for his views on a number of those questions.
With regard to the testing of Rhodesian opinion—acceptability, the fifth principle—Mr. Smith has always understood, and in his more constructive moments, has fully accepted, the need for a Royal Commission or similar process to test the acceptability to all sections of Rhodesian opinion.
With regard to recent developments in Rhodesia such as those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said we certainly view these with concern. One at least—that relating to equality of treatment between races—is a clear breach of one of the principles. Clearly, in any ultimate settlement there would have to be a sharp reversal of such a development, and, indeed, of other developments which have taken place earlier.
As to censorship and the release of the detainees, it was fully accepted in H.M.S. "Tiger" that if there were to be a satisfactory test of public opinion, censorship must be lifted and, wherever possible, detainees released in accordance with an agreed procedure so that there could be a free expression of political and other opinions in Rhodesia during that period.
Mr. James Johnson: While in no way denying the sincerity of the value of the work done by Lord Alport, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that no section of African opinion, save, perhaps, Hastings Banda, was in favour of the mission going out? In this context, therefore, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Africans will welcome the fact that he has today said that there will be no settlement except on N.I.B.M.A.R. terms?
The Prime Minister: I said, as I have said all along, that we reserve our position fully on this. We stand by what we have said on N.I.B.M.A.R. I have indicated that we shall require a very substantial change of circumstances before it would be possible to go back to our Commonwealth colleagues for any change in that direction. During the very limited process which is now beginning, there will certainly be no change at all in our attitude on these questions. As I have said, to be fair to Mr. Smith, I suspect that he would not make any change in reserving his position on his so-called independence.
Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will be to the lasting credit of our country that, even at a time of economic difficulties, we have refused to abandon the 4 million Africans and to abandon the six principles? Can my right hon. Friend tell us what action is being taken in the meantime to make sanctions work and bite?
The Prime Minister: We have fully stood by the six principles at all times and we have had the support of a great number of hon. Members, in all parts of the House, including those who first put forward two of the most important of these principles. We shall continue to stand by these principles.
With regard to sanctions, it is clear that while, in the early months of this year, two or three countries were still substantially importing Rhodesian exports on the basis of orders placed before mandatory sanctions came into effect, there has been a very sharp fall—one country, for example, showing a fall of 99 per cent.—in the spring compared with the figures earlier in the year.
The sanctions will, of course, continue during the process which I have described and I think that there is a widespread feeling in other parts of the world that the sanctions will not be fully effective until something is done about the seepage of oil through Mozambique into Rhodesia.
Mr. Sandys: If it is not the kiss of death, may I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's announcement?
The Prime Minister: I would never regard any statement by the right hon. Gentleman as the kiss of death—to me, anyway, but if the right hon. Gentleman,
330
who has still considerable influence in Rhodesia, is going to spread the sort of story he spread last week about our intentions about majority rule, I would regard any approach from him, if not as the kiss of death, as the kiss of dishonour.
Mr. Whitaker: In view of Lord Alport's statement last November that no British Government could reach a settlement with the Smith régime while retaining their honour and integrity, will my right hon. Friend make it a pre-condition of any further talks that those who represent the majority of Rhodesians participate?
The Prime Minister: What I have announced this afternoon is an extremely limited step. The question of who represents the majority of Rhodesians is an extremely difficult one to answer, because one of the greatest difficulties—and this is why I have in the past expressed my doubts about how soon after African majority rule it would be right to proceed to full independence—is the divided leadership and lack of constructive leadership of the Rhodesian Africans.
My hon. Friend will be well aware that other African countries feel concerned, as we are, and as my hon. Friend is, for the future welfare of the Rhodesian Africans. Many of them have worked constructively to try to get some good leadership of them within their own country. It is an important part, I think, of any future step in this that my right hon. Friend should be visiting Africa for discussions with the heads of African Commonwealth countries about the matters my hon. Friend has raised.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: In the context of Commonwealth consultations the right hon. Gentleman referred specifically and quite properly to consultation with the heads of African Commonwealth countries. Would he make it clear that the Commonwealth Secretary will also, if occasion offers, seek consultation with Commonwealth countries on the widest possible basis so as to tap the whole reserves of Commonwealth statesmanship to assist in a successful outcome?
The Prime Minister: Yes, but this is a continuous process. My right hon. Friend has been in close touch, as I

331
said in my statement, with all Commonwealth countries, not only the African countries; and I have had the opportunity myself, during these last few weeks, of discussing this question—for example, with the Prime Minister of Canada and Australia, the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, and the Prime Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore. Certainly, this is a continuing process.
Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the immense good will he has on this side of the House for all the efforts which he has made to achieve an honourable settlement in Rhodesia, but could he give us the assurance that any agreement would depend not just upon consultation with all sections of opinion in Rhodesia, but also on the consent of the black Africans?
The Prime Minister: That has always been a requirement of the fifth principle. As I have said—this goes back a long time before we came into office—any permanent settlement, certainly any scheme for independence, must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. A good deal of thought has gone into the question how this can be ascertained on terms which this House, because this House has the ultimate responsibility, would consider to be a fair test.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: The whole House will concede to these negotiations whatever degree of optimism it can, but why is the Prime Minister so absolutely reluctant to accept that any real settlement of this problem must bring into focus the realities of power in the whole of Southern Africa, however repugnant to both sides of the House some features of the régime may be?
The Prime Minister: The question of the realities of power as well as the realities of the principles which this House has proclaimed must be central to this issue. One thing I would not be prepared to do—and I have seen some of the statements by the racialist members of the Smith régime about Lord Alport himself, and about the "Tiger" constitution which they say only poltroons and morons would accept—would be to hand over Rhodesia to a partly Fascist régime, particularly in view of the very serious
332
danger that when that had happened they would get rid of Mr. Smith who, by their standards, is a Liberal, and would form a full-powered Fascist régime and a police State in Rhodesia.
Mr. Wyatt: While it is true that exports from Rhodesia have dropped, is it not equally true that imports into Rhodesia have advanced enormously? Will my right hon. Friend represent to the United Nations that it is very unfair to expect us to lose our export trade to Rhodesia while other countries are busy picking it up?
The Prime Minister: There has been some trade going on both through South Africa and Mozambique, but both exports from Rhodesia and exports into Rhodesia have been sharply falling over these months. Individual cases have received a lot of publicity, as is quite right. While I would certainly agree with my hon. Friend that where other countries are conniving in this—I have already mentioned Mozambique, for which Portgual is responsible—I think that there will be very strong world opinion that Mozambique should come into line with what the other 90 countries are doing.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must proceed.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it not the custom here that hon. and right hon. Members refer to other hon. and right hon. Members as hon. or right hon. Members? Is it in keeping with the customs of the House to use the phrase which the Prime Minister used in relation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) when he suggested to him that he was dishonourable in his conduct? Is it accepted that that should take place?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman suggested any other Member was not honourable.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: He did.
Mr. Speaker: I heard something about a kiss—a kiss of dishonour, I think. I do not, however, think it bore the implication the hon. Member suggests.

MALTA (GIFT OF A BOOKCASE)
Mr. Maurice Edelman: On 20th June this House gave leave of absence to four of its Members to present on its behalf a bookcase to the Malta House of Representatives to mark Malta's independence and her entry into the Commonwealth.
The delegation consisted of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles), the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) and myself. We were accompanied by Mr. David Scott, Clerk of Standing Committees.
I am happy to report that this mission was duly accomplished, and that on 12th July, 1967, at a special sitting of the House of Representatives in Malta the following Resolution, moved by the Prime Minister of Malta and seconded by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Malta, was unanimously passed:
"That this House accepts with thanks and appreciation the gift of a Bookcase and a number of Parliamentary and Constitutional Books of Reference from the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to mark the attainment of Malta's independence and her entry into the Commonwealth."
The visit of our delegation to the House of Representatives was described there as an historic occasion, since it was the first time that any representatives of an overseas Legislature had had the opportunity both of attending a sitting and speaking from the Floor of the House. The warmth of the welcome which we received was a testimony to the high degree of friendship which the Maltese people feel for Great Britain. We, for our part, had the great pleasure in assuring our hosts that our friendship for Malta and our regard for the heroic citizens of the island remain as firm as ever.
Despite recent difficulties, we were encouraged in the hope that Malta, in conjunction with Britain, will be able to solve the problems which face her. Everywhere we went, we were profoundly impressed by the sympathy, understanding and faith which the Maltese displayed in the links which join our two countries together. The graciousness with which the gift from this House was received, and the hospitality which our hosts
334
showed to their parliamentary visitors, seen to me to be a very happy augury for the future of our two countries.
It is for that reason that I have particular pleasure in conveying this Resolution to the House and to yourself, Mr. Speaker. I hope that, in accordance with precedent, you will direct that this Resolution be entered in the Journal of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The House would wish to thank the delegation for carrying out so excellently the duty which we imposed upon it, and the Resolution which the head of the delegation has conveyed to the House will appear in the Journal of the House.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

ZAMBIA (GIFT OF A SPEAKER'S CHAIR)
Mr. Austen Albu: on 20th June, this House gave leave of absence to four of its Members to present on its behalf a Speaker's Chair to the National Assembly of Zambia.
The delegation consisted of the right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) and myself. We were accompanied by Mr. D. W. S. Lidderdale, Clerk Assistant of this House.
It is my pleasant duty to report that our mission was carried out at a meeting held within the precincts of the New National Assembly building in Lusaka.
I know that my colleagues would wish me to express our thanks for the many personal expressions of good will which we received in Zambia, for the excellent hospitality which we received, and for the very interesting programme of visits arranged for us by the National Assembly.
The Speaker of the National Assembly expressed his warm gratitude for the gift and desired us to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your personal letter of good will which we carried to him on your behalf.
Mr. Speaker: Again, the House would wish to thank the delegation for carrying out so splendidly the duty which we imposed upon it.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
Motion made and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Monday, 23rd October.—[The Prime Minister.]
Mr. Speaker: May I inform the House that I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
3.54 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, to leave out 'Monday, 23rd October' and to add instead thereof: 'Tuesday, 19th September'.
I anticipate that this Amendment will not be the most popular one to be moved either by me or by anyone else in the Chamber. I should like to point out that normally I do not take part in debates on the Summer Adjournment Motion, and that I do so now only to put on record thoughts which I have entertained for some time and which have been reinforced by events of the last few weeks.
The spectacle of a succession of feverish all-night sittings of the House, with bleary-eyed back bench Members and equally bleary-eyed Ministers is not a pleasant one. In my view, it does nothing to improve the dignity or image of Parliament as a whole, or the temper of those called on to endure such penancies.
Since about the beginning of July, the House has been run almost like a slave ship. However, unlike many hon. Members, I attach no blame for that state of affairs to the Leader of the House. On the contrary, I have felt that his leadership of the House has been by far the best and most outstanding in my experience. Gradually, he is digging this place out of the morass and ruts of reaction and complacency into which it has fallen over the centuries—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to his Amendment.
Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will find this relevant. It is a kind of hors d'œuvre to my speech. If you will allow me another couple of minutes, I think that you will see that
336
it is very relevant to the points which I intend to make specifically on my Amendment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be a rule about this debate. The hors d'œuvres which the hon. Gentleman is offering are in the nature of an inquest on what has happened. He must come now to whether we should adjourn.
Mr. Hamilton: If I might do that directly, my right hon. Friend has been subject to some abuse for driving the House, on the assumption, long since arrived at by the Government as a whole, that the House should rise on Friday and adjourn until 23rd October, which is a recess of rather more than 12 weeks. It is quite clear now that that was not a decision of the Leader of the House. It was the Government's decision, coupled with the fact that, to their credit, the Government made clear that they were determined that time should be available for a free decision of the House on matters of very great social concern to the nation and to the House, dealing with the medical termination of pregnancy and homosexual law reform—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a difficult kind of debate, but the hon. Gentleman must keep to the rule. If I let him depart from that, then I must extend the same latitude to the whole House.
Mr. Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to keep within the rules of order. I am not opposed to fixing the dates for going into recess on Friday and coming back on 23rd October, but I object strongly to our taking 12 weeks as a whole, instead of the shorter period which acceptance of my Amendment would mean.
My reasons are quite simple. The first is that I am well aware of the arguments in favour of a recess of 12 weeks, that hon. Members can attend to matters in their constituencies which they could not do otherwise, that Ministers have an opportunity in that time to do some of their reading, briefing or brain-washing by civil servants, however one likes to describe it, and that there are opportunities for official and unofficial visits on behalf of the House or of organisations within it.
Nevertheless, the fact that we are away from this building for 12 weeks gives an

337
enormous advantage to the Executive. There is a great difference between the Executive having to come here and answer orally for what they are doing or not doing, and our trying to conduct criticism by correspondence. Even when we are here, our opportunities are extremely limited. Although the Question Hour is argued by the pundits as being one of the great means of controlling the Executive, it is a farcical procedure. It is significant that, during the long Summer Recess, public opinion polls invariably show it to be of great advantage to the Government, because they can get away almost with murder during that period.
Although the Amendment cuts down the recess specifically to about six weeks, as opposed to 12, linked with it is the proposition that the extra period should be regained by having a week free in each of the months in which there are no holidays. In other words, there should be Easter, Whitsun and Christmas holidays of perhaps 10 days each, and then, in the months in which those holidays did not occur, there should be a full week devoted to attending to constituency work which we all say that we do in the Summer Recess.
Those who are on Select Committees of investigation of the Executive could indulge in their taking of evidence and in their visits to many places, most of them in this country, but some of them abroad. These Committees would be able to get on with that work without being diverted by activities within the House.
With the increased number of specialist Committees, a move which I very much welcome and which my right hon. Friend has striven hard for, there will be an increased conflict of interest between hon. Members serving on those Committees as to where they should be at any one time, whether in the Chamber or upstairs in a committee of investigation. I move the Amendment in an effort to persuade the Government to have a look at the parliamentary year and not to regard the Summer Recess as unchangeable merely because it has been going on for so long. My proposition would mean that we wouldd have two or three extra weeks per year only actually in the Chamber. The other weeks would be devoted to work
338
done by specialist Committees or by Members in their constituencies.
4.2 p.m.
Mr. Michael Jopling: I am opposed to the Motion. I find considerable attraction in the Amendment. It is wrong that the House should adjourn on Friday, because agriculture faces one of the greatest crises that it has faced since the war.
Mr. John Pardoe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wish to speak against the Motion that the House should adjourn on Friday until October, but I understood that that would not be in order on the Amendment, but should be raised on the substantive Motion.
Mr. Speaker: Any aspect of the debate which is in order either on the Motion or the Amendment is in order in this debate. It is a wide debate.
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful for your Ruling, Sir. Now that the Liberal Member has got his word in, perhaps I can get on.
Confidence in the agriculture industry is ebbing away. Morale among farmers, and among those who live around the industry and off it, is at its lowest level since the war. Recent price trends for agricultural commodities and the surplus of produce which has been imported into this country, particularly in recent months, have rocked the market. This is particularly true of beef and eggs. It would be wrong for the House to go away on Friday without adequately debating this crisis.
There may well be merit in the Amendment, which seeks to secure that the House should return in the middle of September, because, unless action is taken soon, the crisis might well become much worse than it is now. The crisis has been building up for some time. Most hon. Members will remember the great market slump which occurred last autumn.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate the crisis. He cannot debate the things he wishes to debate if the House were to come back. He can use the serious nature of what he is suggesting as an argument against either the

339
Motion or the Amendment or for either of them.
Mr. Jopling: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps I can say a few words about eggs and why it is so urgent for the House to debate the problem they have caused. Never before have egg producers found greater troubles confronting them. There is, on the one hand, the movement towards larger units. There is, on the other, the great squeeze which is taking place on smaller and medium-sized units. During the last few months considerable supplies of imported eggs, particularly from Poland, have tipped the balance of the market. The supply and demand position has been completely upset. It is causing a great crisis.
Last week, the President of the Board of Trade publicly admitted that these imported eggs are dumped. However, in spite of that, he says that he is not prepared to do anything about it. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends went to see him last week. The conclusion of that meeting was totally unsatisfactory to egg producers. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the eggs were dumped and that there were hardships to our egg producers because of the dumping.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must now come to the Motion or the Amendment.
Mr. Jopling: If the situation is not tackled within a few days, and the House does not debate it urgently, it will greatly deteriorate. I am sorry that there are no Ministers from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food present. Unless hon. Members have an opportunity to tackle the Ministers responsible for this crisis and persuade them to take action, the greatest possible damage will be done to the industry in the next few weeks. It is vital that the House should not rise on Friday, but should continue to sit until there is an opportunity to debate this crisis.
There is also a crisis in the beef industry. Within the last few weeks there has been a most spectacular fall in beef prices. In one market in the North of England beef prices have fallen during the last seven weeks by about 40s. a cwt. This is serious for our cattle producers. Confidence is ebbing away. The production of cattle is a long-term business before
340
it reaps benefits. One cannot begin now in the hope of reaping benefits by Christmas. It may take three years before benefits begin to accrue. Already in the first six months of this year calf slaughterings—
Mr. E. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) is discussing, may I have your permission to discuss the mining situation in my constituency, on the Motion?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) must heed the Rulings I am giving. He must link what he seeks to say about agriculture to the Motion.
Mr. Jopling: I was about to do that, Sir. I hope that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) does not have in his mining constituency a crisis as severe as some of us have in agriculture. I am seeking to explain why it is vital that the House should discuss the question of beef. Already, during these first six months, 80,000 more calves have been slaughtered than in the previous year—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the beef situation. He is asking for an opportunity, by changing the dates, to discuss the egg and beef problems.
Mr. Jopling: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
We must stop this increased slaughter. If we do not ask the Minister at the earliest possible moment whether he is aware that these extra calves are being slaughtered—and the extra slaughterings will mean less beef in two years' time—and what he intends to do about the position, the House will be failing in its duty.
The Minister does not at present seem to be prepared to take any action at all over the crisis in the beef industry. Great importations of beef are coming from Ireland. We understand that the Minister has been having discussions with the Irish Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman has not told the House the outcome of those discussions. We must have the earliest possible opportunity of asking the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing as, so far, he has been singularly unprepared to tell us anything about the position.

341
There is nothing at present on the Order Paper to enable us to have the debate I seek, so it is only by either continuing to sit after Friday, or, as the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) suggests, returning in September that we can properly discuss the beef situation with the urgency it deserves.
A great number of my hon. and right hon. Friends feel extremely strongly and bitterly about this agricultural crisis and I plead with the Leader of the House to take note of what I have said. Others of my hon. and right hon. Friends may wish to elaborate on this very serious crisis and urge, as I do, that it would be wrong to go off on the Summer Recess without our having had an adequate opportunity to debate the subject with the Minister present.
Mr. John Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it is obvious that a large number of my hon. Friends are extremely concerned about various aspects of the current agricultural situation, would it be in order for me to ask you whether a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture can be present to answer adequately the very real concern being expressed from this side of the House today?
Mr. Speaker: I should have thought that the hon. Member would know that that is never a point of order.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I have every sympathy with the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), but I do not wish to address myself to the Amendment. Nor do I follow the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) in his agricultural argument: my constituency is industrial—the only farm in it is owned by Messrs. Guinness.
I want to raise a very important matter which is referred to in today's Guardian. A few weeks ago I raised with the Minister of Power the appointment of the Steel Corporation's regional chairmen. Unfortunately, I was then unable because of the state of the Order Paper to ask the supplementary questions I had intended to ask, and perhaps, further discuss the whole subject. I am concerned about the statement in today's Guardian that the announcement of an appoint-
342
ment is being delayed until a week today, the inference being that the House will then have risen and we shall have no opportunity to discuss it.
I understand that Lord Melchett then intends to announce the appointment of Mr. Niall Macdiarmid, formerly of Stewarts and Lloyds, as chairman of one of the Corporation's regional groups, and his appointment to the Corporation. This is a matter of great concern to hon. Members on both sides. The fact that the appointment is being deliberately delayed, in spite of the fact that as long ago as 8th July the Financial Times published a "leak" foreshadowing it, would seem to indicate that the House is not being given an opportunity to discuss this very important matter.
The appointment of Mr. Macdiarmid comes after the Minister stated a few weeks ago, when there was some considerable interest here about the possibility of this appointment, that no appointment was then contemplated. My right hon. Friend was not misleading the House, because he said quite clearly that at that moment the appointment was not being made. Nevertheless, the appointment is now to be announced a few days after this House rises, which will make it impossible for us to raise various points about it with the Minister.
Many of us believe that appointments to publicly-owned industries should be of those who believe in public ownership—
Mr. Speaker: Order. So far, the hon. Gentleman has been in order. He must not drift into arguing the merits of what he would like to talk about if the House were meeting next week after the appointment was made.
Mr. Pavitt: I am trying to show that the time factor is important for a number of reasons, and that if the delay in announcing the appointment goes on we shall not be able to give the House and the Minister our reasons for believing that the House has a right to discuss an appointment like this. My hon. Friends are trade unionists, and the person being appointed is opposed to trade union organisation within the Steel Corporation. This, again, is something that we should have an opportunity to discuss.
I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that most of the points I should now like

343
to make to the House today would be more appropriately made if my plea were successful, but I must draw attention to the extreme importance of a case in which something is being done deliberately in order to circumvent the right of the House to pass an opinion on it, whether we agree with the appointment or disagree with it. I believe this to be a profound abuse of our procedures. In other circumstances I should have sought the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, but I realise that it was unlikely that I would get your favourable Ruling on that, Sir.
I maintain that it would be wrong for the House to rise knowing very well that the appointment is to be announced next Tuesday. We should not rise until Wednesday next. The announcement could then be made, and we could devote a complete day to a full-scale debate in which hon. Members in all parts of the House could express their views. I hope that the House will not accept the Motion. I know that most hon. Members are very tired—we have had a very fatiguing Session—but I am convinced that this matter is so important that we should delay our rising for a further few days in order to discuss it.
4.18 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), in moving his Amendment, said that he did not customarily participate in these debates. My own rule is a simple one. I do not venture to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in these debates, on the fixing of a Recess unless I feel that the state of the country and the conduct of the Administration is such as imperatively to demand the close and continuing attention of Parliament. It is, therefore, no coincidence that during the last few of these debates I have felt constrained to seek to catch your eye. Now, as on previous occasions, there is a very strong case for saying that Parliament should continue to keep the Administration under as close scrutiny as possible—
Sir Harmar Nicholls: It should be even longer.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: It should be even longer, as my hon. Friend rightly says.
344
The hon. Member for Fife, West, who moved the Amendment, did not say whether he proposed to press it in the Division Lobby. Presumably, he intends to conform to the pattern set last night, to be content simply with voicing his sentiments and not to pursue the logic of the matter into the Division Lobby.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman act as a Teller?
Sir D. Walker-Smith: No, I am not sure that I can undertake to do that.
The hon. Member made a characteristic speech. On this and in other matters his unerring instinct assured him that something was wrong somewhere, but his prescription was not a very logical or valid one. He did not explain how he fixed the exact date in his Amendment. He did not explain whether he thought it an advantage or otherwise that all three party political conferences would thereby be sacrificed—a considerable conserving of resources of political platitude, no doubt, if they were—
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Much to the relief of the Lord President of the Council.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I was coming next to the Lord President of the Council. He was defended by the hon. Member for Fife, West on this basis, as I understood. He said that it was wrong that all this criticism should be directed solely and expressly to the Lord President; it ought to be shared universally by every member of the Administration. That was the tenor of his argument, and there is a great deal to be said for that.
I do not think that I would be able to support the hon. Member on the exact date he has fixed. I agree with those hon. Members who in principle, have said that this is a very long Adjournment and something which, in the present state of affairs, the House should view at any rate with doubt from two points of view—
Sir Harmar Nicholls: My right hon. and learned Friend seemed to believe that my intervention, which he overheard, meant that I thought the recess should be shorter. I am supporting the Government. I think that it should be longer than is stated in the Motion and if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall explain

345
that. I did not want my right hon. and learned Friend to have the wrong impression.
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member intervenes at length in a debate like this, will have caught my eye.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: If my hon. Friend succeeds in catching your eye, and I very much hope he does, I shall listen with interest to what he has to say, because I know that he is a master of the persuasive paradox which seems implicit in the view he is about to put forward.
Both on the grounds of the efficiency of business and of the degree to which the Government can act without the authority of Parliament, which should be closely safeguarded, Parliament should look with suspicion at recesses as long as this. Clearly, if the business of the Session had been properly planned and proper time allocated for the business that there was to do, there should have been no question this year of the House rising next Friday. The House and its machinery have been grossly overloaded during recent months and without any justification, except apparently the hypnotic influence exercised on the mind of the Leader of the House by the date 28th July, arbitrarily chosen for some reason not yet indicated to us even if it is known to himself.
It is an absurd and melancholy paradox that, on the one hand, we get the hustle and bustle, the long hours and difficulties of the last few months, and, on the other, that the House should adjourn for 12 weeks. It makes nonsense in the eyes of people outside, it is bad for the image of Parliament, and bad for the conduct of business. This is normally put on the basis of the strain imposed on hon. Members and on the staff at the Palace of Westminster. These are important considerations, of course, but there is a still more important consideration at stake.
This House, we were reminded recently in an article in The Times, is a workshop and the work which the House produces is the law of the land. The law of the land is something which has to be interpreted. There is a tradition, which is becoming something of a fiction, that everybody is presumed to understand it. Certainly they are intended to comply
346
with it. The legislation produced this Session is some of the most complex I have ever seen, in particular, the Land Commission Act, which certainly could have had another week or two with benefit to the clarity in which it is expressed.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has partaken in a number of these debates. He must know that he should come to the Motion.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, if I was a little over-ample in the illustrations with which I was seeking to support my proposition.
That is my first proposition, that it is a paradox that the House should rise for 12 weeks when we have had so much complex legislation compressed into a clearly insufficient time.
The other point I wish respectfully to submit to the House, leading to the same conclusion, is one which was also adverted to by other hon. Members. It is the degree of power which a Government exercise as soon as Parliament goes into recess. Everybody knows that a sigh of relief goes up in the corridors of power in Whitehall as soon as Parliament rises. The longer the recess, the bigger the sigh of relief, and the more stringent and difficult and challenging the situation, again the bigger the sigh of relief.
That is perhaps a melancholy reflection on our institutions. Here we have a very long recess coupled with a very difficult situation and very wide powers that present Governments have of action of a fundamental nature which can be taken without the approval of Parliament as soon as Parliament goes into recess. I want, if I may, to give one illustration, and one only, of this part of my argument. It is very topical because it arises in the context of yesterday's debate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, very properly, made a very clear pronouncement against devaluation in the course of his speech, but on another matter he was much less categorical.
On the possibility of the imposition of import restrictions as an aid to dealing with the economic difficulties in which the country finds itself, he said:
"… we shall need to watch very carefully this import pattern and be ready to encourage British industry to provide competitive substitutes for imports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1967; Vol. 751, c. 98.]

347
The whole economy of the country can be changed by the Government by purely administrative action without any recourse to Parliament at all because the statutory powers are there under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. Legally, the position is that no imports can come into the country except on licence and the open general licence which operates to admit them can be varied by purely administrative action.
There is no need to recall Parliament to implement such a policy and no need for legislation. If the House were not sitting, Ministers could not be called upon to account for, to defend or even to explain the action they have taken. That is a topical and very real example of the great growth in the administrative powers of a Government in the modern time which they can exercise without recourse to actual legislation. That being so, there is obviously a very great need for Parliament to be able to call Ministers to account for administrative action taken by them.
I give that illustration because I think that in addition to the efficiency of the business it is also requisite that Parliament should have an opportunity to correct the defects in administration. It is very difficult to do that if for twelve weeks the Government are given the completely free hand which they want but which in my submission is not in the interests of the country. If the Motion is carried, as it will be, and we do not meet again for 12 weeks—though some crisis, I suppose, might arise which would compel the Government to recall Parliament—then we can only hope, without any very great confidence, that the situation will not deteriorate in many respects in that time, and in respects which Parliament, had it been sitting, might possibly have been able to restrain or correct.
4.30 p.m.
Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr William Hamilton) and I wish to take up some of the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr Jopling) It is important that we should not go into Recess without emphasising our alarm and also
348
our desire to discuss the problems in the farming industry which the hon Member mentioned and which we have not had the opportunity to discuss.
That is an admirable illustration. Many hon. Members will draw attention to other things which may arise during the next 12 weeks, but this example is particularly appropriate because it not only affects my constituency and many others but it is a seasonal matter which reaches a peak at a certain time of the year. When this happened last year it was fair enough to say that it might be unusual and that the collapse in store prices and the flood of cheap food imports, particularly beef and eggs into this country, might be a peculiar phenomenon which would not recur.
This was the line which the Ministry pursued through most of the winter until pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the House persuaded the Government to take some remedial action. Having had a very easy Price Review—I know that there were objections to it in some quarters, but in many ways it was the best that we could have hoped for—and having had some increase in prices, we are faced with the same problem, starting again now.
I am worried that by the time we return in October a great deal of damage will have been done to certain sections of the farming industry and that, once again, we shall be faced with a rescue operation rather than an analysis of the problems and the prevention of the problems before they become too serious.
I will not analyse the problems in this debate, because that is not in order. We have done so in past agriculture debates. But on the question of timing, it would help if we continued to sit, not because I think that if we had the Minister here we should get a great deal of change—because whatever the Minister is planning and thinking about the matter, he will go on working on it—but because we have the machinery in the House by which we can do this job for ourselves.
Were we to continue to sit, the specialist Committee on Agriculture could continue its work and we could call before us the necessary officials and find out the facts of what is happening in store market prices. We could find out the diagnosis of those who specialise in

349
this field and we could then press upon the Government some solution which we could crystalise and bring to the point of action—all because we have in our hands a specialist Committee which can call for facts and produce reports and demand action. I hope that the House will shortly see the result of our working in another field.
I should have liked to argue that we should continue to sit for another reason, but I do not have the same technical means of following that argument through. I should have liked the House to sit to discuss the whole question of the future of public expenditure in this country. I would draw attention to the fact that after we rise—indeed, even before we rise—the Government will be considering a five-year programme of public expenditure on the creeping system which has been adopted ever since the Plowden Report. Each summer at this time the Government reconsider public expenditure for a five-year period ahead.
We are in the embarrassing, and to hon. Members humiliating, position that all the newspapers are discussing whether there will be cuts in this, that or the other, or increases in taxation or decreases in consumption, while we are unable as a House to take part in that discussion. I do not think that that is just a matter of timing. It is a matter of machinery, because our system of the control of public expenditure dates from annual budgeting in the nineteenth century—and here I cannot support my hon. Friend's Amendment, because were we to sit for the next three weeks we should still not find out more about these decisions on public expenditure because our machinery for the control of this exercise is nineteenth century machinery. We want machinery which will enable us to call for the facts of public expenditure—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of machinery on the Motion.
Mr. Mackintosh: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was about to suggest that we could have pressed the Government, if we sat longer, for a specialist Committee on economic policy to do the kind of work in that field which we could have done in agriculture had we sat longer. I hope
350
that, when we resume, one of the first tasks of the Select Committee on Procedure will be to bring up to date the system of control which the House exercises over public expenditure so that we have the facts and the capacity as a House to take part in what are the most important decisions being taken by the Government.
4.37 p.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: After such a disastrous Session I should not have thought that at the end of it I should be making a speech in which I appear to agree with the Government. There is only one alternative to the Government having a long recess to think themselves out, and that is for the Government to resign. The Government as constituted have "had it".
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: No.
Sir H. Nicholls: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) is no greater supporter of the Government than I am. He has no faith in the Government at all, and he has shown it on many occasions.
If I thought there were the fraction of a chance of the Government resigning, that is the option which I should be taking up, but the voting last night showed clearly that even when 70 Members of the Labour Party feel that the Government's policy is disastrous they are not prepared to cast votes in the Lobby against it. But if the Government will not make use of Parliament in this way, we have to face realism: we have a tired, worn-out Treasury Bench.
If the Government are not prepared in the interests of the nation to give up the job, the next best thing is for them to think themselves out and to get their minds straightened out. I should like to think that the members of the Treasury Bench could sort themselves out while Parliament was sitting, but I do not believe that they could do so. They are both frightened of Parliament and arrogant towards Parliament, and in a split state of mind of that sort they are not capable of sorting themselves out.
In the interests of the nation I believe that if the 12 weeks on the Order Paper is the most they want to give themselves, it ought to be granted, although I believe

351
that they are much too far down the slippery slope and that 12 weeks will not be long enough. That is why said that in the interests of the nation and in the absence of their resignation the Recess should be even longer.
I argue in support of the Government and the Leader of the House that we should give them at least 12 weeks' recess, and if we could find a week or two extra we ought to find it. I am convinced that if we called for the expert advice of psychiatrists and the medical profession they would say that 12 weeks is not long enough to get the Government back on line. But if 12 weeks is all that they propose to give themselves, let us agree to it in the hope that they will do good next Session—better than in the last 15 months, in which we have been in so much trouble.
There are many problems. Let me give an example. One of the points they ought to keep in their minds while they are benefiting from the 12 weeks' recess—
Sir Douglas Glover: They cannot keep any points in their minds.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: —concerns the interest of the medium and small firms of this country, who feel that we need a Government, and particularly a Treasury Minister, who will use the recess in order to give these firms a chance of contributing to the wealth and success of the nation.
I have examples, and one in particular, which is typical, of a medium-sized firm whose balance sheet 18 months ago was in rather a "dicky" state. It used the following months to tighten up and sort itself out, and two months ago it was able to look at the results of its efforts. The firm found that by its efficiency and internal economies—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is not relavant to the length of the recess.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: If I may pursue this point for another moment—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I do not think it is relevant to the question of the length of the recess. Having said that, the hon. Member cannot pursue it.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is in the interests of medium-size and small firms that they should be able in the 12 weeks'
352
recess, which I am supporting, to concentrate their minds on these important matters. The firm to which I was referring found that £8,000 economies which it had brought about in 18 months had been completely eaten up by extra expenses put on it by the Government—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said that this is not relevant to the length of the recess.
Sir Harmer Nicholls: I think that this point will be relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In supporting this proposed 12 weeks' recess, I am asking the Government to concentrate their mind upon some way by which they can reduce the expenses placed on small firms upon whose success the nation depends. If the Government could use the 12 weeks to do that, I am certain that I shall carry the House with me in saying that the 12 weeks will be well spent. [Interruption.] I am arguing very much in the interests of the City of Leeds. In Leeds, there are many medium-size and small firms suffering from the problems on which I should like to focus the Government's attention. The same applies to Peterborough. Peterborough is even more important than Leeds, because there one has the heart of England with the future of the country in its hands with its precision engineering. If the Government use the 12 weeks' recess in the interests of the industries of Peterborough, Leeds and Coventry, part of which is represented by the Leader of the House, they will be using the recess to good advantage. But if they are going to use the 12 weeks' recess in going to sleep and, having got the Parliamentary watchdog off their chests, carrying on in the same silly way as they have behaved in the last 15 months, then my support for the 12 weeks' recess will have been wasted. It is in the hope that they will use the recess to sort themselves out that I am supporting the Government.
Sir Winston Churchill said that under the system under which we work here, one can elect any Government one likes and, having got it, one has to like what one has got. The only alternative to allowing hon. Members opposite to wade into the Lobby with their majority of 100 to do things which even they themselves think are disastrous, is to give them

353
a rest and an opportunity to sort themselves out, in the hope that they can cure themselves and come back even marginally better than they have been, when they have been carrying out the disastrous policies which we have seen during the last 15 months.
4.44 p.m.
Mr. Harold Finch: I wish to raise a point on which I hope the Lord President of the Council will be able to reply. It is a matter of great importance to the mining industry and, in particular, to those in South Wales. I refer to the anticipated report of the Aberfan tribunal, for which we have all been waiting. I should like an assurance from my right hon. Friend that we shall be able to have a debate on this subject as soon as we return after the recess.
I support the Motion in principle, but much depends upon the reply of my right hon. Friend. This was a very disastrous occurrence at Aberfan and everyone is anxiously awaiting the report. We want to debate it as soon as possible. May I be told when the report is to be published and when we shall be able to debate it?
4.45 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I support the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who moved the Amendment. Reference has been made with accuracy to the House of Commons having been conducted like a slave ship with "Captain Bligh" himself sitting on the Front Bench. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that Captain Bligh, for all his apparent power, suffered a bad end, and that the kind of bullying tactics to which he resorts could land him in the same boat. Having rightly compared the House of Commons to a slave ship, the hon. Member for Fife, West, apparently recollecting that dogs are allowed only one bite, after which they will not get their licence renewed, then resorted to the extraordinary and rather contradictory sequence of a long paean of praise for the Leader of the House. There was not general applause for that, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will learn some lesson from it.
I was impressed by one argument of the hon. Gentleman's. He said that when Parliament is in recess the Government get away almost with murder. What worries me is that the present Executive get away with murder even when the
354
House is sitting. They do so by fixing our attention on peripheral matters while Rome burns in the middle. There is some justification for a hidden Standing Order which requires the automatic postponement, without the knowledge of the Government—I realise that this would be difficult to put into effect—of the rising of the House for one week after the date fixed by the Government.
This would catch all those announcements which are dribbled out immediately Parliament has risen for a recess—all these things like the fixing of electricity prices of appointments which are not universally popular on the other side of the House and the fixing of the exact steel compensation terms. There are many things which, doubtless, we have not yet heard about. Friday's HANSARD will, no doubt, be full of Written Answers all containing the most sepulchral announcements of which the House of Commons probably has no inkling at all at the moment. Therefore, I should very much like to have this automatic postponement for at least one week to enable us to catch up with the less likeable of the Government's droppings.
I see your eye upon me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I will pass on to another point. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who drew attention to the need for the House of Commons to discuss the serious plight of agriculture. As has already been said, we had this situation last year, and it is happening again this year after the so-called favourable Price Review. Is this to be the routine for agriculture? This is what we should like to know before we rise for such a long recess. Yesterday, we had—and I mean no offence to anybody who took part in the debate—a rather stylised 18th century engagement on economic affairs. I do not think that I shall be regarded as discourteous to anyone it I say that that debate left some of our more intractable problems wholly unsolved.
We want to know how the Government's thinking will move—if they move at all—during the next three months. It would be of value if the House had a passing opportunity to comment on the way in which stagnation ever characterises their thinking. We should very much like to be informed by the Government of their views on Rhodesia. I am very

355
worried about the Prime Minister's attitude. The right hon. Gentleman's motives and moves are so difficult to follow for anyone who has not had long experience of labyrinths. In answer to a question, the Prime Minister spoke of the present régime in Rhodesia as being partly Fascist. Is this the phraseology which one expects from the lips of a man who is about to undertake serious negotiations? As usual, the Prime Minister leaves us in mid-air. He is not to have an opportunity to explain himself.
Those are some of the matters on which we should like to have, and about which it is our duty to require, regular information from the Government. After 2½ years of words—it seems like 25 years to me—preceded by goodness knows how many years of promises, we find ourselves spiralling rapidly down towards disaster. By their perpetual smokescreen of words, and with their almost unique gift for manipulation so that attention is diverted to peripheral matters, the Government are able to put out of reach the really major issues which will affect the fate and fortune of every one of us for many years, letting them go untouched.
I recognise the weaknesses and inadequacies of Parliament in controlling an Executive like this. Neverthless, there is no other institution, and for that reason I regard the departure of Parliament at this juncture as an ill event. I fear the consequences for the country, with the Government untrammelled by even that minor measure of control which Parliament is able to put upon them.
4.53 p.m.
Mr. E. Shinwell: I hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will not misunderstand what I am about to say. Nothing grieves me more than having to support him, because my basic principles are the very reverse of his own—if, indeed, he has any basic principles.
Mr. Peyton: Without being very original, I was about to ask the right hon. Gentleman to enlighten us.
Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Gentleman did not note what I said when I began, that I hoped that he would not misunderstand me. Although we differ almost fundamentally on every problem which
356
comes before the House, on this issue I am with him 100 per cent., while, at the same time, discarding almost every argument he used in support.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). My only regret is that he does not intend to push his case all the way by going into the Division Lobby. I assure him that, if he decides so to do, I shall follow him.
I hope that I shall not be misunderstood in what I am now about to say, since it has a bearing on the decisions taken by the Chair, for whom I always have the highest respect, but, having listened to the major part of this debate, I have had the impression that almost everyone has been out of order. I do not propose to be out of order. At least, that is my intention.
I give one valid and substantial reason why we should return on 19th September. My holiday period will by then have terminated. That is not out of order, and it is a thoroughly sound reason. There is another reason. Although, I confess, I am sometimes bored by having to listen to speeches in the House—sometimes one is bored by one's own speeches—I am even more bored during the Recess. Sometimes. I do not know what to do with myself.
What can I do? The holiday is over. I have spent the best part of my ill-gotten gains. I return to a normal condition of existence. What am I to do?—visit the Tower of London, visit Westminster Abbey, visit the British Museum again to see the Elgin Marbles? Should I pay a visit to the Zoo? Why should I do that?
I mean what I say—I always do, of course—and I say that 12 weeks is far too long. I have given substantial reasons why we should return, and willingly, on 19th September. Here are further compelling reasons. This afternoon, I had down Question No. Q11. I made strenuous efforts to persuade Mr. Speaker to allow me to put it, and only the unwarranted intervention or intrusion of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—who put an irrelevant and immaterial question, prevented my Question from being answered.
Not that I expected a very satisfactory answer, anyhow. Often, when young

357
Members coming into the House ask my advice—I assure hon. Members that it does happen—I tell them that what matters is not the answer one gets from the Treasury Bench, but the point which one makes. If all we had to rely on were answers from the Treasury Bench, there would be very little satisfaction from putting Questions down.
My Question was not answered, but I wanted to know—I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to know, too—when the Suez Canal is to be reopened. I wanted the Prime Minister to tell the House when that event is to come, and for very good reason. If the Suez Canal is not reopened within the next six to 12 months, and this is by no means unlikely, it will be a serious matter for our shipping and economy. Shipping freight charges will rise to extreme heights, and this will obviously have a detrimental effect, not only on shipping, but on our economy as a whole.
When are we going to learn from the Government what action is to be taken? Some action has to be taken. I am not suggesting that we should send out a gunboat. Whenever anyone asks a question about what action is to be taken by the Government to protect British nationals who happen to be overseas, some of my hon. Friends immediately interject "Send a gunboat".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that we cannot, on this Motion, discuss what action should be taken with regard to the Suez Canal, or elsewhere. We can discuss only the length of the recess.
Mr. Shinwell: How right you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could not agree more with you I was merely using that as an illustration. I am not discussing what should be done. How do I know, anyway? It is only the Government who know anything about what is to be done.
This matter is as simple as ABC. Is ABC simple? I am not sure, but it is the only thing that I can think of at the moment. Within the next three months this country may be placed in a position of extreme economic difficulty, indeed distress, unless the Suez Canal is opened. When shall we know what pressure we can bring to bear on the Government so that action is taken?
358
I am unable to say what action should be taken. It is for the Government to tell us what kind of action is essential, and what action it is within their power to take.
Those are the reasons why I think that the House should meet again on 19th September. That date will suit me very well. I shall go off on holiday at the beginning of September, and return on the 16th. I shall, therefore, be back just in time for the House to meet on the 19th. Before then, it is the prerogative of every Member, and I shall avail myself of the privilege, to put down a number of Questions. I shall repeat my Question on today's Order Paper. It was not answered orally, and I am sure that when I see the Written Answer it will not give me or anybody else any satisfaction. When I put down my Question again, I shall get an Answer, which is what I am anxious to have, and through the pages of HANSARD I shall be able to inform everyone who is not present in the House at the time.
Mr. Peter Mills: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman has said about going on holiday. It will be very interesting to know when he intends to visit his constituency.
Mr. Shinwell: I am delighted to answer that question. I know that the whole country is anxious to know the answer to it. I visit my constituency frequently, and I assure the hon. Gentleman, if he wants an assurance, that my constituency is very well satisfied with me. Only recently—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was asked a question—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot pursue that any further.
Mr. Shinwell: I am in a quandary now, because I was asked a question, and if this appears in The Times tomorrow morning—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the question, which was out of order, has already been satisfactorily answered.
Mr. Shinwell: I was about to say that I visited my constituency last week and

359
received two valuable gifts from my constituents. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see them, I can arrange for him to visit my little domicile and see them. He will then realise how much I am appreciated in my constituency.
I want, now, to refer to what the hon. Member for Yeovil said about the Government Front Bench. I deprecate these attacks on the Front Bench, and more particularly those on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. On a B.B.C. programme the other night I was asked whether I disliked my right hon. Friend. I responded at once, "Of course I do not. Why should I?" I said that he was a man of remarkable intellectual distinction, but I went on to say that I did not think he made a very good Leader of the House. I was also asked what I thought was his proper vocation—though this did not appear in the programme, nor did my answer—and I said, with respect to Mr. Paul Johnson, of the New Statesman, my right hon. Friend would make a better editor of that paper and that he would even make a better editor of The Times than Mr. ReesMogg.
When Mr. Robin Day asked whether that was logical, in view of my suggestion that my right hon. Friend was sometimes unreliable, and indulged in variations, I said that if one read the leading articles in The Times that is precisely what one discovered. I think, therefore, that one can understand that I do not dislike my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no doubt that all this is very interesting, but it is not relevant to the length of the recess.
Mr. Shinwell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am really surprised at that. I should have thought that it was relevant, for the reasons which I am about to tell the House.
I have a great respect for my right hon. Friend, although I do not think that he is the best Leader of the House. This is all the more reason why we should return sooner than 12 weeks hence, so that he will have an opportunity to show what he can do. We have seen the liberalisation programme, which had a remarkable effect last night when some of my hon. Friends who had ventured
360
something in the nature of a revolt decided to vote with the Government, which was, of course, the proper thing to do in the circumstances. There is every reason why we should return on 19th September.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) talked about the effect which an early return might have on the various party conferences. Would it really matter if hon. Members on this side of the House did not attend the Labour Party conference? Do they really think that they make any impact on the conference platform? For perhaps 50 years I have attended Labour Party conferences, and I made no impact; and when I was on the platform nobody on the floor could make any impact on my mind.
As for the Tory Party conference, one knows what happened there not long ago. There was a disputation about who should be the Leader of the Tory Party.—[An HON. MEMBER: "And see what you got!"] In my judgment that is not a valid reason for not returning on 19th September. As for the Liberal Party conference, I ask you! Well, I do not ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it is really a rhetorical question. Would it really matter? Is their journey really necessary? The arguments which occur to me, and some of the arguments which have occurred to those hon. Members who have addressed the House, point to one conclusion only, namely, that we should return on 19th September. If anybody wants to return earlier than that, it would not suit me.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) raised the question of eggs. I agree that this is a very serious matter. I can understand their distress. The egg business is not doing so well. I assure hon. Members opposite that I am not an opponent of theirs in this matter. I consume two eggs every day. What could one do more than that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Consume three."] Sometimes I am asked the reason for my very good health. There you are; there is the prescription. Two eggs a day. If necessary, I will consume another—not every day, but perhaps on Sundays.
I beg hon. Members opposite not to imagine that I am in opposition to them. They want us to return on 19th September so that the Minister of Agriculture

361
can appear on the Treasury Bench and answer their questions. I want the Minister of Power to appear to tell us about pit closures in my constituency in Durham and elsewhere. I want the Minister of Power as soon as possible to give me a valid reason why the Seaton Carew power station, which is in contemplation, should not be powered by coal instead of nuclear energy, and—last, but not least—I want the Foreign Secretary to give me the reason why the Suez Canal remains closed. I want at the earliest moment to know what the Government intend to do to ensure its reopening.
I am sure that in saying that all these are valid reasons I have the House with me—except for the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) who, by the way, suggested that the Government should resign. Does he realise what that would mean? There would be another election. [An HON. MEMBER: "He would double his majority."] Does he realise the effect of another election? Let him recall what happened last time. He got in by the skin if his teeth—a matter of three votes. He should not ask the Government to resign. The longer the Government remain there, the better it will be for his chances. [Laughter.] Hon. Members can interpret that remark as they wish.
I think that I have made out my case. I have also fortified my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West and I have given support to the hon. Member for Yeovil—I think for the first time in the history of our acquaintance in the House of Commons. For all the reasons that I have given I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West will press this very important matter to a Division. He will find that I will follow him right through the Lobby and inscribe my vote in favour of a return on 19th September.
5.13 p.m.
Mr. John Pardoe: I do not wish to follow the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in the troubles of his constituency, except to say that I do not know whether my next visit to Blackpool will be necessary. I know that my last was not, because I went there as a delegate to the Labour Party conference in 1959.
I cannot understand why the House should have 12 weeks' holiday, and I do
362
not believe that anybody else can. There are many things in respect of which one could oppose the Motion to rise on Friday and not come back for 12 weeks. There are many things that we have left undone that we should have done. I want to focus attention on a matter that concerns me, namely, the rÔ
le of the House as watchdog of public expenditure. I believe that we have a duty as overseers of the public purse and that during the last two or three weeks, in relation to social security, we have lamentably failed in that duty.
Yesterday, we had a statement from the Minister without Portfolio to all intents and purposes committing the Government to an additional expenditure of about £53 million. It may be said that we shall have an opportunity to debate this when we reassemble, but we shall be able to debate only that part of the expenditure which does not become operative until April, 1968. If that is so, why announce it yesterday? To the public it will appear that we have signed and sealed this item of expenditure with little more public examination than a few cursory questions yesterday afternoon. It will be said that we have already debated that part of the expenditure which becomes operative in October.
The debate which has taken place in the House on the money allocated for social security during the last two weeks has been totally inadequate. We spent a miserable three hours debating the Second Reading of the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill on Monday, 3rd July, Clause 5 of which, which related to yesterday's statement, gives the Government temporary power to increase family allowances by Order.
It is impossible to say how much of that three hours' debate was taken up by discussing the item relating to yesterday's statement, but by no stretch of the imagination could it have been more than half an hour. In Committee, on Friday, 7th July, the Clause was debated for no more than 35 minutes, and both the Second Reading and the Committee stage were taken in such a hurried fashion that no vote was taken on any part of the Bill. I understand that Her Majesty's Opposition, through the usual channels, formed an unholy alliance with the Government to stifle discussion of the Bill.

363
The Chair—and I make no criticism in this respect—ruled that no debate on the Question, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill", could take place. In other words, the National Insurance (No. 2) Bill, which raised public expenditure by £230 million in a full year and was responsible for public taxation amounting to £217 million, was put through the House with less than nine hours' discussion. Yesterday we had a statement which incurred the direct expenditure of £5 million, and we had no chance to debate it at all.
If the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way.
Mr. Anthony Barber: I was only intrigued to know what the hon. Member wanted to do about the Motion and the Amendment.
Mr. Pardoe: I would have thought that I was at least as much in order in my remarks as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was in his; indeed, I do not think that I have been called to order by the Chair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that many other hon. Members wish to speak. Perhaps he will devote himself to the Motion, so that we can make faster progress.
Mr. Pardoe: I would have thought that the most important rÔle of the House was as watchdog over public expenditure. My point—which I would have thought the right hon. Gentleman would take account of—is that we have agreed to large sums of public expenditure in respect of National Insurance, and to increased taxation, without any discussion. This has particular relevance to yesterday's statement.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: We are not discussing what happened yesterday; we are discussing why we should not adjourn on Friday, or why we ought to come back in September. That is an entirely different question from the question of what happened yesterday.
Mr. Pardoe: I do not think so. If we had another week of debates we would be able to discuss this item of public expenditure properly. If we had
364
another two weeks—it is possible that we would not use the time usefully, but that is another matter—it would be still better. I do not intend to be led, through interventions, to a discussion of the merits of yesterday's statement, but in our role as public watchdog over expenditure we have failed. That is why I oppose the Motion that the House should rise on Friday for the Recess. It would be better—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not relating his remarks to the Motion. What has happened may be regrettable, but unless the hon. Member can relate his remarks to what we are doing in the future—especially in relation to the Recess—he will be out of order.
Mr. Pardoe: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am prepared to accept that I may be out of order. What I am trying to say—I thought that this was in order, but I am prepared to accept your Ruling that it is not—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair takes a different view from that which the hon. Member takes. He must direct his remarks to the Motion.
Mr. Pardoe: If we go away on Friday without having done our duty in this respect we shall be seen to have failed. There is no case for rising on this date, because the House has not done its job and a mass of business remains. I will not go into detail, or discuss the egg situation, or the coal situation in Easing-ton, but we could be better watchdogs of public expenditure in this respect if we stayed for another week or came back earlier.
I do not understand why the Government accept that Parliament should always recess in August. It might be better if we set an example so that the country did not always go on holiday in this month. Perhaps we could recess at some other time if the Government desperately want 12 weeks every year to themselves. If we fail in this duty, we might as well amend the Motion to say that we go away on Friday and never come back.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. David Winnick: Two points need clarification before we

365
rise for the recess. First the Government should announce before Friday whether they intend to extend the Race Relations Act. It is now four or five months since the publication of the P.E.P. report on colour discrimination, and an early day Motion, signed by over 150 of my colleagues, calls on the Government to extend the Act to cover insurance, housing and employment facilities. In view of the controversies over race relations in other countries and colour discrimination in Britain, the Government must say before we rise whether they have come to the right solution, that the Act will be extended—
Mr. Cranley Onslow: By the same token, would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government owe the country an announcement about what they intend to do if Mr. Stokely Carmichael seeks to come back to this country?
Mr. Winnick: If we debate race relalations, the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his point then.
My second point relates to the statement issued yesterday by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). It would be wrong if we did not debate this matter as soon as possible, because the right hon. Gentleman issued a shocking statement yesterday. It was a clear incitement to colour hatred in Britain—
Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman is attacking my right hon. Friend. Did he give him warning of his intention to do so?
Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is normal practice, when one intends to mention a right hon. or hon. Gentleman, to inform him. I did so, and received a note from him, saying that he could not be present.
This was a disturbing statement and this is a reason why we should not rise yet. We know that the Press is devoting a great deal of space to race relations in other countries and the unfortunate events in the United States of America. What the right hon. Member for Streatham has done is to exploit this situation and incite hatred, it seems to me, of non-white people in Britain. I have a copy of the statement—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point on this subject. Perhaps he would now move to another one.
Mr. Winnick: There is no other point to move to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was about to try to strengthen my argument for our debating that statement—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of getting into a debate on the subject itself, which is not admissible on this Motion.
Mr. Winnick: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I always want to remain in order.
This statement was so serious—I wished to quote from The Times report of it—that there should be a clear statement from the Government and Opposition Front Benches dissociating themselves from this shocking and, I would describe it, evil statement from the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now repeating himself.
Mr. Winnick: I have made the two points which I wanted to make, and I hope that there will be some comment from the two Front Benches, first, about the Race Relations Act, and, second, on the statement of the right hon. Member for Streatham.
5.26 p.m.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The Lord President of the Council, who sat through the debate on the Whitsun Adjournment, will recall, as I do, that there has been one curious omission in this debate from the reasons given in that debate against our adjourning. It was formerly argued from hi, side of the House then that we should not adjourn until a debate on Suez had been arranged. Curiously, not a single suggestion to that effect has been made today in a debate which has lasted for the best part of an hour and a half.
Something must have happened. Hon. Gentlemen opposite apparently now realise that they backed the wrong horse, and I thought that it might be as well simply to eliminate that reason from this debate, as hon. Members opposite have already eliminated it from their arguments. It is gratifying to know that hon.

367
Members sometimes learn, even though, in this case, it took them 10 years.
These debates tend, to use a phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) to be somewhat stylised and to contain highly entertaining episodes like the speech, which the whole House enormously enjoyed, of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). He gave the Egg Marketing Board a commercial trailer which, if that body has the slightest commercial sense, it will use to the full.
I want to bring the House back to the serious background—
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Perhaps they should pay him.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I, of course, have not the hon. Gentleman's commercial sense.
Mr. Lewis: I am supporting what the right hon. Member said about my right hon. Friend and suggest that the Board should pay my right hon. Friend royalties.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Even the hon. Gentleman's support, though agreeably offered, will not divert me from my argument.
We are being asked to go away for three months when the state of the nation and of the world is exceedingly grim. The right hon. Member for Easington rightly reminded us that a vital artery of world traffic is closed and we have not been able to get from the Government the faintest indication of how and when and by whom it will be reopened. We leave the Middle East in a state of explosive and very real danger. We leave our national economy precarious, with all of us who have studied the subject expecting awkward and dangerous developments before 23rd October.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was right to refer to public expenditure. It was impossible to extract from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, and still less, naturally, from the President of the Board of Trade, in his peaceful readings of the "Thoughts of the President of the Board of Trade", the slightest indication about the Government's intention to control the mounting total of public expenditure.
368
As the hon. Member said, the basic function of this House is to control public expenditure. How can we do it if we go away for three months which are the decisive months, during which the decisions will be taken which, one way or another, will determine the level of public expenditure in the forthcoming financial year?
If we accept the Motion, therefore, we are leaving Parliament for three months to go away in a stormy, dangerous external world. I do not suppose that anyone has the slightest doubt that there will be crises and alarms. We are leaving a deteriorating economy, with unemployment already at its highest level for this time of year for 27 years—and, so far from having an assurance from the Chancellor that it will soon be better, we have a clear indication from him that it will be worse and that he intends to do nothing about it. That is the state of affairs in which Parliament is asked to go away for three months.
I ask the House in all seriousness to look at this matter from the point of view of Parliament. If we are to seek for a measure of control over the Executive, if as an institution we are to play a part in the affairs of the country, how can we do it if we placidly, and at the behest of the Government, go away in these circumstances for three months? I know that the right hon. Gentleman will remind me that there is power in the Government to ask Mr. Speaker to recall us. But that is power in the Government, on the initiative of the Government and under the control of the Government, and it is just because very few of us believe that in this state of the world the Government are to be trusted with the nation's affairs without any Parliamentary checks for three months that many of us are genuinely unhappy at so long a recess being proposed simply because it is—as it undoubtedly is—the normal practice.
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be able to find precedents—I could recall them myself—for recesses of a similar length. That is not the point. Parliament—and I say this with regret, because I love the House and I am a devoted upholder of Parliamentary in stitutions—is standing not all that high, let us face it, in public estimation at the moment. It will not do so if for

369
three difficult months it does not even try to do its job.
I am not sure about the Amendment. I am not at all sure that it chooses the right date. I am more inclined to feel that we should not rise on Friday with so much unfinished business. I am more inclined to think that we ought to go on. But whichever way we look at it—and opinions can differ—I suggest that a three-month recess in these circumstances is damaging to the standing of Parliament and to the opportunities of Parliament to stand up to the Executive.
To obtain this end of rising on Friday, we all know—the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) referred to it—that vital business had to be discussed right through the middle of the night. I do no mean simply the "phoney" Private Members' business. I mean the admittedly Government legislation such as the Prices and Incomes Act, which had to be taken through in the middle of the night. That cannot but make people outside deeply critical of the way in which we conduct our affairs. The tragedy is that this would not have been necessary, not even with the Lord President's ideas of how the House should be managed, if we had taken it calmly and said, "We shall sit for another week or fortnight". If these are matters which demand Parliamentary scrutiny, and if they are matters to which it is right that he should give Parliamentary time, very well, let him give it, but at a time of the day which people regard as reasonable.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The right hon. Member is generalising too much and not applying his arguments to the Motion.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
With respect, I invite your attention to the fact that when Mr. Speaker was in the Chair, the hon. Member for Fife, West spoke very much on those lines and went out of his way to praise the Lord President of the Council for the admirable management of our affairs which produced this situation. If the hon. Member is entitled to praise the Lord President of the Council, which, I admit, is a very difficult mental exer-
370
cise for anybody, surely it is equally open to those of us who do not share his uncritical enthusiasm for that great man to indicate a slight difference of view on the matter and to suggest that another interpretation can be placed upon the arrangements under which the Lord President of the Council has kept the House going like a broilerhouse day and night for the last three or four weeks to the detriment of the House—which matters a certain amount—and to the detriment of public business—which matters a great deal.
That was the only point which I desired to make and, therefore, grateful as I am, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as always, for your guidance, I do not think that I need seek to speak further about this. I wish to make two points to the Government. If the Government desire to do so much business and to find so much time for what purport to be Private Members' Bills, there is only one way in which to do it effectively without damaging Parliament as an institution, and that is to prolong the length of the Session and to take the business which the Government claim to be necessary during ordinary hours during an extended Session. I put these arguments in very considerable seriousness. If Parliament is to gain in respect, as we all want to see it gain, from our fellow countrymen, if it is not only to do the job of keeping the Government under control but to appear to do the job, we have to be here. The absent are always wrong, and three months is too long an absence.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Those of us who have not been Members of the House for quite as long as some others who are present may perhaps be more aware that one of the things which causes people outside the House to question some of our customs and activities is the very practice in which we are indulging now. We are considering an Amendment which says that we should come back earlier and we are questioning a Motion which says that we should adjourn on Friday. Everybody knows, both inside the House and outside it, that all this is arranged. Everybody knows that discussions have taken place through what are normally called the usual channels. Everybody knows what will happen: we shall go on Friday. Everybody knows

371
that we shall come back at the time which the Motion states that we shall come back.
Sir D. Glover: If the hon. Member wishes to put this Question to a Division I am willing to tell with him. If there are enough back-bench Members here who will support it, we shall come back on 19th September.
Mr. Jenkins: If I may digress from my argument, I will point out to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) that although it is theoretically within the power of the House to do so, in point of fact all arrangements are made, the business of the House has been discussed, the arrangements of the servants of the House are made, and holidays are arranged. In spite of the hon. Member's desire to maintain the validity of the charade, outside the House the charade is seen to be invalid.
I may be on a tender point there when I say that when we go through some of the procedures of the House which we accept as valid, they are enjoyed by many hon. Members here—and the longer hon. Members are here the more they are enjoyed—but they are not enjoyed outside the House. Those outside the House often wonder what we are getting at when we are spending time discussing the question of coming back at a certain time, offering reasons why we should come back earlier, when we know very well that, although theoretically we have the power to change the situation, we do not intend on either side of the House to push the matter to a Division. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members may disagree with me and dislike what I am saying. But if they ask themselves, in their heart of hearts, what the situation is, they will admit that this matter has been discussed and has been arranged and that what we are going through here is a charade.
What useful purpose are we serving in the debate? I think that we can serve a useful purpose. It seems to me that if we use this occasion to put forward arguments for a considerable change in the whole approach for Parliamentary time we shall use the debate for a useful purpose. But if we go on year after year, recess after recess, going through the motions of not wanting to go away and
372
wanting to come back quickly, we shall merely do what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) fears and bring the House into contempt.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. Is he really saying that if the Amendment were accepted, or the Motion were rejected, we would not, under the Standing Order, automatically resume next Monday or come back on 19th September? I hope that he is not suggesting that the Government would seek to overrule the decision of the House. I have not suspected even the Leader of the House of that.
Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman is illustrating the validity of what I say. He knows full well that what he has said is absolutely true in theory. We have full power to make these changes, but he knows that it is also true that it is not the intention that the changes shall be made. This is precisely what I think is wrong.
Therefore, the use of this occasion is not to go through this annual charade, but to suggest changes in our procedures. Hon. Members who said that 12 weeks is too long a period are right. It is a ridiculous time. If, as a result of this debate, the "usual channels" on either side were seriously to get down to the question of changing the Parliamentary timetable we would have served a useful purpose this afternoon. If we had a recess of a month—or six weeks, if hon. Members opposite prefer—in the summer and more frequent breaks so that we could visit our constituencies properly for a week at a time, rearranging the Parliamentary timetable as a result, we should achieve something.
Quite apart from the general arguments, about the Summer Recess being too long, with which I agree, I have a personal interest for feeling that we should not go away on Friday. I have a Private Member's Bill on which there have been nine Committee sittings. It had its Second Reading more than a year ago, in June, 1966, and one day has been spent on its Report stage.
Mr. Pavitt: A filibuster.
Mr. Jenkins: It has been filibustered, as my hon. Friend says. It needs another

373
day on Report to be brought to its conclusion. I suspect, that because of an agreement between the two Front Benches we are bound to finish on 28th July. Because of this and because we are not returning until near the end of October, the Bill cannot be concluded.
If we did not rise until a day or two later, we could conclude the proceedings on that Measure and do one or two other things which my hon. Friends would like to do. We could also conclude all those matters if we began again on the date suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). It will be a pity if we do not, but I shall not blind myself with the feeling that we shall. I know full well that we shall not, in spite of what is said this afternoon. It is time some of the conventions were broken down, and that is what I seek to do now.
The Amendment is not serious, but it is serious in its intention. Even if we do not come back on 19th September, the Amendment gives us the opportunity to draw attention to the fact that our timetable is an agricultural one of 100 years ago and is completely out of date in modern conditions. I want us to look at the whole situation so that we readjust our timetable as well as our methods of operation. It is too late to change this year, but I hope that as a result of the debate we shall decide to change another year, and that this may be the last 12-week Recess on which the House ever embarks.
Although my Private Member's Bill, the Employment Agencies Bill, will not be reached this Session, I think that it is possible that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House can say something encouraging about the intentions on it for next Session. If he can do so, I hope that he will not hesitate to say those encouraging words.
5.44 p.m.
Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said that he thought that the debate on the Motion and the Amendment was "phoney". He added that the House was expressing a view and hoped that we should alter our procedure for next year. This is exactly how Parliament brings about change. When we have debates it does not necessarily follow that because the votes in the Division Lobbies
374
go one way the argument is not won by the other side; policy may change. This is the purpose of Parliament. Therefore, I do not think that anybody need apologise for speaking in this debate.
If the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) wished to carry his Amendment to a Division I should be sincerely willing to be a Teller for him. I think that this year, in particular, a 12 weeks' recess is far too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) made a powerful speech about meat and eggs. I agree with every word of what he said. It is an absolute tragedy that the House is rising without an opportunity for these matters to be put to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, perhaps more important, for him to tell the House what he proposes to do about these grave problems. There is also the desire of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) to raise the question of coal-mining.
It has been known for far too long that the date of this recess was much more formalised and solidified than any I have known since I have been in the House. We have been talking about 28th July for weeks, which means that the Leader of the House deliberately said, "We shall rise on 28th July, come hell and high water. Whatever the problems, whatever the crises, this is what will happen." The result is that we have had the most appalling time during the past three or four weeks, with all-night sittings.
There is another reason why I think that the Amendment should be given serious consideration. I accept what the hon. Member for Putney said about an agricultural timetable. I also have a mental picture of coaches and fours loading up outside St. Stephen's entrance and people trundling off into the country in 1767 instead of 1967. We should all be very healthy if, instead of having 12weeks' recess at one time in the year, the recesses were broken up in the way the hon. Member for Fife, West suggested.
But, more important, I have had ever since I entered the House, whichever party was sitting on the opposite side of the House, a grave suspicion about the Executive and the Government. I have only an even greater suspicion when they are Labour than when they are Conservative. I think that the House has always been wrong to leave the Executive

375
without control and untrammelled for 12 or 13 weeks at a time. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) seems to think that members of the Government are so exhausted, so decrepit, that unless they have 12 weeks to recharge their batteries the nation will come to a very sticky end.
I assure my hon. Friend that with the party opposite in power the nation would probably come to a sticky end, whether they have 12 weeks' recess or 24. I do not understand how my hon. Friend, whose wisdom I have valued and admired on most occasions, can wish to allow a lot of animals with rabies to go rushing around the country without any control by their guardians for 12 weeks and think that this will do the nation good. It is beyond my comprehension.
What is the purpose of the Leader of the House in giving all hon. Members 12 weeks' holiday when I gather that most of us who want to go abroad have enough money to last us for only 10 days? There does not seem to me much point in having 12 weeks' holiday. I agree with the question asked by the right hon. Member for Easington: what are hon. Members to do during the rest of the recess? Are they to go to the British Museum, or to Southend on a day ticket? I shall not go to the Zoo, because I might meet there too many hon. Members opposite earning a little extra keep on the side.
What are we to do with all the time the Government are giving us? All the talk about hon. Members spending weeks at a time in their constituencies is not true. Of course, hon. Members spend a lot of time in their constituencies during the recess, but they do that when the House is sitting, anyway. I do not think that the average hon. Member goes on a carefully planned tour of his constituency for 28 days during the Summer Recess. He visits his constituency just as he does when the House is sitting and carries out various functions all the time.
What do hon. Members do during the long recess? They have a holiday. Their wives get fed up with having them at home. All this time, whilst the backs of hon. Members are turned, the Government are getting into more and more trouble and getting the country into a far
376
worse condition. When we meet on 23rd October, we shall be presented with an enormous number of faits accomplis. The Government will say, "We have done this. We have done that. We have done the other. We want the House of Commons to approve it all".
Yet the House wonders why it is losing control over the Executive. It is because we encourage the Executive to take our power from us. We rather like the Executive to take it away from us. We do not like to have to face the decision of whether our consciences are strong enough to make us break with our parties on an issue. Back benchers are great people for marching up to the gates, turning round, and marching back again, as those in the rear cry "Forward", and those at the front cry "Back". This is what hon. Members opposite did last night. It happened when the Conservative Party was in power. It takes a great deal of courage for back benchers to do what is necessary if they are to control the Executive. We could do it if we had the guts and the determination to ensure that the Executive did not exercise the control over our affairs that it does at present.
This is why, as a demonstration, the House should try to get more control over the Executive and act much more as a watchdog. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) referred to our being a watchdog on expenditure. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) referred to having specialist committees on the affairs of the nation. To show that we want to keep control over the Executive I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, West will force the Amendment to a Division. Let us see how many hon. Members there are who want to keep a grip on the Executive.
5.53 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover). There is only one point in his speech with which I agree, namely, his comment on the question of travel allowances. If hon. Members want to go abroad, the allowance of £50 will not be much use. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are people who can get more than £50. I do not know whether that is legal.

377
One reason why I oppose the Motion is that I have been trying to raise one such case with the Executive. I cannot make any headway. If we were not to adjourn on Friday, or if we were to return earlier, there might be an opportunity for me to raise the question. It would be out of order for me to go into the details. The Sunday Express has carried a report that a man in Majorca says that he travels to Majorca three or four times a year and spends three or four months there. He says that he will stay there until the end of August or until the report affecting him—the man concerned is Mr. John Bloom—is out.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ascertain how Mr. John Bloom and his wife can, on an allowance of £50, go three or four times a year to Majorca. Why have the Government allowed this man to stay in Majorca when, as I was told by the Attorney-General yesterday, there might be a report affecting him issued while the House is in recess.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has indicated very clearly why he does not want us to adjourn. He must not go into further details.
Mr. Lewis: I was about to say that the Report, which the Attorney-General mentioned only yesterday, is due to come out while the House in is recess. Not only should we be here to enable us to debate this very important Report, but the Executive ought to be called to account and made to tell us why it has allowed the main person named in the Report—Mr. John Bloom—to be away for this time.
There are a number of burning issues of a local and national character which I have tried to get the Government to deal with, but I have not been able to get any answers. There is the question of the reopening of the Suez Canal. We have been told in Answers that it is costing £2 per ton extra to carry the oil round the Cape. This will mean an extra £88 million on our imports of oil, taking the last recorded figure.
This leads me again to the question whether we should adjourn on Friday, or whether we should return in September. I understand that one of the announcements which may be made
378
whilst the House is in recess is that petrol is to be rationed. This announcement may or may not be made while the House is in recess, but I want to be able to ask the Minister how he will operate a rationing scheme. One of my pet subjects has been the thousands of vehicles on the roads without Road Fund licences. Will the owners of those vehicles be allowed to get their petrol ration? If so, on what basis?
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) mentioned the speech made yesterday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when my right hon. Friend suggested that there might be import controls. The hon. Gentleman seemed woried about that. I should be very happy about it, because one of the questions which has been bothering me, but upon which I cannot get an answer, either from the President of the Board of Trade or from the Prime Minister—I shall not be able to get an answer during the next few weeks, because the House will be in recess if the motion is agreed to—is as to why Britain should, under a Labour Government, be importing just on £4 million worth of one-armed bandits and jukeboxes from America. The Tories have not got clean hands in this matter, because under them Britain was importing about £1 million worth. But under a Labour Government there is an increase of 400 per cent. This is another reason why—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is now getting involved in a debate on the subject matter of the matters he is raising, rather than on the Motion.
Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not going into the merits or demerits, because one could probably advance quite a good argument in favour of Britain having these one-armed bandits. I have not been able to get an answer from the Government. If the House were to sit for a little longer, or return a little earlier, I might be able to get an answer.
Next, I raised in the House today the fact that rents for slum properties are doubling and even trebling. Rent officers and rent assessment committees, for whose setting up the Leader of the House was responsible, are not doing their job properly. I shall debate the merits, but

379
this, again, is something that we could debate during the next 12 weeks if we were not in recess.
We could argue that the Tories want complete rent decontrol. Again, I shall not go into the merits, but they could be argued. I am not in favour of rent decontrol. To debate the merits now would not be in order, but it is an important subject that we could discuss if we had a longer session.
Cattle and beef prices have been referred to. They may have fallen for the farmer, but the housewife has not seen much of that. Whether they have or not fallen is not a question to debate now, because it would not be in order, but if we were to come back earlier or go later we could debate whether the housewife has seen any reduction in the price of meat.
Then there is the question of resale price maintenance on sweets. The small shopkeepers object to its being lifted and we might discuss that.
We are told that there is also a big shortfall on apples and other fruit and that there will be a drastic rise in prices during the summer and autumn while we are in recess. I have asked the Minister of Agriculture to take action to see that price rises are not passed to the consumer, but I got no satisfaction. If we were to sit a few weeks longer or return a few weeks earlier, no doubt he would be pleased to give answers to these questions.
There is another aspect of the travel allowance. The Government are intent on going into the Common Market. The discussions will go during the recess. One aspect will be the free flow of currency. But we shall not be able to discuss it and see whether we are making progress towards entering the Common Market. In the Common Market there is free flow of capital and no restriction upon holiday allowances. The natives of the Six have no restriction on the money they make take in or out of their countries. In a debate, we might be able to suggest that the Government should allow a free flow of capital for travel purposes to show General de Gaulle that we are intent on getting into the Common Market.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into the merits of
380
the matter. He has already brought it to the attention of the House in the earlier part of his speech. I hope that he will not enumerate all the subjects which could be debated during the 12 weeks of the recess.
Mr. Lewis: I shall not do so, but I want to make a good case to the Government for an earlier return. The more I put, the more the Government will have an opportunity of seeing the wisdom of my case. You suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have put the same case on currency already, but I referred to an individual case and now I am referring to our application to join the Common Market in relation to the free flow of capital, pointing out that the Government could show General de Gaulle that they are intent on joining by making a free flow of capital available for holiday purposes.
Then there is the question relating to the chairmen of the local steel boards. I have the cutting referred to. I would like to have asked the Minister of Power whether it is true, as The Guardian says, that he has been informed that Mr. Macdiarmid is to be appointed at a salary of £19,000 a year. During the next few weeks, the Government will insist on wage and salary restraint. We may not have a freeze but they will ask people to go easy. Will they do that as far as Mr. Macdiarmid and his £19,000 are concerned? If they do, we may well want to argue about it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can mention the subjects he feels should be raised, but he is going into too much detail.
Mr. Lewis: I am mentioning the headings, but not the merits or demerits. I might be able to put a case in the recess that Mr. Macdiarmid is worth more or less than £19,000. But I shall not do so. Nor am I arguing whether he is the best man for the job.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: When is my hon. Friend coming to the arms salesmen?
Mr. Lewis: I had not given thought to that point, but during the next two months we could discuss Mr. Ray Brown, because there is talk that he is thinking of resigning his job and returning to private industry. If that happens during the next three months, I would like time

381
to debate it and whether it is right that he should have to go back to private industry when the Government are interested in selling arms to both sides in the Israel-Arab dispute. I am not debating the merits, because that would not be in order, but it is another subject which could well be discussed during the Recess.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said that during the Recess the Government would make announcements about cuts, reductions and various other unpalatable things. One would think that the Tory Government never did such a thing. The Government have followed the Tories in many respects, but I hope that they will not follow that example. But if they do, we should be back earlier to discuss any statement attacking the social services. I have great confidence that the Government will not do it but if they do I want to be here to challenge it.
Then there is the question of supersonic bangs.
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The topic the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned is set down for debate later today. May I go on to suggest that he is abusing the courtesy of the House? He is producing an apparently limitless catalogue of reasons for speaking on this Motion. Very many of us wish to take part in the debate. I suggest the time may be coming when a Motion that the hon. Gentleman be no further heard will be appropriate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I am sure that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will bear in mind that many hon. Members wish to speak on this Motion and that a long list of topics, including the subject of supersonic bangs, has been set down for the rest of the day.
Mr. Lewis: I was not going into that subject. But there is surely no point of order. Everything I have mentioned is in order. I have been in the House 23 years and have spoken on 10 occasions, including my maiden speech and two Adjournment debates. No one can accuse me of overbearing conduct in speaking in the House. Whether the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) likes it or not, I
382
intend to explain the subjects which could and should be adequately discussed during the next few months. I will continue with or without the approval of the hon. Member.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the Motion.
Mr. Lewis: I am coming to the Motion. I have been on the Motion all the time. I am explaining why the date, 19th September, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) would give us a better opportunity of discussing not only the subjects which I have mentioned, but the hundreds of important subjects which other hon. Members can and no doubt will mention.
I was coming to a local issue which I have mentioned before and about which I have not had a satisfactory answer. It concerns the transport of coal in and around the East End of London. It is stupid for the National Coal Board to take coal traffic off the canals and put it on to the roads, and this is a subject to debate during the summer months. We ought to get as much traffic as possible off the roads; not take it off the canals and put it on the roads.
In deference to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not to hon. Members opposite, I will conclude the whole list of subjects which the Government could and should allow time to debate. If my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West wishes to put this issue to the vote, I will support him in the Division Lobby.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I rise to oppose the Motion. There are still very many important subjects that should be debated before the recess, one of which is the urgent problem of agriculture and the effect of increasing imports. These are coming in at a steady flow the whole time and doing increasing damage to the agricultural industry. It is summed up well in Motion No. 601 which
"… urges the Minister of Agriculture, as a matter of the utmost urgency, to seek a solution in the interests of farmers and taxpayers alike by securing agreement of supplying countries to limit exports while prices are at a low level and at the same time to formulate long-term plans to control imports for the future."

383
This is what we should be debating in the coming week. I am not suggesting that we should go on for very long into August, but there are important matters to be cleared up. I am sincere, in spite of what has been said, that time should be given to debate these matters, and I humbly suggest that agricultural imports is one of the most serious issues for which time should be found, as the trouble will increase as the months go on before we return. These matters should be discussed in the interests of the consumer. I agree slightly with the hon. Member who said that prices in the shops are not coming down fast enough. This is an important matter which should be debated.
Before the recess the Minister should tell us what his plans are. It might be important to know what he proposes to do about these matters.
Mr. Farr: It might be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that the plans of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture are to fly to the Argentine the day before the House rises and not return for some three weeks. Surely with that knowledge we should press him to change his mind.
Mr. Mills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of the Minister's plans. He should be here next week telling us what he proposes to do about these problems.
Time is running out. October is too far away to leave this problem alone. The House has a duty to debate this sort of thing and it should be doing it next week. The position is getting worse each week. Heaven knows what it will be like when we return in the autumn. This is why I am asking for time to consider these matters before the Recess.
One of the most pressing problems in agriculture relates to eggs and poultry farmers. We have had unsatisfactory replies from the Board of Trade. The British Egg Marketing Board, too, has had unsatisfactory letters when it has suggested that dumping has taken place. We should be asking the President of the Board of Trade why he wrote these letters and why he gave these rather stupid answers.
I could quote from letters which I have, but I should be out of order. I hope that the House will take my word
384
that this is an important subject. British poultry farmers are in serious trouble and we should be doing something about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has mentioned beef. The Minister should be here answering questions and telling us what he proposes to do. The serious problem of store cattle should be debated next week.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it not an affront to Parliament that there is no one on the Treasury Bench?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Mills: I was saying that the problem of store cattle will be the same as last year with serious repercussions to the small farmer and the hill farmer. Yet we are not allowed to debate these matters; we are not allowed to have an answer from the Minister of Agriculture. I want to know what he proposes to do. Is he proposing to let this matter drift on and on? When we come back in October it will be too late and the damage will be done.
We should also be considering the views of the National Farmers' Union, which is most concerned about what is going on. I hope that I am in order in referring to the sort of letters that have been received from the National Farmers' Union. I know that time is needed and that is why I am asking for another week so that we can debate what the N.F.U. has to say about the problem. The President of the N.F.U., Mr. Williams, has written to the Ministry of Agriculture expressing grave concern at the present depressed state of the home cattle industry and urging the need for immediate steps to be taken to restore the market situation. The National Farmers' Union is also concerned to get rid of the cattle guarantee abatement scheme, and this is another important matter which we ought to debate. The N.F.U. says—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot got into the merits of the case.
Mr. Mills: I shall try to keep in order, but I was suggesting that this was an important subject which ought to be debated.

385
We have never debated the Irish Trade Agreement, which could be debated next week. This agreement is causing serious trouble to agriculture and I understand that it is not helping farmers in Ulster, although it is not for me to represent Ulster farmers.
These are all important matters and we ought to have another week to discuss them. It is high time that the Minister of Agriculture clearly told the House his plans for the next two or three months before it is too late, and for that reason I oppose the Motion.
6.21 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: It is sometimes difficult to make a contribution to a debate which is hooked on a Motion like this to which one is fundamentally opposed. To judge from speeches from both sides of the House this afternoon, one would imagine that all the activities of a Member of Parliament took place in the House. That is an extraordinary suggestion. As much of my time is taken outside the House in my constituency as in the House, and the time during which the House will not be sitting will not be an easy time for me. I shall be visiting a number of Ministries, particularly the Ministry of Transport, and delving into a number of problems on behalf of my constituents.
I know that to some hon. Members opposite, to judge from their smiles, this sort of activity is strange and fanciful, but that is my view of Parliament. My job is to represent the many thousands of people in the constituency of Ealing, North, and I represent them as much as I can 24 hours of the day and not only when Parliament is sitting. To me this is not a nice, gentleman's club, but a workshop and the only thing which is not real about it is the fact that we do not have proper workshop tools to get on with the job. I am distressed when I hear of the agony which some hon. Members have gone through when they have had to stay up for a few nights.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must come to the Amendment or the Motion.
Mr. Molloy: It has been said that the House should not go into such a long Recess and should not have had so many long night sittings. I would have had some sympathy with that view were it not that I have never found that late
386
night sittings were so tremendously wearing as to put me in the grave. I became used to night shifts when I was a teenager and in the war I found that I had to behave in all sorts of ways and work through all sorts of nights.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating night shifts here, or when the hon. Gentleman was a boy, or night shifts in war time.
Mr. Molloy: I am grateful to you for pointing that out to me, Mr. Speaker, and I shall try to direct my remarks in support of the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) who made an important contribution to the debate.
He pointed out that over the past 50 years, irrespective of the party in power, hon. Members have argued when in opposition that certain things should be done and then, when in power, forgot all about them. This afternoon we heard ideas from hon. Members opposite which slipped their minds for the 13 years they were in power. I hope that what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said will receive support from back benchers on both sides of the House. I find it rather distressing that on the back benches on either side of the House there are Privy Councillors. They seem to form partially extinct volcanoes which have infiltrated into our midst and which take a great deal of privilege—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am enjoying this, but it is out of order.
Mr. Molloy: I am grateful for the first part of that remark, Mr. Speaker, and I shall take cognisance of the second.
Instead of considering the length of the Recess, what we ought to be considering is a complete reorganisation of Parliamentary timetables. It must be daft sometimes to sit for 24 hours right through, with all-night sittings regularly for a number of weeks, and then suddenly to take three months off and not sit at all, although, as I have said, that will not mean that hon. Members are not busy.
Hon. Members opposite have rightly criticised certain aspects of Government policy. We were chided by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) about there being some dissension between hon. Members on this side of the House and the Government. I

387
ask him to consider that we have sometimes been faced with the responsibility of providing not only the Government, but a reasonable opposition.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to what we are debating.
Mr. Molloy: I was about to say that on this side of the House we have a dual responsibility which may be all the more reason for having a properly planned timetable for Parliament in future.
It would be wrong for those who have listened to the humorous speeches, including that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and the almost vitriolic attack on the Government by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), to believe that we are going away for three months and that nothing is to be done. That was the picture which those right hon. Gentlemen painted and it was erroneous and phoney and, what is worse, they probably know it. If we are to take this issue of Parliamentary time seriously, I recommend to the House the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. The points have been made from both sides of the House, although always from the back benches which distrust the Treasury Bench and the Executive, irrespective of the party in power. Unless the back benchers on both sides of the House can get together and have some organisation—and I really mean this—we will not change this archiac system and bring it into line with modern times.
We now have an extraordinarily able, generous and helpful Leader of the House. [Interruption.] Let us be frank about it; hon Members opposite know in their hearts that they could not provide such a liberally-minded and able Leader of the House. I hope that he will ignore the political arguments which hon. Members opposite have tried to make on a host of subjects, but will take more cognisance of what I have said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has said about trying to modernise the House of Commons.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Barber: I rise now because I understand
388
that it is the intention of the Leader of the House to address you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for a few minutes. It seems to be advantageous to make certain observations at this stage of the debate, but it is not for me to determine, or to give any guidance of any kind about the length of the debate.
It has been a good-natured and in some ways fascinating debate. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), as I understand the points which he made in your absence, wished to raise during the next 12 weeks all the subjects which he had not had a chance to debate during the past 23 years. I doubt whether he will get the opportunity, but that was the burden of what he had to say. The debate was started, If I may say so, with great respect to him by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) in a short and model speech.
He began with what was almost a unique statement—at any rate I have not heard it before—to the effect that the Leader of the House had been an outstanding success. Then he became more serious and pointed out that the recess gave great advantages to the Executive. He said that the executive of any Government during the long recess could get away with murder. From my own experience in office and Opposition, I believe that he is quite right to point that out, because it is true. He spoke not as a Member of the Government back benches, but as a Member of the House of Commons.
What he said is true, whether we sit on the Opposition benches or on the Government benches. I am bound to add that I wonder whether it would make very much difference if he had his way, and the House resumed in September. After all, we had a depressing experience yesterday evening, and I will not go into details, when it was known that a large majority of hon. Members opposite were, to put it mildly, very concerned about the attitude of their Government on the economic front, and yet were not prepared to do anything about it. Therefore, even if Parliament were recalled, or even if Parliament resumed in the normal course of events if his Amendment was accepted, I doubt very much whether it would have the effects which he has led us to believe it would have.

389
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) took a different view. He was one of the few hon. Members who was against the Government Motion because he believed that we ought to have a recess longer than 12 weeks, because he was concerned about the health of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought that many Ministers were tired and would need something a little over 12 weeks in order to recover. He said that he had taken advice and that this was the view of a number of eminent psychiatrists.
I hope that you will bear with me for one moment, Mr. Speaker, while I explain to the House—and you will see the relevance of what I have to say to the Motion and the Amendment—that I heard the other day of one senior Member of the Government who had consulted a psychiatrist recently because he was not feeling too well. He was told by his colleagues that all he had was an inferiority complex. He saw his psychiatrist and was told after a very thorough investigation that he was wrong—he had not got an inferiority complex, he really was inferior.
I mention that because it illustrates the force of what my hon. Friend was saying. To be serious, I should like to add to one general point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West. It is true that during the long recess of 12 weeks the Government have the most tremendous executive powers, which they can use without any reference to Parliament, when Parliament is not sitting, without notifying any of us. I must not go into details, but under Acts passed by this Government, such as the I.R.C. Act and the Iron and Steel Act, the Government have the power, during this period of 12 weeks, without reference to Parliament, to take over companies and to do all kinds of things which they in their wisdom may think to be right, but on which there is some case for discretion.
The subject which has been touched upon most during this debate has been that of agriculture. The view has been expressed by a large number of hon. Members that during the next 12 weeks certain aspects of agriculture are likely to cause very great anxiety. Because of this it was suggested that the House ought to return earlier than the date in the Government Motion. My hon. Friends
390
the Members for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) and even the hon. Member for West Ham, North, all made the point that in relation to the import of eggs and beef prices farmers were likely to be in difficulty during the coming weeks. Indeed it was my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland who raised this matter.
This debate might have been much shorter if, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), the Minister of Agriculture had been asked to come to hear part of it. The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) complained that he had read in a newspaper that an announcement was to be made next week, quite deliberately after the House had risen, about the appointment of Mr. MacDiarmid to a position under the new National Steel Corporation. He knows my views on the merits of that. If the announcement of Mr. MacDiarmid's appointment is to be deliberately deferred until after the rising of the House, this would be intolerable. The hon. Gentleman has a very good point, and I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of it. It may be that before we rise on Friday we shall hear something from official quarters. This is a matter of which the Minister of Power ought to take note.
We had an amusing speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil but as he is not here I will not pursue that. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said that he wished—I see that he is not here either; he said that he was looking forward to his holiday, and he may well have gone on it already. I do not think that you were here Mr. Speaker, but he said that on his holiday he did not want to visit the Tower of London, the British Museum or the Zoo, and the problem that we are faced with is that we do not know whether he wants to visit Easington. This is something that he can decide.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) raised a very significant point, if I may say so without being patronising towards someone who is very much my senior in this House. It was one which, until he raised it, had not been mentioned. It was the question whether the House ought to rise before we had

391
had a debate on Suez. This is very significant. It was the Leader of the House who led us to believe, some time ago, that we would have a debate on the Suez inquiry before the House rose. I will not go into the details but he said that we should wait until the book by Mr. Nutting had been published.
We have heard no more about that, and have had no request from any hon. Member opposite for a debate before we rise. It was left to my right hon. Friend to raise this matter, and the House will draw its own conclusions. Whether we do or do not rise on Friday, one thing is quite certain and it is that the Government should have planned to sit for several days longer, beyond 28th July. This is because the Government have now got themselves into an almost impossible position, entirely of their own making.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to the strain on the House as a result of both morning sittings and a succession of all-night sittings. The general public believe that we are quite mad to sit as long as we do, mornings, afternoons, evenings and through the night. They think that we are crazy to conduct our business in this way; and I believe that most hon. and right hon. Gentlemen agree with them. Certainly during the past few weeks our hours of work have been farcical. The Government would have been much wiser some time ago to have made it clear that they intended that the House should sit for a few days beyond 28th July instead of having the all-night sittings which we have had and which tend to bring the House into contempt.
If we rise on Friday, we rise knowing that the United Kingdom faces dire economic troubles at home and serious problems abroad. If the Motion is to be passed, we must have an assurance from the Leader of the House that the Government will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to recall Parliament in certain eventualities.
This afternoon, the Prime Minister announced that renewed negotiations are to take place with the Rhodesian Government. I did not quite like the tone of some of his answers to supplementary questions, but we must give him the bene-
392
fit of the doubt. Certainly we hope that the talks will be successful. But if they are not successful, and if the situation deteriorates, it may well be that we shall want Parliament to be recalled forthwith. I need not remind the House that, with certain inquiries going on within Rhodesia concerning its constitution, this may well be our last chance to bring the problem to a sensible conclusion. We want a similar assurance if the situation in the Middle East should deteriorate. Certainly we may well want Parliament to be recalled if the economic situation deteriorates even more than we expect as a result of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday.
If we rise on Friday, we rise at a time when the Government's economic policies are failing and when Britain's standing in the world is depressingly low. It is right, therefore, that we should insist on the undertakings for which I have asked.
6.43 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): In intervening at this point, I am aware that it is merely a convenient time to do so. I thank hon. Members for contributing to another traditional debate, with its mood varying from high farce to intense seriousness. I traced—one always does in this kind of debate—a motif underlying it. There was a sense of unease, not only about international and economic problems, but about ourselves. There was a sense of uncertainty about whether the public takes us as seriously as we do, or thinks that we are as funny as we think we are.
Everybody is, I think, intensely aware, more aware than a year ago—and I noticed this particularly in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—of his uncertainy about the rôle of the House vis-à-vis the Executive and about whether it is doing its job effectively. I think that there is more readiness to see the possibility of self-improvement than at any time that I can remember. This is a mood which we should seize on and make the best of. But it makes it very difficult for me to take up some of the points made in the debate without straying dangerously near to being out of order. I hope that you,

393
Mr. Speaker, will permit me to take up these points, even though some of them were rather remote from the narrow terms of the Motion.
There were two parts to the debate. There was the complaint arising from the Amendment that the recess is too long and the argument that we should have a six or eight weeks' recess rather than a 12 weeks' recess. There was also the more conventional objection that we could not go into recess because certain subjects were unanswered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) asked an important question about the Aberfan inquiry. I am grateful to him for raising this extremely important matter, because it gives me the opportunity to say that the Government are most grateful to Lord Justice Edmund Davies and his colleagues for their thorough and painstaking examination of all the circumstances of this disaster and for their recommendations about future action, which include proposals for legislation. As my hon. Friend observed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already told us that he expects to receive the report from the printers early in August. I think that he got it in typescript on 19th July. It includes some very complicated diagrams which are essential to an understanding of the report. The recommendations are already under urgent consideration by the Ministers concerned. I want to say as Leader of the House, having looked at the report, that there can be no question that it must be debated as soon as we resume after the Recess. It is an extremely important, serious report which must be fully debated in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) raised a question about the Steel Board. I have had inquiries made about the matter. We have seen only the report in the Guardian, and that is all that I have as firm confirmation. The appointment of group managing directors is a matter for the Steel Corporation and the question whether the managing directors should be appointed to the Corporation itself cannot come before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power until the Corporation submits its first report on organisation. Under the Act, this report cannot be laid before vesting day, which is next Friday.
394
This is too uncertain a matter to justify deferring the adjournment. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be prepared to answer all the questions asked as soon as we resume, whether or not the appointments are made. There is no question of deliberately circumventing the House. It is a question of the timetable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) asked about race relations legislation. I expect my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement on this subject at 3.30 tomorrow.
Mr. Winnick: Would my right hon. Friend make some comment on the statement made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)?
Mr. Crossman: For the convenience of the House, I wish to deal with a number of specific points on which Members want precise answers. I will deal with the debating points later.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked about the Suez inquiry. I was very careful to say that I have not dated the debate to take place before the recess. There is no doubt, in my view, that, now that we have seen the book, a debate on Suez would be extremely valuable. We should learn a great deal from it. Perhaps right hon. and hon. Members opposite will enjoy taking part in the debate more now than they would have done six months ago, but we shall all enjoy a great deal an analysis of the disaster of Suez and of who was responsible, from which we can all learn lessons about the relationship of the House to the Government and the responsibility of Ministers to the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) suggested that we could not go into recess while the Suez Canal was blocked. He wanted to know what we proposed to do about unblocking it. I say to him bluntly that the Canal is blocked and that it may well stay blocked for some time. What we are much more concerned about is making preparations to ensure that we get the oil, whether it is blocked or not. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) mentioned petrol rationing. I do not think that there is any reason for undue

395
alarm. Precautions have been taken to ensure that, if things got worse, the rationing system could be introduced.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear the Government's view about the blockage of the Suez Canal at the southern end?
Mr. Crossman: I am replying to a debate on a Motion concerning the Adjournment for the Summer Recess and not on the geographical nature of the blockage of the Suez Canal.
The main concern of most hon. and right hon. Members opposite at the end of the Session is agriculture, and I must declare a personal interest in this. One or two of them have said that agriculture is in a desperate plight. It is true that two parts of agriculture—beef and eggs—have special difficulties, but hon. Members should not neglect that there are other aspects of agriculture which do not look quite as unsatisfactory in the kind of summer which we are having. Do not let us forget that.
I agree that the problem of beef has recurred for the second year running and is extremely serious. I will of course impart to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture the strength of feeling in the House. I regret that the luck of the Ballot has, or may have, deprived the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) of an opportunity to ventilate this matter, however late at night. I am extremely sorry that this has happened because it is exactly the kind of subject which we should have debated before we went down. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister appreciates the seriousness of the House's view on this subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian, who is no longer present, made an interesting suggestion that we should not let the House go down because that would prevent the specialist Committee from continuing to study agriculture and keep the Government alert. I have looked up the constitution of the specialist Committee. It can meet every day in the Recess. It can stand up to the Government. Indeed, that is what I am expecting of it in view of its keenness in keeping the Government alert. I hope to
396
see that Committee day in and day out in the House of Commons during the recess doing its job as a specialist Committee and keeping the Government alert.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who also has disappeared, suggested that social security was a subject which we had not debated enough. Had the hon. Member been present, I would have disagreed with him. We have debated social security on three occasions at some length. I do not think that the uprating Bill in question was particularly controversial and required more time than we gave it. We had a whole day on the major issues of family endowment. I would not have thought that we had neglected that subject sufficiently to make us feel that we had to postpone our going away.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North added, indeed, that if we had another fortnight, we might not have used it so wisely, a remark which the leader of the House appreciates. The right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) asked why I did not agree to ease everything off and make everything easy by having an easy week in which there were no late nights. What an Opposition the party opposite would be if they allowed us to do that! It is Oppositions who make things uncomfortable for Governments. Oppositions rightly do that and I do not resent it.
If the right hon. Gentleman looks again at the number of late nights we have had, he will see that they got bunched because we did not have one late night this year on the Finance Bill owing to the admirable arrangements between the two sides for managing business on the Finance Bill, which worked extremely well. [An HON. MEMBER: "There was nothing in the Bill."] There may have been nothing in it, but there can still be late nights on a Bill even when there is nothing in it.
The late nights came at a sticky time in July. It is true—I have to take it to heart—that because we are having morning sittings on two days a week, there was not an abnormal number of late nights. I have looked at the statistics. They are the average for sittings at this time of year.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: Seven in two weeks?
Mr. Crossman: If the hon. Member studies the number of late nights in the period from Whitsun onwards, he will find that in 1963 there were 12 as against 13 this year. So there was not all that difference.
The important thing—I admit it—is that having, in addition, our morning sittings starting at ten o'clock, undoubtedly imposed a strain on you, Mr. Speaker, on the Serjeant at Arms, on the doorkeepers and on the policemen. I take this very much to heart. It is something which one has to think over extremely carefully as Leader of the House. I assure the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale that the Patronage Secretary and I have been thinking it over. We shall come forward with our new proposals for organising our sessional business next year. We have to take account of this and see how we can ensure that those difficulties are overcome in our new development of business. I cannot say more than that about it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Was not one of the further factors which created this situation the unprecedented action of the Government in providing three nights of unlimited suspension for private Members' legislation?
Mr. Crossman: That is the very point to which I was coming next. Three all-night sittings were conducted by private Members for the purpose of reaching a decision on two extremely important Measures. This is a controversial matter, but it is not so much a matter of controversy between the parties. It is a matter of discussion about how we as a House conduct our business.
On reflection, I believe that we did well to give the extra time. If, however, in future there is to be a practice of giving extra time to important Measures introduced by private Members, it would be unwise always to assume that it had to be given at night, and one might have to allocate daytime for this purpose. I am certainly considering the possibility of this becoming a practice. I want to discuss this, because the House as a whole has the right to consider it. It is not Government time; it is the House's time. This is the Government seeking to do what private Members want. I want to make sure that they want it and
398
that that is a wise way of developing private Members' time.
If it were to develop on those lines, we would have to consider the time and not automatically think of an endless series of all-night sittings for finishing those Bills, and the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) as well. Those are points which I have certainly taken away. I am thinking of them carefully, and I thank the House for making them to me.
Mr. J. B. Godber: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how he proposes to assess which are the important Private Members' Bills which should have that privilege, if any are to have it?
Mr. Crossman: I would like to answer, but I would be likely to be ruled out of order in doing so. On a Motion to decide the Summer Recess, one should not go into the details. I was merely replying to the point and saying that I had taken it. It is one which we shall have to consider. I shall be making, through the usual channels in the not too distant future, positive proposals for dealing with it.
I want to deal with the other point in the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West, who said something quite different. He said that the Summer Recess is too long. It is not unusually long. Eleven or 12 weeks is the normal length of a Summer Recess. Undoubtedly, from the point of view of Parliamentary control of the Executive, a 12-week gap is a very long one for a Parliament which claims to be continuously checking the Executive.
What strikes me as remarkable, however, is how, for 13 years, that was not noticed by the Conservative Party when they were in power. I am glad that they notice it now, although when they were in office they did not check the habit and they had recesses of that length. [An HON. MEMBER: "We did not need checking."] Anyone who thinks that he does not need checking is in danger of becoming a natural totalitarian. We all need checking. That is why we have a Parliament. The party opposite would need it as much as we need it.
A subject to which I am also giving a great deal of thought is the division of

399
our time over the year. I was particularly glad to notice in the Daily Telegraph in an article by the Leader of the Opposition, that he, too, is thinking about this. He made a suggestion, which I first heard from the late Aneurin Bevan, that we might stop the spring festival of the Budget and start our financial year at the same time as the calendar year, in which case we could well end our summer Session in the middle of June and avoid the stickiest part of the year for our hardest and most arduous debates.
I believe that the House should seriously consider the reorganisation of its time, not only in the day or in the week, but in the year. My own view is that short and sharp Sessions are things which we do best. We get jaded over too long a time. Perhaps a period of eight or nine weeks is the time when we are at our best, in which the Opposition are the greatest nuisance to the Executive, as they should be. Therefore, I take this point with great seriousness, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it to me, and the Amendment has been extremely useful as a reminder that it is about time we re-thought the division of our year.
Let me throw in this thought, that there is a great deal to be said for trying to make our holidays coincide with our children's holidays. That really is important, and something we have to bear in mind, and something which means that
400
a block of time of three months or so is not particularly convenient.
So, in conclusion, I want to thank the House very much indeed for the suggestions it has made. If both sides simultaneously describe me as a libertarian slave-driver—which is what, I think, I was called during the debate—I suppose there is an element of truth in both things. It is true that we have done a lot of important business in a relatively compact period; it is certainly true that we have strained ourselves; it is true we have strained our staff a good deal, in a way, I think, we must avoid in the future; it is also true that we have kept our temper pretty well, and it is true that this debate reflects the kind of temper we should have. In that temper I would ask the House to agree to our proposal to adjourn on Friday.
Mr. William Whitlock (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question, That the words "Monday, 23rd October" stand part of the Question, put accordingly, and agreed to.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday; do adjourn till Monday, 23rd October.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPRO- PRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

SONIC BANGS
7.2 p.m.
Mr. Ivor Richard: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter tonight. It is one which is of insense interest, certainly to my constituency, and to the city in which my constituency is, and also, I believe, to the general public as a whole. I think that I can say that it is rare that such a comparatively quick—I almost said, crisp—decision by the Executive has occasioned quite so much interest in such a short time.
The matters I want to discuss have really arisen because of the decision of the Government, announced originally on 4th July, to hold a series of sonic boom tests over parts of the United Kingdom, and, in particular, over parts of the great conurbations. Bristol, I believe, was selected for some of the earlier ones, and London came in for the latter part of the whole exercise.
The number of letters I have received from my constituency since the tests were concluded has somewhat surprised me. My constituency is not known, frankly, for the number of people who put pen to paper to write complaining to their Member of Parliament, but on this subject I have received more letters than upon any other subject since I have been a Member of the House of Commons—except for factory farming and capital punishment—and, after all, we are only three or four days so far from the end of the tests.
Letters are still coming in, and I have no doubt whatsoever that if the Government are so unwise as to announce another series of tests of the sort we have just had the letters will come in at an even greater rate. I have consulted hon. Members from some of the neighbouring places. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Floud), for example, tells me that he is receiving rather more than he would normally have expected.
402
What, I think, is being proved by the number of letters I have got—and I will, if I may, quote one or two in a moment—is that, in an area which is already over-inflicted with noise, as London is—with jets, 707s, VC10s, Tridents, Caravelles—coming into London Airport at the moment—on top of that is now to be inflicted with sonic boom noises of the sort we had last week and might be getting in future. For a large number of my constituents, and myself, as well, this is an accumulation of noise which is intolerable.
I do not think that the Government should be under any illusion as to what the general public feel about the booms. If what one has read in the Press is accurate, that only one telephone line was available to people to complain to the Ministry—if that be right—then it is hardly surprising that the number of people who actually got through to the Ministry of Technology to make their complaints was relatively few. The number of people I have spoken to in my own constituency or among my own friends and who are in favour of these tests is, frankly, infinitesimal.
The complaints are not merely from what I would call the middle-class vocal sector. On the contrary, to refer to the letters I have, the first one comes from an old-age pensioner, which says this:
"The wife and I are both in our middle seventies and the first bang on Monday last badly shook her up and she was in a state of nervous tension all the week, more particularly Friday morning. As she is very badly crippled—cannot stand up or walk without the aid of two sticks—this is not unexpected, and there are doubtless many thousands of others like her in this and the neighbouring boroughs. In addition to this, the houses in"—
the street in question—
"are very old, the rooms badly rattle, the windows and frames, and there was an ominous sign of fine plaster falling from the ceiling of the back addition."
Another constituent writes even more vocally and at somewhat greater length and says that he has written to the Ministry of Technology
"even though it was probably a waste of time".
I hastened to assure him, as I am sure my hon. Friend will, that it was not a waste of time. He goes on:
"I found the series of tests carried out over London last week very disturbing. In the

403
old building where we live, the whole place shook as though there had been a serious ground explosion in the vicinity—the test carried out on Friday being the worst of all. Many of the buildings around West Kensington are not in the soundest of condition, despite all sorts of repairs, and frequent sonic booms would surely weaken them… We have an autistic child who is extremely sensitive to sound and who hates loud and sudden noises. We would have to try and move away to somewhere off the flight paths (will there be any such place?) if sonic booms become frequent.… It is not just the sonic boom—it is all the noises and stresses of modern life plus the boom. If you know this part of London you will be aware of the incredible strain it is living here."
A third letter said:
"I probably would not have written to you, as I know that you have this problem in mind, were it not for the fact that I have just been made to jump out of my skin by a sonic boom test. I fear that unless we protest it will be thought that we do not object, and I hope that you will use this opportunity to press the objection on the Minister of Technology."
This debate provides an opportunity to point out to the Minister and to the Government that if they are to have a second series of boom tests they do have to face the fact that objections are still coming in now, following the first.
I wonder whether I may just consider the main arguments which were presented by the Government for holding these tests, for I think there are two questions which call to be asked, and to be answered by the Government, because if the nation is to be asked to put up with these tests it is up to the Government to make sure that a very strong case is made out for inflicting this type of noise upon the population. The first thing I want to know is: what are these tests for? What are they actually designed to prove? The second question is: are the Government satisfied with the way in which they were carried out, and what are the results of these tests?
Taking the first of those questions, it is important to see precisely what the Government said when the tests were announced initially on 4th July by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). It is essential that we look at the small print, and not merely at the general line. He said:
"Before undertaking any major programme of sonic bang tests it would be desirable to have a relatively small preliminary exercise."
404
Presumably a relatively small preliminary exercise is what we have had in the last week. He went on:
"It has been decided that during the month of July Lightning aircraft … should be permitted to fly supersonically over various parts of Southern England in such a way as to create sonic bangs at intensities known from previous experience to be well below those likely to cause damage."
In answer to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who asked what he meant when he spoke of a major programme of sonic bang tests, my hon. Friend said:
"The character of the bangs created by the Lightning aircraft are not comparable to the bangs expected to be created by the Concord. We are moving on to a major programme of tests, we hope in collaboration with the French and the Americans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 1568–70.]
On 18th July, after the tests had been conducted, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology answered some questions in the House, during the course of which he said:
"What has happened in these tests is that we have authorised some supersonic flying at an intensity well below that which would be experienced from supersonic airliners."
The emphasis placed upon the tests by the Government before they were carried out was that they were not comparable to what could be expected from supersonic airliners. The emphasis after the tests were completed was that they were mild. My right hon. Friend described them as "mild supersonic flights". In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), the Minister said:
"As I explained, until Concord flies we shall not know the exact character of its noise when flying supersonically, but there is a strong case for starting with a moderate bang and seeing whether this is tolerable before proceeding further."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1967: Vol. 750, cc. 1719–1723.]
On the basis of what the Government said both before and immediately after the tests, it looks as if what we have had over the last week is a mild dose of something which we may have to experience again in the future, at an intensity well below that which would be experienced from supersonic airliners.
One other point which emerges from a comparison of the two statements is that, on 4th July, people were asking, understandably, what was the purpose of the

405
tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) asked whether
"production orders for the Concord will not be confirmed until the results of such tests are seen to be reassuring."
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said—and I invite the House to mark these words, because they are important—
"… the options on Concord do not depend upon supersonic flying over land because the economics of the operation of Concord will be even more favourable if confined to flying over the sea."
As I read and understand that, what the Government were saying was that the prospects of selling and the options for the purchase of Concord do not depend upon the prospective purchasers being satisfied with the results of tests over land in this country.
When it comes to the Minister himself, on 18th July the picture seems to have changed. In answer to a Question from me, he said:
"I ask the House to consider the fact that substantial sums of public money are being expended by this country on an advanced aircraft, the financial success of which will in part depend on whether it flies over other people's territory. It is no good our saying that we want other people to buy it and to have it fly over their countries when we are not even prepared to see whether some mild supersonic flights over the United Kingdom are tolerable"
To compare the reasons which apparently underlay the tests, on 4th July the economic success of the Concord sales was not a factor. On the other hand, on 18th July the financial success of selling Concord in the world market depended on whether other people were prepared to have it fly over their countries. The confusion between the two statements is one reason why I am glad that this debate is taking place.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Before leaving this point, would my hon. Friend address himself to whether general supersonic flying over land should be prohibited? Is it not the case that the threat is not only from the Concord, but from the supersonic aircraft of other nations?
Mr. Richard: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. That was to be my concluding point. However, before I come to that, perhaps I may be permitted to draw one
406
or two conclusions from the facts as I have tried to present them so far.
On the facts which the Government have put forward, we know, first, that this was not a major programme of tests. Second, we know that the level of intensity of the bangs which we have experienced already is much lower than that which could reasonably be expected from supersonic aircraft, particularly from the Concord.
We still do not know why we needed these tests and, on 18th July, I asked the Minister:
"Is it not true that the country was assured that the Concord would not fly at supersonic speed over large areas of population such as London? If that is so, may I ask, why these tests are being carried out? What are they to establish?"
I did not get an answer to that question, and I hope that I might be told tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan put it in much the same way. He asked:
"Is there any real comparison between the sonic bang emitted from a Lightning aircraft and that which will be emitted from Concord? If not, what is the purpose of the tests? Are they not, at best, a waste of public money and, at worst, highly misrepresentative of the real position?"
As far as I have been able to gather from the answers given by both Government spokesmen on 4th and 18th July, it seems that the tests are not designed to establish whether the country will accept Concord or supersonic aircraft of that sort flying overhead, but to test public reaction and see whether these tests are tolerable.
What can we expect if the supersonic programme goes through as it is planned at the moment? First, we can expect an increase in normal aircraft noise and disturbance in areas adjacent to major airports, such as that which I represent and in which I live. I trust that the Government will consider the additional noise and disturbance emitted by these very large jets when coming into land at subsonic speeds. The idea of a Concord coming in over West London at about 350 m.p.h. does not give me much cause for delight when I consider the amount of jet noise which we are called upon to put up with at the moment.
If the Boeing 745—the so-called Jumbo-jet—is bought by B.O.A.C. and

407
is to be landed at London Airport, the increase of noise and disturbance in and around the flight paths into London Airport will be considerable. On top of that, we are to be asked to accept sonic booms from overflying supersonic aircraft, which, clearly, will be sharp, irritating, damaging and irregular. We shall not know precisely when they are coming, and how many a day we shall have to endure. One a day of the sort that we had last week was enough, and an unspecified number of much larger and damaging booms will be far too much.
On all the evidence that I have seen produced so far, I do not think that the Government have made out a case which justifies the holding of the present level of tests, let alone a second round which apparently is proposed. What is really at the root of this whole thing is that the Government have pledged themselves to engage in the production of a supersonic aircraft. I welcome this. It seems to me thoroughly desirable that if we are moving into the supersonic age, or the age of supersonic aircraft, Britain must participate in it, but what I am very much against is that we should participate in the supersonic age in such a way as to make intolerable the lives of ordinary people who have to live in the areas below which these aircraft will fly. There is no virtue in crossing the Atlantic in three hours if the result of producing a plane which can do that is to make the lives of 10 million to 15 million people quite intolerable.
As we move into the supersonic era, the Government should be attempting to get some kind of international agreement that supersonic flights will not take place over land. By all means have supersonic flights from Germany to the United States, or from the Scandinavian countries to the United States. I hope that they will take place in British aircraft, but for the life of me I cannot understand why these supersonic aircraft cannot fly down the Channel, and across the Atlantic, rather than going across centres of population, and, indeed, across Great Britain.
The Minister said that the object of these tests was to see whether they were tolerable. On all the evidence which has been produced to me, I am bound to say that I do not think that that level
408
can be tolerated, and that the future levels, which apparently we will have to put up with, will be any more tolerable.
7.21 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is no crackpot, and no antedeluvian type, and what he has said must merit attention by the Government. I hope, therefore, that we will have a full and frank answer from the Government today.
I am happy to collaborate with the hon. Gentleman in asking the questions which he has asked. I shall not go over them, but I want them answered, just as I want some of my own questions answered today. I am surprised that the Minister of Technology is not here. I wish no disrespect to the junior Minister, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, who is to reply to the debate, but the right hon. Gentleman wrote me a perfectly cordial and frank letter in which he said he would be happy to discuss with me the effect of the sonic bangs over the City of Bristol and elsewhere, and if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to see me, one hon. Member, why is he not prepared to see all the other hon. Members who are interested in this matter?
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman always wants to be fair. The Minister may have been referring to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had a constituency interest, and he wanted to deal with it on that basis.
Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman need not try to rescue his right hon. Friend, who I am sure does not want the hon. Gentleman's help in any case. The point is valid. The right hon. Gentleman told me that he was prepared to discuss with me the whole wide aspect of this matter, and I find it strange that he is not here this afternoon.
I come to the specific points which I want to make, and it will not take me long to make them. I am in a peculiarly qualified position to speak about this subject this afternoon. I think that I am the only hon. Member who was present when the tests took place over Blandford in Dorset, and witnessed them from a modest distance of about 12 miles. I was

409
then present in Bristol throughout the tests there, and I was back in London in time to gain some impression of the effect of these tests over this City.
I am not a nervous individual. It takes a lot to frighten me, and certainly not the Minister of Technology, but there is no doubt that these experiments have frightened normal individuals. Even these experiments are a danger to those in what one might describe as fine operations, or the use of scientific instruments, or in certain processes of medicine and surgery, and some of the complaints which I shall mention have a bearing on this.
Sonic bangs can damage buildings. The present series did just that, and it is no good the Government saying that the buildings they damaged had loose ceilings, or loose panes of glass in the windows. I shall prove in a moment that the objection to these tests is valid. It is no good the Government saying, "You must tighten up your building to make it withstand these stresses". These tests cause damage to buildings, and much louder sonic bangs could do an immense amount of damage.
There is no doubt that the prolonged subjection of people to this sort of noise can produce symptoms of severe stress, which can have a serious effect on people's health. I do not need to quote examples, or to give the House the scientific details. Suffice it to say that if one studies the medical journals issued during the last five to ten years, one sees the growing attention paid by the medical profession to these problems of stress in modern life, and these tests are a shattering example of stress.
The hon. Gentleman asked the Government to give the House the real reason for and purpose of these tests. We shall not be satisfied, and shall not leave the subject, if the Government do not give a satisfactory answer to the reasonable questions which have been asked. What is the real purposes of these tests? They are not typical of what we may expect from the Concord. We are sure of this. The Government have said that the Concord would be louder, and it is not just the loud noise which is so important. One has to consider too the schock, aware or whatever one calls it, and the pressure effect on buildings and on people.
410
One wonders what the Government are at, and whether they are going to proceed with a realistic mock-up of the sort of bang that we can expect from the Concord. And if they are proposing to go that far, why not go further and anticipate the sort of sonic bangs which will be caused by even larger and faster aircraft? Once a beginning has been made, why not continue it to its logical conclusion.
I have another complaint against the Government. It has not been made today. It is that, by having this unrealistic series of experiments, the Government are doing no good in the way of telling people what they can expect from the Concord, and they are at the same time damaging the image of this great project. The aircraft manufacturers are very doubtful about the wisdom of these tests, and certainly do not seem clear about the Government's purpose in carrying them out. I have it on high authority from those concerned with this project that there can be no question of the Concord flying over dense centres of population, and I take that to mean the whole of the British Isles. Indeed, there would not seem to be many economic advantages in allowing overflying, for the very good reason that the amount of extra time taken through not being able to fly supersonically over land is very small.
I have been prompted to speak because of the reaction which I was able to see at first hand in Dorset, and no doubt Dorset Members will pursue this matter on other occasions. I happen to live there. I witnessed the tests, they were frightening, and they shook buildings. I was in a fifteenth century building when one of these tests was carried out. All the stained glass windows vibrated, and the louder bangs might well do serious damage to them. We have to realise that if we have over-flying by aircraft of the Concord size, or larger, we might on occasions find that the stained glass is stripped out of all the parish churches in the aircraft's path. This is possible, and the Government should bear it in mind.
We are not just concerned with preserving our history. We are much more concerned with preserving human life. We can envisage the danger to human life caused by a sonic bang dislodging

411
part of a very high building. This is an aspect of safety to which the Government have not given sufficient attention. Even in normal circumstances, if part of a high building became detached—such as a piece of cladding, as I believe it is called—from the 30th floor it could kill several people on reaching the ground. No doubt loose parts of high buildings could be dislodged by these bangs. It is a really important matter.
We must remember that this country contains many ancient and valuable buildings—far more than does the United States—and that we have a responsibility to preserve them. In referring to the United States I reflect that many great cities there contain no buildings which are older than 50 years. I remember visiting a city in Texas where the most historic and interesting building I was shown was the town hall, built in 1902. Everything else had been built since then. Nearly everything in America is of an impermanent nature, or can be built to standards which will withstand sonic bangs. But we cannot change ourselves overnight or in even 50 or 100 years.
I want to say something about the letters that I have received from my constituents in Bristol. I want to give the House the benefit of what is said in them, not out of any enthusiasm to make constituency points but because, in quoting from some letters and referring to others, in my experience as a Member for more than ten years I have never had a more formidable and responsible body of correspondence on any subject. These are not the hysterical letters that one receives on the sort of emotional subject to which hon. Members have referred; these are letters from highly responsible people.
I want to refer only to the first 20 letters that I have received, because others are still coming in. The first letter was from a doctor who said that he had no doubt whatever that this sort of stress could undermine people's nerves and result in the complication of all kinds of nervous conditions. The second was from a social worker who said that the noise aspect was a real difficulty in all the work in which she had been engaged for many years, and that this was just another source of anxiety which might well push some delicately balanced cases over the edge.
412
The third is a typical letter from an ordinary resident. He says that his household experienced a great sense of shock and felt that they must write to me. All their neighbours felt exactly as they did, but it was clear they would not all write because they were not the writing kind. Those who put pen to paper are probably among the minority of those who have deep feelings on the subject. The fourth letter made the point that there would be a decrease in the number of complaints as the tests went on—which was one of the Government's points—but that that was bound to be the case, for the reason that people would write in once and would not go on writing in, having once made their protest.
The fifth letter came from somebody who had been operating a microscope in the Bristol Royal Hospital. He said that he had not actually broken his glasses as he crashed against the eye piece of the microscope, but he had nearly done so, and it was certainly true that the whole investigation was put out of gear. Letter No. 6 came from someone who gave me an impression of the intense effect of the bang upon him. He said that in the basement he had hardly noticed it, but that upstairs it had shaken the whole house. He had seen a small child falter in walking down the street, stagger, clutch its head and start crying.
No. 7 came from a nursery school, not in my constituency in Bristol but in an area somewhat depressed and due shortly for demolition. The letter said that they were sure that some of the ancient buildings would collapse if they were subjected to this sort of thing for any length of time. The writer of the next letter said that glass 30 ft. above him trembled, and that if any of it had been lose it would have fallen upon him.
My next point comes from a letter from a lady whose husband has been chairman of many important local education committees. She makes the point that the decibel measurement so much used by the Government is irrelevant, and that it all depends how the shock waves hits a person and what that person is doing at the time. She also made the point that only a small proportion of people affected and who had deep feeling on the matter would bother to write letters.
The next letter came from a charming lady who said that she fell from her chair

413
when the bang sounded. That may sound funny to some, but that sort of thing has happened to many people, and in the old or nervous it might have serious complications. The next letter said that it was like waiting for an air raid, and that in the writer's street, at any rate, everybody wondered what would hit them next. Somebody writing from a Government Department made the point that not even double glazing had managed to keep out the noise.
The next point concerned the question of noise regulations, and said that the sound of the bang had got through double glazing, and that it had been admitted that the noise standard laid down had not been complied with in the Government office concerned. We know that the Government are somewhat slow to legislate against noise. We have had the Wilson Report on noise, and nothing has been done about it. We have had plenty of noise from certain other Wilsons, but there has been no action on the Wilson Report.
The Minister of Transport has made some lamentable regulations about the noise level for vehicles, and in my opinion a more realistic approach should be followed with the subject of aircraft noise. The next letter concerned a building in course of construction. The vibration seriously upset certain concreting operations, and the whole thing had set crooked. That complication had not occurred to me.
The next letter came from a health centre doctor, who said that his work there had been greatly disturbed. Another was from an independent school saying that the class had been upset, and somebody wrote from a college of further education. All these letters came from teachers engaged in trying to keep the attention of small or large classes. We know how difficult that is in any circumstances.
A housewife wrote to say that her baby had been awakened and had continued crying for some time, and the writer of the next letter thought that a garage in a neighbouring street had blown up. I wondered why he thought that, and took the trouble to investigate the matter very carefully. I discovered that the garage had blown up, with loss of life, some years ago. Imagine the feelings of that con-
414
stituent when another explosion shook the district. The last letter came from the wife of a most distingushed clergyman in the city. I will not name him, for obvious reasons, but this was no mere nervous clergyman's wife, but somebody who has been engaged in dealing with social problems in the city for many years.
These were the first 20 letters that I received, and they merit real attention. This is not the sort of reaction that one gets from something not very important, as happens when people get a little fussed and write to their Member of Parliament. These letters are from responsible people, many of whom engage in medical and scientific activities. They have a real worry. The Government must answer the questions that we ask. We are entitled to know the purpose of the tests and what will happen in future. The House should also insist on knowing who is liable for damage caused. Are Her Majesty's Government liable in the case of damage from a British aircraft? Who is liable if the aircraft concerned belongs to a foreign country?
A plane might do immense damage and blame might be difficult to pin down and no compensation received. Or will Her Majesty's Government take full responsibility for the results of all overflying, whoever the aircraft operator? I am sure that the Government know the legal position, and, if it is unsatisfactory, no doubt they will promise legislation.
As to over-flying rights, have the Government the legal power to prevent other countries over-flying Great Britain at supersonic speeds? If not, they should have. We found that we could not kill pirate radios legally and perhaps we will have difficulty with pirate aircraft. Not only the public but the aircraft industry must be taken into the Government's confidence; perhaps the two interests converge. We must not allow a false impression to be given by the Government proceeding in the wrong way and damaging our aircraft industry, but we must ensure that we are not embarking on a new hazard to life and limb and a new stress in modern life which we can well do without.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I raised this subject last week in a Private Notice Question and was not satisfied with

415
the reply. I have had letters from my constituents on the matter and they do not usually write to me about such things. A number of aged people find these noises very frightening. I have the dubious honour of representing what was the worst-bombed borough in the last war —West Ham—so my aged constituents know about the big bangs of the "doodle bugs" and the rockets and are not afraid of "normal" noise, which went on then from six in the morning to six at night every day of the week, Saturdays and Sundays included. These people are very worried.
The Ministry could suggest that the barrier should be broken over the Channel by aircraft flying into or out of this country. I do not know whether this is technically possible, but, if planes travel at these majestic speeds with thousands of passengers, surely the scientists can find an answer. I pay tribute to what they have done, but they must now overcome the bangs which cause the damage—
Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Has the hon. Gentleman asked his hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) to observe that this country is an island which has plenty of space for supersonic bangs over the water and not the land?
Mr. Lewis: I have said that I am not an expert, but there are thousands of scientific experts in the Ministry and elsewhere who should try to prevent these bangs either over this island or at all. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. This damage affects not only ordinary property, but irreplaceable public buildings. If—which God forbid—Stansted goes ahead, these planes will fly over the 1,100-yearold Thaxted Church, and it will be goodbye to the church. In ordinary houses, plaster comes down from the ceiling and soot from the chimney.
My hon. Friend should take into account not only compensation for obvious damage, but that for damage which may not be apparent for months or even years. At this time, 20 or 25 years after the war, some of my constituents are still discovering damage to roofs or joists but are refused compensation because their application is too late or because the damage cannot be
416
proved to be war damage. The Ministry admits in some instances that it is war damage, but for these reasons, old ladies of 60 or 70 who thought that they would retire in comfort find that they must pay £200 or £300 for roof repairs, and they have not the money. I hope that the Ministry will also bear in mind that some old people may not know how to apply.
A serious aspect of the problem which I raised last week is the question of surgeons operating in hospitals. A number of my friends, a couple even in the House, are surgeons, and I know that a slight mistake at the crucial moment by a surgeon may mean a person losing his brain or his eyes. Perhaps soundproofed surgeries would be possible, or perhaps surgeons could be notified long in advance. Even then, however, the shock may mean the loss of a patient—
Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that advance notice would be almost impossible for the Minister to give and that to soundproof and shockproof all our operating theatres would be an immensely costly and lengthy process.
Mr. Lewis: Yes, but to me one life is much more important than the cost. If one life is in danger, and a surgeon loses the life of his patient not because of neglect but because of a bang, this could happen even if he is given the "tip-off". A surgeon cannot delay a cut of the knife until after the bang. Sound-prooffing will cost a tremendous amount, but it is not only a question of surgeons. Doctors sometimes ask nurses to give a jab of penicillin to an aged patient. This might mean that, just as she jabs in the right place, the shock to the poor old lady might be very serious. Such a situation would worry me.
We must be serious about it and consider the effect, for instance, on an aged patient. Last Saturday, I visited a hospital for aged people. Consider the situation if something of this kind were being done to them. It need not be a hypodermic syringe. At the very moment that the nurse is about to do it—in any case the patient is a little nervous—there is the bang, at the crucial moment. It could be damaging to the patient. I ask the Minister to look at all these aspects when dealing with the problem, because whatever he may say about the number of

417
complaints he has had, he must remember that the one telephone line was often jammed when people wanted to get through to the Ministry—or even the few telephone lines in use were jammed. They were not sufficient.
Those who want to complain and cannot get the Ministry's number can always telephone Whitehall 6240 and leave a message of complaint with the Minister. People could also telephone the Prime Minister; they could ask for No. 10 Downing Street, telephone Whitehall 1234 and leave a complaint there. There are various methods of making complaints. If the Minister does not take action he will be inundated with complaints throughout the length and breadth of the country.
7.51 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) on his luck in the Ballot and on his choice of a subject, which is timely. May I also congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on his extraordinary good fortune in catching the eye of the Chair twice in a matter of four hours having, as he said earlier, sat here for 23 years and made only 10 speeches in that time. I am delighted that his Parliamentary constipation is cured.
May I put a number of questions to the Minister? My speech must very largely consist of questions, because whatever has been the impact on a number of people of these tests in recent weeks, the main impact on most of us is to leave us with many questions, perhaps more questions than when the tests began. Some of the questions relate to the tests themselves.
The Minister should tell us how effective in his opinion these tests were, how effective he believes the machinery set up by the Government for collecting public reaction was and how the Government propose to evaluate the reactions to the tests which, I suggest, may be incomplete reactions because the telephone switchboard at the Ministry of Technology appeared mysteriously to be unable to cope with the demands occasionally put upon it.
There is a question whether these tests were any use at all, and there is the most important question: where do we go from here? As the hon. Member for Barons
418
Court reminded us, it is admitted that the noise in these sonic boom tests did not correspond with that which Concord is expected to produce. To that extent, it seems to me, the tests cannot be said to prove very much except that people can or cannot tolerate the noise made by a Lightening moving at supersonic speed, and presumably that is not the whole purpose of the exercise.
It is also admitted that these tests do not relate to reality. In the first place, we know that an aircraft of the Concord type flying into and out of this country and landing at and taking off from airports in this country is most unlikely to create a sonic boom over the United Kingdom because it will not be supersonic until well out to sea and it will have to come back through the sound barrier well out to sea when approaching this country on a return flight. That is my information, and perhaps the Minister would confirm it.
But, the problem must arise in respect of aircraft taking off from Continental airfields which may or may not transit over the United Kingdom en route to North America. I imagine that this applies particularly to airfields in Germany, in the Low Countries and in Scandinavia. I do not suppose that aircraft taking off from France or other Central European countries are anywhere near as likely to fly over this country.
A point which this brings out is that it ought to be possible to predict the flight paths which such aircraft are likely to follow when overflying the United Kingdom and possibly to adjust them as seems necessary, because I imagine that it is known to air traffic control—or at least they must have done some work on it—which routes they expect these aircraft to take when they over-fly. They may deviate a little, or perhaps not at all, from a Great Circle route but it must be possible to plot that on the map.
I made one particular comment on the tests as they have been undertaken. The Minister told the House on 18th July, as reported in col. 1721 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that one of the reasons why he chose Bristol as a city to be subjected to the tests was that a great many citizens of Bristol are earning their living by building Concord. With great respect, this does not seem to me to be strictly relevant to the purpose of the tests, which

419
ought to be related to people who may or may not have a vested interest in Concord—I am sure that we all have a vested interest in its success—but who are likely in the event to have to live under the flight paths and who are the only people who will be called upon to judge whether the experience of the sonic boom is tolerable. Unless we are able to tell that a flight path will pass over Bristol—and we have had no such information as yet—then I feel that the reasons given on that occasion should carry no great weight.
Another point which I must put to the Minister as indicating a certain inadequacy in the tests rests on the fact that we know that the flight operation of Concord will enable it to make two return flights across the Atlantic within a 24-hour period. This means that two of those transits will presumably take place during the hours of darkness. I asked the Minister, in a Question today, whether he had any plans to conduct sonic boom tests during the hours of darkness, and in reply he said that he had no such plans at present. I believe that before any test series can be said to have been properly and completely carried out it will be necessary for the Minister to investigate this element of it. I am not seeking to prejudge the effects of sonic booms during the hours of darkness, but I am saying that if the tests are to be carried out thoroughly it will be necessary, before the Government can establish whether they are prepared to tolerate such flights over this country, to have experimented with flights at night, unless flights in the day time are found to be intolerable—and it would be interesting to know what are the Government's precise intentions.
It may be that they are already disposed to conclude that flights in daytime would be intolerable, but I doubt very much whether they have sufficient evidence for such a conclusion. The House at least ought to be told what are the plans for experimentation on which the Government conceive themselves to be embarked.
Mr. John Rankin: I am interested, of course, not only in the questions being asked, but also in the general trend. To clarify the position, will the hon. Member reaffirm that the
420
Opposition still support the production of a supersonic aircraft?
Mr. Onslow: I will most readily reaffirm that. There is no question about that at all. I have, I hope, made it clear that we support this project and wish to see it succeed. At the same time, I do not believe that the best path for success to the Concord is likely to lie through what may appear to many people to be inadequate tests and which can give only the impression that somewhere somebody has something to hide. It seems to me that the case is overwhelmingly one in which frankness will carry the day.
If the Concord project is to succeed—and we must all heartily wish it success —the Government must not appear to be evading the issue, to be deceiving people, to be creating the impression that there is something to hide and to be embarked on a conditioning process—not a series of tests but a phychological softening up. This is a point to which I had intended to come, in any event.
May I quote some words used by the Minister of Technology, again on 18th July, as reported in col. 1723 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. He said:
"We have made available to a wider range of people an opportunity to decide whether this is an intolerable interference with privacy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1967: Vol. 750, c. 1723.]
I do not quite like the tone of the words, "made available". They are curiously paternalistic.
But I leave that point. What I and the country wish to be satisfied about is whether the tests are genuine, whether there is a genuine intention by the Government to carry them out methodically, evaluate them properly, publish the findings and satisfy people that, for once, there has been a proper inquiry and not just a ritual genuflection to the altar of public opinion. I believe that most people have had enough of "fudged" inquiries. They have had enough of the situation where the Government go through the motions on the Stansted pattern and, at the end, cannot really claim that justice has been seen to be done.
I want Concord to succeed. I want people to have the opportunity to judge

421
for themselves properly whether they can or cannot accept such penalties in the form of noise as Concord may produce. I want the Government to be prepared, if necessary, to tell us that they will insist on deviations in the flight path where they are shown by proper tests to be necessary. I very much hope that the Minister can now satisfy the House and the country that proper tests will be thoroughly carried out, and that he will tell us as soon as possible when and how this will be done.
8.2 p.m.
Mr. John Rankin: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) for raising this subject. I was interested to hear him say that he wanted the supersonic aircraft without the supersonic noise. He asked why the Government have not taken action to mitigate the effects of aircraft noise. But this is precisely what they have done, because from 22nd to 30th November last year there was an international conference sponsored by the Board of Trade on the reduction of noise and disturbance caused by civil aircraft in London. The conclusions are in a report which I had assumed most hon. Members would have looked at. I shall refer to some of those conclusions later.
Mr. Richard: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to misrepresent my point. I said that of course I was in favour of Concord, but that I realised that one could not mitigate the effect of a sonic bang. If an aircraft flies at more than 760 miles an hour a bang will be made, and I asked the Government to ensure that it is made over the ocean.
Mr. Rankin: These are all matters Which will be dealt with when Concord flies.
One small assumption that appears in the debate is that people do not like noise; that they are alarmed by it; fear it; or dislike it. But just before I entered the Chamber I was sitting on the Terrace with friends and a number of other hon. Members. The noise created by the river steamers moving up and down the river made conversation absolutely impossible. That happens on the doorstep of Parliament, yet not a single hon. Member has ever made a protest about it to my knowledge. But repeatedly when I
422
have been serving in Committee, windows which have been opened to allow in a breath of fresh air have had to be closed, because of the noise made by river steamers, in order that the business might proceed uninterrupted. Therefore, we accept noise. [Interruption.] I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) would either rise and interrupt or keep quiet.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was saying that the windows never fall out in the Committee rooms, as has happened in some places where there have been sonic bangs.
Mr. Rankin: I do not know why the windows should fall out of a Committee room. As far as I know, there are no self-motivated windows in the House of Commons, and there have been no windows so shattered by the eloquence which they must hear in a Committee that they fall out involuntarily. Therefore, perhaps we have a special type of glass.
I am merely stating facts without suggesting solutions. I believe that people accept noise today and that they expect it. Tomorrow afternoon we shall approve an arrangement between Germany, France and Britain to proceed with the building of an airbus which will hold 300 people and in all probability be even noisier than Concord. I prophesy that scarcely a protest will be made here against more noise being inflicted upon us, because we accept it.
This is shown by the fact that people demand speed. I know nobody who does not want to move from A to B more speedily than his grandfather and grandmother did. Because of the desire for speed we must make it a crime for people to move too speedily on the road. Therefore, we post up notices saying, "Thou shalt not move at more than 70 miles an hour on this part of the M4. If you do, you are breaking the law of Britain." The demand for speed and the noise that goes with it are both very great.
As a user of the M4 on my way to London Airport on Friday nights, I have been repeatedly flashed at and hooted off the fast lane, when I was doing 70 miles an hour, by a car behind me that was travelling at 90 miles an hour. We have taken its number and described its occupants to the Ministry of Transport and

423
said, "Here is somebody breaking your laws", but the Ministry have never done a blinking thing about it. Therefore, people can break the law with impunity and they do it every Friday night when I am on the M4. Perhaps they do it only when I am there. People want to move more quickly than the law allows and they therefore break the law.
The same desire is true of railways. People do not now go by slow trains. Today travel between London and Liverpool by train is just as quick as it was by aircraft a few years ago. We are now moving so fast between Glasgow and London by air that we are as a result making a noise which is unbearable for anyone underneath an aircraft carrying passengers from Glasgow to London. Yet there are more people travelling between these two places today than even B.E.A. dreamed of when it started the service. Today, instead of taking three and a quarter hours or, later, one hour 40 minutes, as used to be the case, it now takes 51 minutes to travel those 410 miles.
So nobody need tell me that people do not want to move more quickly. It is because speed is greater than ever on roads, on rails, and in the air, that more people are travelling by these methods, and people want speed. They realise that if they want to move more quickly they must accept the noise which goes with it, because speed means power and power means noise. Although the airbus engine may not drive the aircraft as quickly as a supersonic unit does, it will be as powerful in many ways, because it has to carry three times the number of passengers as the supersonic aircraft will carry.
I have heard a number of deviations from the argument about the effect of noise on a surgeon. I heard the supersonic bangs last week. I question their wisdom, but they did not startle me unduly. I told the Minister that I did not think that the timing of these tests was good, but it was a Ministerial decision and Ministers must accept responsibility for those tests. The decision was made. The tests created a disturbance.
They did not bother me greatly. I would imagine that what would disturb a surgeon engaged in a delicate operation far more than a supersonic bang would be
424
heavenly bangs of the type that occurred in the early hours of that same morning. They woke me. Anything that wakens me in the middle of the night must be greater than the supersonic bang. Nature can create disturbances of which the supersonic engine is not yet capable. I should imagine that a surgeon engaged in giving a penicillin jab to an old lady might, when that peal of thunder came, have sent the penicillin phial right through her and out the other side.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: British and international scientists, engineers and technicians have made the supersonic aeroplane and other wonderful achievements. In that case, I suggest that they can find the answer to the bang, but I do not think that even the greatest scientists can deal with an act of God, because the Almighty is a little more important and powerful than scientists.
Mr. Rankin: If I am as lucky as my hon. Friend, some day I shall achieve his record of making four speeches in one afternoon on different subjects. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his wonderful performance this afternoon, which has been achieved with my co-operation and with the tolerance of the Chair.
The Government have been taking action. The Report insists that if action has to be taken and is to be effective it must be international. The Report stresses that no nation can do this by itself. The Conference points out that
"design changes aimed at noise reduction are likely to involve some penalties in operating costs."
This is important, because one of the drawbacks to the more widespread use of air travel is the cost of the ticket. The conference tells us that the incorporation of design changes to mitigate cost will carry some penalties in the way of increased operating costs. This means that aircraft could be more costly. They are already a pretty costly item to the operator. Therefore, this is an inhibiting factor in securing the beneficial changes which we want to make in flying with less noise.
The main conclusions of the conference are summarised in a number of paragraphs. The first conclusion is:
"It is technically possible for aircraft with worth-while improvements in noise characteristics to be produced in future, but this is

425
likely to involve economic penalties which may be substantial."
This aspect evidently appealed to the representatives from all over the world, including both capitalist and Communist countries. The conference goes on to suggest steps which could be taken. For instance, it recommends that
"Action should be put in hand at once introduce a system of noise certification of aircraft".
Mr. Edwin Brooks: I am following my hon. Friend's argument. Will he explain what relevance the possibility of the reduction in noise level has to the problem of sonic booms?
Mr. Rankin: Noise is not related only to the sonic boom. Sonic boom is noise, but an aircraft which travels at 610 m.p.h. makes a noise which is quite distracting at times. I travel in one.
Mr. Brooks: I live under them.
Mr. Rankin: Also I sometimes sit under the aircraft when it is passing over on the flight path and the noise it makes is quite noteworthy and might distract a great many people. So we have to regard these conclusions as applying to noise not only in sonic but also in supersonic aircraft.
The Report suggests that an aircraft should be certificated for airworthiness and also for the amount of noise it makes. It goes on to make another valuable recommendation, pointing out that this is not a problem that we in Britain alone are interested in but that it is one in which all countries are interested. In effect, it says that our research into aircraft noise should be international and urgently pursued and that there should be close liaison between the countries concerned with such research. This would mean that, when a supersonic aircraft of one country wanted to fly over another country which had no supersonic aircraft as yet, the second country would be more amenable in coming to an arrangement about the speed at which the aircraft was to fly over it.
There are one or two little suggestions, such as improving the characteristics and instrumentation of aircraft so that improved approach procedures with reduced power could be adopted, because it is as it is coming down and going up
426
that an aircraft can make a great deal of noise. The Report went on to conclude:
"The conference has established, however, that the substantial reduction of disturbance from aircraft noise without inhibiting the essential development and expansion of civil aviation is a practicable objective."
This Conference inquired into the problem we are discussing—a problem that must be inquired into closely. It told us that, by going ahead and trying to limit noise, we are not at the same time going to inhibit the essential development and expansion of civil aviation. Thus are we reassured in our desire to do things more quietly—what a wonderful idea that we should do things more quietly—not only in the air but also at home, where one sometimes yells at the kids if they are too noisy, and in the House of Commons.
8.22 p.m.
Mr. Edwin Brooks: The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) for initiating this debate on an important subject which has aroused a great deal of public interest. Newspaper correspondence columns are laden with letters of anxiety and it is clear that many thousands of people are very anxious about the implications of the tests that are being or have recently been carried out. It is obvious that the argument over sonic booms will be complicated. During the last few weeks, they have been almost as loud and certainly more continuous than the celestial bangs we have been suffering during the tests.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has contributed to the general debate in stressing that the problem of noise is not simply one of sonic booms which are merely one additional factor, although serious, in what has become a national scandal. What seemed to me particularly disturbing about his contribution lay in his early remarks, because he described to us, how a few hours ago, he was sitting with friends on the Terrace, where they held a totally inaudible conversation. If we are to be reduced to a state where, if we invite guests to the House, we can communicate only by sign language or lip reading, or perhaps, as time goes on and our senses develop, by telepathy, I suppose that we shall learn to live with noise.

427
Another disturbing aspect is that so few hon. Members have protested and that so few of the public are any longer outraged by the deterioration that has taken place in our environment over many years. We have to some extent been corrupted by the very persistence, by the all-pervading character, of the noise which day and night descends upon us.
To that extent, this debate is important because we are now at least in a position where we can, if we look ahead with sufficient foresight, guard against falling into the trap into which we have so often fallen—of feeling that there is nothing to be done about the inexorability and inevitability of progress.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Over many years, many hon. Members, headed by Sir Rupert Speir, persistently campaigned against the increasing development of noise in everyday life. This resulted in the setting up of the Wilson Committee, the Report of which the Government have done nothing about.
Mr. Brooks: The hon. Gentleman is right in the first part of his intervention. I am not suggesting that, as the years have gone by, all of us have been notably silent in our reactions to this noise problem. I was specifically taking up the point made by my hon. Friend and drawing what seemed to me legitimate conclusions.
I suppose that I can claim, if it is wise to do so—which I doubt—a slight responsibility for these tests which are making us human guinea pigs in that I sought, in an Adjournment debate last February, an undertaking from the Minister that research would be carried out to establish the tolerability of supersonic flying over this country.
Like many who have spoken, I have also received a large number of letters from all over the country and I add my view to those expressed that these letters are in my experience universally coming from people making serious representations. They are not letters from cranks. They are from people deeply anxious, and I hope that these representations will be taken with equal seriousness by the Government.
However, any pleasure that I might have felt a few weeks ago that my call
428
for research had at last been answered has, I regret to say, been sadly eroded in the event. I share the view that has been widely expressed in the last few weeks, not only here, but throughout the country, that these occasional, infrequent, daylight-only tests are of little, if any, objective value. Indeed, they could be positively misleading.
I appreciate—or I thought this was the position until this afternoon—that further tests are planned, including tests with the real article, the prototype Concord, which will be flying as from spring next year. I say I thought this was the position, but I am now just a little worried by an Answer to a Question which I put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology this afternoon. It is a short Question and a short Answer, but I hope the House will bear with me and perhaps share my feeling that this is an Answer to a different Question.
I asked the Minister of Technology
"…by what means he measures the true volume of public disquiet over sonic boom tests, when telephone lines to his department are jammed for long periods."
I tabled this Question shortly after I had information that several hours were necessary by some trying to get in contact with the Ministry to make protests.
This is the Answer:
"The recent tests did not creat booms comparable to those that will be made by supersonic airliners"—
this we have already been told, but I should like to return to that point in a moment—
"and a public opinion poll would have proved nothing. Later tests—if they are held—would provide an opportunity for a scientific survey of public reaction. No decision on future tests has yet been made."
If it is the case that no more rigorous and scientific tests are carried out in subsequent months, I shall be forced to assume that we have had an exercise in public deception.
I should like to go back through that Answer briefly and explain why I think this stricture is justified. The Minister has said:
"The recent tests did not create booms comparable to those that will be made by supersinoc airliners …".
Yet if it is true, as in my own recollection of a recent television programme the Director of the Concord project took great pains to stress, that the booms expected

429
from Concord would not be so significantly higher than the Lightning booms, then this Answer is meaningless. He was pressed on the point several times by the interviewer, and I am sure that a transcript of that interview would confirm the point that I am making.
However, I am more concerned about the latter part of the Answer. The Minister goes on to say:
"…and a public opinion poll would have proved nothing."
This, with respect, is absolute nonsense. A public opinion poll carried out on a proper sampling basis would have established public reaction to the tests which have been carried out. To say that a public opinion poll properly carried out would have proved nothing is absolute gibberish. He goes on:
"Later tests—if they are held"—
I would have thought that by now it was obvious we need further tests—
"would provide an opportunity for a scientific survey of public reaction."
By implication it is already admitted that the tests which we have just experienced were in no sense scientific. If this is so it seems very serious indeed that the people of this country have been led to experience what have undoubtedly, as we have heard from letters read to us, been distressing experiences for reasons which are non-scientific and were in any case, if we had carried out scientific tests, such that a public opinion poll would have proved nothing at all.
I appreciate, or at least I thought I did, the motive behind these tests. It is to recoup the maximum return from the £280 million—£250 million plus £30 million intramural expenditure—of British taxpayer's money which has already been committed to the research and development programme. But if we are to pursue maximum profitability at the cost of irretrievably damaging our physical environment, particularly the all-pervasive environment, the very skies of earth, then we shall be guilty of that same foolish short-sightedness which we rightly condemned in 19th century capitalist Britain.
The Government may attempt to justify these preliminary tests on the grounds that something is better than nothing and we now have at least some evidence
430
from field tests of public reaction to these specific booms.
I come back to the point which I made earlier—that if we are now to have on television responsible people connected with the Concord project telling us that these tests are meaningful in terms of what Concord will involve, all I can say is that my faith in the objectivity and motive of these tests is very badly shaken. Of course the tests lack meaning in any scientific sense. We do not test a representative sample.
I would accept that protests following consecutive tests might have some interest to us and even some slight value scientifically, but, as has been said many times, the telephone lines have often been jammed by protests. I put down another Question today:
"To ask the Minister of Technology, when he intends to install an adequate number of telephone lines to receive the complaints over sonic booms sent to his Department."
My right hon. Friend answered.
"The numbers of lines available were increased substantially when it became apparent that many people preferred to telephone rather than write, and as a result the delays in getting through were reduced."
This is like Alice in Wonderland. Perhaps we have proved one thing from these tests: we do not know what the public reaction to sonic booms is, not even those made by the Lightnings, but at least we know that people normally prefer to telephone rather than write to Ministers. This is an achievement of some moment and perhaps we should give it a moment's silence in reverence.
But, in all seriousness, is this the sort of preparatory work which should be carried out before tests of this sort are undertaken? Is it true that we can have only one telephone line with a number of extensions when thousands of people are telephoning and then half way through finding that the number of lines available has to be increased substantially so that as a result the delays in getting through are reduced, although there were still delays and apparently no method of recording calls so that people did not have to wait for half an hour or an hour or more to get through?
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I tried to ring up the Ministry of Technology on a serious matter from the House of

431
Commons the other day, I could not get through for half an hour because of the protests? Can he say how many lines the Ministry of Technology has?
Mr. Brooks: I am not the one to say how many lines the Ministry of Technology has, or whether it has any lines. I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman got through after half an hour; he obviously received privileged treatment.
What about the tests? We have had no night flights at all, although it is obvious that if Concord is to fly it will have to fly at night to justify its carrying capacity. The booms have been few and far between, just the odd one occasionally. But, of course, if Concord is flying and the American SST is flying in large numbers in 10 or 20 years from now, we will not have one boom at eleven o'clock in the morning, but it will be boom, boom, boom, all day and all night, not just for a few months, but for all our lives and our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. That is the prospect to which we have to look forward.
It is true that the booms have lacked the intensity of Concord and yet someone looking through a microscope knocked it out of adjustment because he was so startled and someone fell off a chair. The booms from Concord will not be nearly as great as will be the booms from the American SST, because it will be a much bigger plane flying at mach 3 instead of mach 2.2. Although it is some exaggeration, in my present mood I feel like saying that the tests which we have had have been like the telephone pips in comparison with what we will get from the Boeing SST.
If this is to be the product of skilful lobbying by the pro-Concord lobby, many of us will feel disposed to throw our weight into the anti-Concord agitation. Yet I have doubts about whether a simple antagonism to Concord is the answer. We have passed the point of no return. It is worth considering whether if Concord were to be scrapped the American programme, already facing severe financial strains and anxieties, might be wound up with a sigh of relief.
In the Financial Times of 19th July there was an article by the California correspondent pointing out that by the
432
time the SST American supersonic transport is ready for commercial operation, the bill will have come to about 3,400 million dollars. This will have been provided in the form of 726 million from the Government, 1,300 million from the airlines and 310 million in the form of tax concessions, but that will still leave Boeing with about 1,000 million dollars to find, which may be as much as twice the company's present net worth.
This is the scale of the expenditure about which we are talking. This is the loading that scarce specialist scientific men and materials will have to bear if Britain, America and other countries go in for supersonic transport programmes. If I thought that scrapping Concord would mean abolishing supersonic transport as such, I would feel that the case for cancellation was made. However I must say that, pending an explicit agreement between the supersonic manufacturers, and this includes Russia and France, to declare a ban on SSTs, I am wary of the American motive in stimulating the anti-Concord pressure in Britain.
This game is not being played for marbles, but for billions of pounds worth of potential orders. For us to pull out—even if it were contractually possible, which I doubt—would be to sell the pass on sophisticated aero-technology to the United States of America. Therefore, we may have to learn to live with Concord, even if we should resist the blandishments of those who want us to love it. Learning to coexist with new, noisy and dangerous forms of transport has been a recurring dilemma since the Industrial Revolution.
It has not always been solved successfully, and the Buchanan critique is testimony to our failure to segregate dangerous vehicles from vulnerable pedestrians. In the case of Concord and the Boeing, too, the parallel of the motorways solution is worth considering. We separate traffics to ensure their safety and efficiency. A balance has to be struck. Today, we need to plan for the segregation of the supersonic to ensure peace of mind of millions of people.
The choice is quite stark and simple. Either we plan for supersonic flight paths over sea, or we shall have supersonic blight paths over land—a mounting barrage of supersonic booms, a perpetual thunderstorm rumbling across the

433
heavens—and this must not be our legacy to future generations. I do not think that it is necessary, even if we do not accept the place of the SST in our global transport system.
The great world ocean routes can be employed. Most of the world's cities of 1 million population or more lie on or near the coasts. The SST can fly over the polar route, between Western Europe and East Asia and avoid populated areas. It can fly to the overwhelmingly coastal cities of Latin America and it can cut the travelling time to Australasia from Japan, from Panama and Southern Africa. Much of the Southern hemisphere is ocean, and as development proceeds in those regions we shall see new scope for the SST on routes which are at present ill-frequented.
Concord is a practical proposition and can be a massive earner of foreign exchange. If we can reconcile the legitimate commercial pursuits with the protection of human beings down below, we should not be too despondent. Even if the market is cut by a factor of perhaps 40 per cent. it would still be a viable proposition. The research and development costs of Concord have been met solely out of the British and French tax-payers' pockets. There is great ambiguity over the production financing of the plane. I hear that the French Government are now considering, or may well be committed, to another £100 million plus, in addition to the £250 million already spent on research and development, to get the production lines moving.
I hope that no decisions are taken on this problem, or at least announced, before we resume after the recess. Whenever the decision to finance production is taken I hope that the reluctance of the contractors to contribute a penny of their own money to research and development or production financing will be reflected in profit margins.
8.44 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): May I first join with those who have complimented my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) on having raised this debate on what is a most important subject. I hope that I will be able to deal adequately with the debate despite the absence of my
434
right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology to which the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) referred.
My right hon. Friend also regrets his absence. He would have preferred to reply to this debate. He made a statement in the House and answered Questions about it. This is a debate on a most important subject concerning all of us, and clearly concerning the quality of life in this country. This subject will have an important effect upon amenity and health, which we hope to assess. I am as concerned as any hon. Member that we should not do anything which would unnecessarily damage the quality of life or have an effect on amenity or health. My view of technology is that it should enrich life and not impoverish it. It is in that spirit that I approach this subject.
Hon. Members have said that we should not disregard the message brought to us, to them and, indeed, to the Ministry of Technology by the many letters and telephone calls which we have received. We will not ignore them. The letters contain information which will be of very great importance in the ultimate decision which has to be made. Against these considerations, there are balancing considerations which cannot be ignored. All hon. Members who have spoken have welcomed the fact that we are developing the Concord and have hoped that it will be a success. Hon. Members must remember that there will be an economic penalty to be paid if it were decided by this or any other country that supersonic flight over land could not be permitted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court suggested that an assurance had been given that the Concord would not fly supersonically over the United Kingdom and that my right hon. Friend had not dealt with that question when he raised it on 18th July. My right hon. Friend said:
"I do not recall an assurance being given" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1967; Vol. 750. c. 1720.]
of the sort to which my hon. Friend referred. Since then, I have made it my business to check whether any such assurance was given. No such assurance has been given at any time.
Mr. Richard: The point which I was making was that the Minister of Technology did not deal with the rest of the questions which I asked him, namely, what was the object of the tests and how much worse they would get.
Mr. Dell: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that no assurance of the type which he suggested has been given by the Government.
We have made an estimate of the likely effect on the market for Concord of a decision to ban supersonic flight over land, and we believe that it could reduce the potential market by about 40 per cent. This is only an estimate, and we cannot be certain that that would be the effect, but this is the scale of the problem. A decision to ban supersonic flight over land would undoubtedly cost this country a very considerable amount of money in lost sales.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: Surely we are not arguing that an aeroplane could fly supersonically over land. It can fly supersonically over this island and not give any trouble as long as the supersonic bang resulting from breaking the sound barrier takes place elsewhere. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not arguing against that happening?
Mr. Dell: If the United Kingdom bans supersonic flight over this country, we must accept that that will give a lead to other countries which are not so conveniently placed as we are. Equally, it is not simply a question of aircraft leaving airports in the United Kingdom, where undoubtedly the problem of when those aircraft achieve supersonic speed could be easily handled. It is also a question of flight paths across the United Kingdom from, for example, the North American Continent to destinations in Europe.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) asked me where the flight paths were likely to be located. This would be a matter of judgment and estimate. We have looked at this matter, and I assure him that flight paths would be likely to pass over the United Kingdom at several points. This is an aspect which we must consider.
Mr. Onslow: We were told originally that these tests would be confined to southern England. Am I now to infer
436
that the flight paths would cross over several points in southern England only or that there are other points in northern England which might be affected where tests so far have not been mounted?
Mr. Dell: Flight paths might pass over many parts of the country other than southern England.
The other aspect is that we all want to make Concord a success. Concord is a technological triumph for this country and France. It is an aircraft which represents a considerable technical lead over anything that the United States has so far achieved and we will have it in the air well in advance of the United States. This aspect of the Concord as a technological triumphy for this country must also be considered, and we want to make it an economic success.
I emphasise, however, that on this important subject the Government have not yet made up their minds what should be the right policy to adopt. They will probably not make up their mind about this for some time. Probably further tests will be needed. If they are carried out, a scientifically conducted social survey will be conducted with them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) criticised an Answer which he received today which stated that an opinion poll on the current series of tests would have proved nothing. That conclusion should be entirely acceptable to my hon. Friend. We have not really had a test of the effect of supersonic travel over this island on health and amenity. We have had 11 supersonic bangs. My hon. Friend should accept in the terms of his own argument that a public opinion poll about this would have proved nothing.
Some aspects of the problem can be tested. Tests can tell us something about supersonic flight over land. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) referred to dangers that might arise from supersonic flight over land. We can assess from tests whether such dangers are real. In France, between 400 and 500 supersonic flights over land are taking place without any known danger. In the United States, supersonic flights are currently taking place over land without any known danger. We can, however, assess this problem by means of tests.

437
Equally, we can assess the effect upon health. This was referred to by the hon. Member for Bristol, West, whose concern I recognise. We can assess to some extent the effect on amenity. We can assess the effect on physical structures, a point which the hon. Member for Bristol, West also made, although our present view is that the only buildings which are likely to be affected by the sorts of pressures which any likely supersonic bangs would cause would be buildings which are already in a very poor condition. The hon. Member may have seen the article in The Times of Saturday, 22nd July, which referred to the tests which have taken place at Oklahoma City, where it was shown that the supersonic bangs did not cause significant damage even to buildings which had been specially weakened to test what the effect might be.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Can the hon. Gentleman give an idea of the force of the Oklahoma City tests? Can he marry the experience there with the effect in this country if we had a heavy sonic bang on things like church windows, of which we have a much greater number, and on high buildings which might have loose parts, which might be shaken off and fall on people below?
Mr. Dell: The pressures used in the Oklahoma test were referred to in the article in The Times. It stated that the pressures were of the order of 1·5 lb. per sq. ft.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He said that the effect would depend to some extent on whether buildings were defective. That is my point. In my constituency, two-thirds of the property other than council flats and houses is already nearly tailing down. Indeed, there was an occasion when a man went out of the front door, slammed it and the house fell down. This is no laughing matter. What will happen when we get a few heavy sonic bangs?
Mr. Dell: I remind my hon. Friend that the point I am making is that this is precisely the sort of question, of the effect of supersonic flying on buildings, which could be tested by means of a test. I am merely drawing to the attention of the House that it is only specific matters which can be tested by means of
438
tests such as those which took place in Oklahoma City. One thing which, I think, is of the highest importance in this matter cannot be tested, and that is, what would be the effect on people, not of tests which everyone knows will come to an end, but of the realisation that supersonic bangs would be going on indefinitely and would be a permanent characteristic of life in the future. This is an aspect which cannot be simulated, but on which in the end judgment will have to be made. It is, clearly, an aspect of which the Government are aware and will take into account when a decision comes to be made.
I can give this assurance to the House, that there will be no further tests this summer, and that if further tests are conducted at a later date an announcement will be made, and there will be, as has been said, a more systematic attempt to assess public reaction.
I have been asked why we conducted this sort of test. The short answer was given by the Minister of State on 4th July, when he said:
"Before undertaking any major programme of sonic bang tests it would be desirable to have a relatively small preliminary exercise." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 1568.]
This is what this has been, a relatively small preliminary exercise.
The hon. Member for Woking suggested, in one of his more high-flying moments, that we were attempting by this means to condition the population. It would indeed be interesting if we could condition the population by means of 11 sonic bangs. We should have a sense of proportion, and realise what in fact has happened. We have had 11 sonic bangs. This compares with the number of supersonic bangs during the Oklahoma-City tests, which amounted to 1,250. This is certainly not a conditioning operation.
On the contrary, and this would have been welcomed, I should have thought, by my hon. Friends who have doubts, the real effect of what we have done, and which was in a sense the real purpose, is to alert public opinion to the problem, which has been mentioned before in the House, of the effect of supersonic bangs. My hon. Friend the Member for Bebington raised this during an Adjournment debate in February. Remarks which have been made on this subject in the past

439
have been treated with a deafening silence. Public opinion previously was not aware of what a supersonic bang really was. Now the public knows something about it, and we are in this country beginning to form an informed opinion on the issues which are involved.
Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend is very good at giving way. Would he deal with the point which, I think, is crucial? Answering questions on 18th July the Minister of Technology said in effect that we were having a small exercise to see what would be tolerable. We have had the exercise. Can my hon. Friend say whether, in the considered judgment of the Government, it is tolerable or it is not tolerable?
Mr. Dell: I have already told my hon. Friend that we have not yet made any decision whether it is tolerable or not. We have not yet got the information to decide whether it is tolerable or not.
I would, with respect to my hon. Friend, suggest that this sort of textual criticism of what my right hon. Friend and others have said in the past will not help. We have to establish the facts and make a decision in the light of such facts as we can establish.
Mr. Onslow: Perhaps it is perverse of us to pay too much attention precisely to those words, but may I remind the hon. Gentleman again that the Minister of Technology, whom I am glad to see with us now, said on 18th July,
"We have made available to a wider range of people an opportunity to decide whether this is an intolerable interference with privacy." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1967; Vol. 750, c. 1723.]
It has now been put to us that this cannot have been the purpose of the test, and surely the Ministry must have learnt that the result cannot show whether this was tolerable or not?
Mr. Dell: On the contrary, quite clearly it could have been established by the tests that this was an intolerable interference with privacy. From the evidence which we are now analysing, one conclusion might be that it is not and that future tests will have to take place. That is the next decision which we have to make. We have achieved the object of informing people about the nature of a supersonic bang.
440
Criticism has been made that better facilities for complaints should have been available. Perhaps I can inform the House at this point that about 250 claims have been made in respect of damage, though it has not yet been established how far any of them are justified. In addition, we have received something like 6,000 letters, postcards and telegrams, and about 3,000 telephone calls have been noted.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: There are a lot more on the way.
Mr. Dell: There may be, and they will be analysed as well.
We have been criticised because we did not sufficiently increase the number of telephone lines available to receive calls making complaints about the supersonic tests. In fact, we did increase the number of lines available, but the House should accept that, in practical economic terms, nothing could have prevented the jamming of lines in the hour or so after a supersonic test had taken place.
In any case, the essential point here has been not the number of complaints made but the types of complaints made. We accept and readily concede to any critic that the complaints received do not represent all those which people might have wished to make either by letter or telephone. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham has just said, there may be other complaints on the way.
What they have enabled us to do is to analyse the types of criticism which people have and the strands of opinion which have been revealed. These will help us in another respect because, if there are further tests, the analysis that we are now conducting of letters and telephone calls which have been received should give a great deal more information upon which to base the questions which should be asked by the social survey or opinion poll which we would conduct contemporaneously with any future tests. It should help us to analyse and understand the problem and we should, if necessary, be able to carry out a very much better survey as a result of the information which we have from these letters and telephone calls than we would had we not engaged in this small preliminary exercise this month. At the moment, we are analysing the letters and

441
calls which have been received, and we shall make further statements on the results of that analysis later.
During the course of the debate, I was asked a number of specific questions. The hon. Member for Bristol, West asked about damage caused by foreign aircraft if they were permitted to fly supersonically over the United Kingdom. This is a contingency which negotiations with other countries about supersonic overflying must take into account. Pending those negotiations, I do not think that anything further can usefully be said.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether, should it prove necessary, it would be possible to prevent supersonic overflying of the United Kingdom. The answer is that it would be. We are reasonably satisfied that there are no existing international agreements which would affect this matter.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry to ask the hon. Gentleman to give way again, but what about British aircraft flying over or leaving the United Kingdom and doing damage? Are the Government liable for those, whether they are operated by a nationalised concern or by some independent airline in the future?
Mr. Dell: This is part of the international code of behaviour which will have to be decided by international negotiation.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington, who has spoken several times on this issue, is, in essence, right. This is a strategic moment at which we have to decide our attitude to one important factor which will seriously affect the quality of our environment. The problem of whether supersonic aircraft will be allowed to fly over the United Kingdom, and if so, with what restrictions, is undoubtedly an issue of first-class importance. In the end we will have to balance the economic advantages which will derive from the uninhibited sales of Concord and from supersonic travel against any damage to health and amenity.
The Government are not yet ready to make their decision, and further tests may be necessary before they are in a position to do so. I can pledge that the Government will not make their decision
442
without the fullest consideration of all the issues and values involved.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Gentleman must answer the question put to him. Will supersonic planes taking off from Heathrow create supersonic bangs over this country, or over the sea? Will supersonic aircraft from France, Germany and Amsterdam create supersonic bangs over this country?
Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I was saying. This is a point which we have to decide. As a result of the information that we have, and possible further tests, we have to decide whether to allow supersonic flights over this country. I repeat that this matter has not yet been decided.
Mr. Gresham Cooke: This is most unsatisfactory. The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), or answered the points raised by other hon. Members. I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I cannot accept the Motion.

DUODECIMAL CURRENCY AND MENSURATION
9.7 p.m.
Mr. Brian Parkyn: I am glad of the opportunity to use some of the precious time of the House to raise a subject which is important to many people, namely, duodecimal currency and mensuration. I do not wish to be considered the custodian of lost causes, but I believe that the methods which we use for counting, for measuring length, for measuring weight, and for our currency itself, are fundamental issues which need to be discussed by the House. I do not regard this as a lost cause in spite of the fact that the House has recently passed the Decimal Currency Bill, which will give us decimal currency in five years' time.
There are many reasons why Britain is in a unique position in relation to duo-decimalism. We are not a duo-decimal country, and we never have been, but I would like to see us become fully duodecimal at some time, and I shall explain that in a moment.
People in England think duodecimally,

443
without realising it. A railway clerk selling tickets at a station and a girl selling lettuces in a greengrocer's shop know straight away, without a moment's thought, that 16d. is 1s. 4d. They know, without realising it, that 16 decimally is 14 duodecimally, and this occurs among all English people. Without realising it, we are already duodecimalists, so we could go duodecimal with relative ease.
Whatever Britain does is of great consequence to the world. It is worth mentioning this when we tend to think that our day has gone and we are no longer the power that we were. It is worth reminding ourselves sometimes, that in 1965 the total external commodity trade of this country was 19,000 million dollars, compared with the total external commodity trade of the whole of North America of only 27,000 million dollars, with a population four times as great as ours.
Therefore, whatever we do which affects trade; whatever kind of packaging we use, and whatever kind of measurement or currency we use—and 40 per cent. of world trade is financed by sterling—will affect the world as a whole. The subject that I wish to raise is concerned not with the consequences just to this country, but to the world.
The United States and most of the Commonwealth, although having adopted decimal currency, do not principally use metric measurements; they use English measurements. Therefore, people in countries using the metric system have to be used to coping with English or American measurements, in dealing with motor cars, aircraft, machine tools, and so on. These units are not just used in the English-speaking world; they are familiar to the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Swiss, and people all over the world, particularly because of the vast productive potential of the United States.
One of the most curious factors in the whole question of decimalism and duodecimalism—and I shall describe what I mean by this in a moment—is that the subject has not been discussed by the House for a long time. We find that the subject was not even mentioned in the terms of reference of the Halsbury Committee. It was not asked whether or not we should have a decimal coinage, but, rather, whether, if we had a decimal
444
coinage, what kind of coinage should it be? This is made clear in the first paragraph, which states that the terms of reference were:
"(a) to advise on the most convenient and practical form which a decimal currency might take, including the major and minor units to be adopted; (b) to advise on the timing and phasing of the change-over best calculated to minimise the cost; (c) to estimate the probable amount and incidence of the cost to the economy of proposals based on (a) and (b)."
There is a cursory mention of duodecimalism in the Report, in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12. Paragraph 12 makes it clear that the Committee was not to discuss whether or not we should go decimal. It says:
"Consideration of any but a decimal system was strictly beyond our terms of reference. We thought it right, however, to record here our view that, whatever the theoretical advantages of duo-decimal currency systems, they suffer from the decisive drawback that, unless our basic system of arithmetic notation were also changed—and the decimal system is so firmly entrenched throughout the world that it is difficult to imagine it ever being replaced—we should continue, with such systems, to do money calculations differently from non-money calculations. We are concerned to decimalise Britain's currency, not to duo-decimalise the world's arithmetic."
That is what the Halsbury Report says, and because of this the basic issue, which is whether we should go decimal or duodecimal or binary or octonal, or should adopt any other system, was not decided by the people or Parliament; it was because of this that there was so much discussion whether we should have a £—cent—½cent system, a 10s. unit, or a £5—mil system.
These things are not all that important. If we are going decimal there are marginal advantages in favour of doing what the Government propose, which is not to change the basic unit and to use the £— cent—½ cent system. I can speak as a neutral in this, as a confirmed duodecimalist.
My point is that Parliament did not decide the basic issue—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn) will appreciate that on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill we cannot discuss matters which will involve legislation.

445
We can discuss only matters of administration. We cannot discuss the merits or demerits of the Decimal Currency Bill.
Mr. Parkyn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I accept your Ruling.
We cannot consider decimalism in terms purely of currency or of measurement of weight, length and time, but must take into account whether it is the one system of notation for all these activities. We count to 10 for the anatomical reason that we have 10 digits on our hands and mathematicians have always known that 10 is an unsatisfactory basis, since it is divisible only by two or five and because it results in recurring decimals which are indeterminate. Twelve, as has been realised for many years—from Babylonian times, in fact—is more suitable because it is divisible by two, three, four and six. If we had a fully duodecimal system, we could count up to nine with two extra digits and then finally 10 and the duodecimal point could be moved in the same way as the decimal.
Therefore, duodecimal notation is almost ideal. The Babylonians used 60, which gave us 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour and 12 hours on our clock faces. America first turned to decimal currency, in 1786, followed by France in 1795, where it was introduced by a commission of the French Academy of Sciences, and this led in 1799 to France adopting the metric system. This was highly commendable, because the Academy realised that, because we count up to 10, it is important to devise a system of currency and general mensuration in the same units.
But they changed the units of measurement, weight and length to fit the system of counting instead of vice versa. If ever a cart was put before a horse, it was when France adopted the decimal metric system—
Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we have passed a law on the decimal coinage system. The hon. Gentleman may not, in debates on the Consolidated Fund Bill, propose changing the law, but may discuss only administrative matters for which Her Majesty's Government or a Minister are responsible. He may not talk about France.
Mr. Parkyn: I was trying to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should consider
446
changing the methods of measurement and should air this subject—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This would have to be done by law, and this is not the moment to debate a new law.
Mr. Parkyn: Thank you, Sir.
There have been many supporters over the ages of duodecimalism, like Leibnitz and Pascal, the celebrated mathematicians and philosophers of the 17th century, Laplace, who, at the end of the 18th century, was a member of the French Academy of Sciences, and even Napoleon, who was a very keen duodecimalist. He was a practical man and probably the very model of a model major-general. He understood the square on the hypotenuse and was a practical man who understood the great advantage—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not question anything the hon. Gentleman is saying, but the Government are not responsible for Napoleon. He must come to something for which the Government are responsible.
Mr. Parkyn: I believe that the Government should consider inquiring into our whole system of weights and measures and the whole system of counting. If one wishes to get a medical opinion, one goes to a doctor; if one wishes to build a house, one gets design experience from an architect; and in a matter of this kind, when we are dealing with numbers and figures, we should get advice from mathematicians, a man like Professor Aitken, who is well known to many hon. Members for his writings on the subject of duodecimalism and who has explained many times that system's advantages to the community. He puts the efficiency of the decimal system as 65 per cent. as against 100 per cent. for the fully duodecimal system.
In the duodecimal system there is the great advantage of no recurring decimals. One does not have the problem of thirds and two-thirds such as we have with the decimal system. There are also practical advantages. It would be important to the Board of Trade, because in a warehouse, for instance, packages which are metric in size, based on kilogrammes or on certain metric length measurements, can be arranged only on the basis of two rows of five long or five rows of two long, whereas, based on the duodecimal system,

447
there would be four times the number of possibilities of arrangement. There would, therefore, be many practical advantages to the community.
Although at one time there were people in France who tried to put 10 months in a year and 10 hours in a clock and even five points on a compass, those changes were not made and our watches still have 12 hours on the face and there are still 12 months in a year and time and the angular motion of a circle are basic to the whole question of measurement. It is unrealistic to accept a 10 notation, which has so many obvious advantages, unless we accept it throughout our normal experience, which will also include time and angular motion.
It would be easy for Britain to make this change, because £1 3s. 6d. would simply become £1:36, and everyone would change over rapidly. Yet, somehow, nowadays we follow the rest of the world, seeming to feel that the rest of the world is ahead of us and that we no longer have the confidence to go ahead and say that we have a system which is not yet quite right, but which, with a few small changes, can be made a system which the rest of the world would ultimately wish to follow. I do not advocate that we should maintain our present mixed system of measurement. I am advocating that at some time our system should become fully duodecimal, so that we have a duodecimal metric system, or a duodecimal c.g.s. system.
Other systems could be considered, such as the octonal, with which I will not deal now. The only advantage of the octonal system is that it would be of some use in the age of computers because of its comparisons with the binary system, and it might also be of some use on the Stock Exchange because quotations of the value of the £ are in eighths and sixteenths and thirty-seconds. But, broadly speaking, 12 is really the answer, and if the world does not see this I believe that it will come to see it during the next 100 years or so.
I should like to end with a quotation from Professor Aitken, who says:
"Numeration is in its infancy. Historians of the future will look back to decimalism as an episode, as a system adopted primitively for anatomical rather than rational reasons, retained for centuries and millenia by the inertia of unreflecting conservatism."
9.31 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Brian Parkyn) has described himself as a lifelong duodecimalist. He has urged that the Government should inquire into the duodecimal system with a view to seeking to persuade people to abandon our more familiar decimal system of arithmetic and notation, putting in its place a duodecimal system, and therefore adopting systems of weights and measures and notation based on that different mathematical system.
My hon. Friend claims that mathematically such a system would be ideal. I am no mathematician to argue the toss with him on that, but I understand that not all mathematicians are agreed about it. Even if it is the ideal system mathematically, we are not living in an ideal world. Practically the whole world counts in the decimal system. Therefore when we, a great trading nation which must remain so, wish to sell our goods abroad and have successful trading relationships with other countries, it would complicate matters somewhat if we adopted a system of notation quite different from that of the countries with which we deal. The familiar phrase, "Everyone is out of step except our little Tommy", may be a fine example of familial loyalty, but I cannot think that it is a good recipe for national policy.
We have inquired into our systems of weights and measures, and my hon. Friend will remember that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said in a Written Answer as far back as 24th May, 1965, that the Government were impressed with the case put to them by representatives of industry in favour of a wider use in British industry of the metric system of weights and measures. Our systems of measuring are a combination of decimal and duodecimal systems to some extent. Our industry already finds this a disadvantage and the Government, impressed by the advantages for us of bringing ourselves more into line with the systems prevailing over the greater part of the world, have decided that they should seek to encourage the use of metric units in weights and measures.
Countries using the metric system now take more than half our exports, and the total proportion of world trade conducted in terms of metric units will no

449
doubt continue to increase. For this reason, I am afraid that I must tell my hon. Friend that we have looked into the matter and that our conclusion is exactly contrary to his. He urges that it would be simple to convert to a duodecimal system. I find that difficult to believe. It may be that children who were educated in the new system from their earliest infancy and were familiar with it could find advantages. But I am told that if we who have been brought up on our decimal system sought to adjust ourselves to the duodecimal system we should have to accustom ourselves to the idea, for example, of showing our present number 13 with the figures at present used to show the number 11, 14 as 12 and 25 as 21, and in our multiplication tables 7 times 9 would equal 53. All this when one gets used to it may be simple and clear, but I suggest that as a matter of conversion it would present considerable problems.
On the purely mathematical argument, I was interested to see that Lord Halsbury—who, as my hon. Friend said, gave attention with his Committee to this aspect, although it was not within their terms of reference—in discussing the matter at a lecture before the Royal Society of Arts in February this year, said that as between a decimal and a duodecimal system,
"The mathematicians would have a slight preference for 12 because of its greater divisibility, although there is not in fact much in it."
Lord Halsbury said:
"If we take as a criterion of 'awkwardness' in a representation the number of reciprocals prime to and less than the radix, we have with 10 as our radix the 'awkward' numbers 3, 6, 7 and 9 whose reciprocals are recurring decimals: from out of 10. With 12 as our radix, the 'awkward' ones are 5, 7, 10 and 11: four out of 12. There is not much in it."
In any event, he said a little later in the lecture that when asked to chair the Committee of Inquiry into Decimalisation he was at once approached by innumerable correspondents urging him to duodecimalise the radix of world arithmetic instead. He went on to say:
"Mercifully my terms of reference protected me against undertaking anything so formidable. Had they not done so I would, I
450
think, have recommended against it and everyone would have said I was wrong without reading my report. Decimal notation is one of the few genuinely international schemes of systematisation that there are. Heaven forbid that it should be tampered with. There are more important fish to fry."
I can only say that if we were to set on foot any such inquiry as my hon. Friend suggests, that, perhaps not so well expressed, would be the conclusion to which the inquiry would come.

RAILWAYS (BOROUGH MARKET JUNCTION)
9.33 p.m.
Mr. Roland Moyle: I welcome the opportunity of the Consolidated Fund Bill to raise the question of commuter travelling conditions in south-east London and the capacity which the line is able to take as a result of the bottleneck at Borough Market Junction.
Yesterday, we were considering child poverty. In making my plea this evening to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I shall have to be careful to avoid giving the impression that I am assembling a mere series of groans and minor irritations by a lot of people, the sort of thing that is not difficult to discover in any walk of life, and trying to make a case based upon them. I accept that in any specific instance the irritation is often minor and can be borne by the great majority of our fellow citizens as part of the normal run of life, but the sum total of all the irritations amounts to a fairly serious social problem.
I speak with experience of the railway system which I wish to discuss, because for eight years before becoming a Member of Parliament I commuted daily up to London in the morning and back from London in the evening. I can, therefore, say with great justification, although as a youngish man enjoying, generally speaking, the rudest of rude health, that I found the experience over the years wearing. I am sure that people of middle age find it extremely exhausting. It is the sort of problem that we should try to solve.
I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest by saving that I do not intend to indulge in railway management technicalities. I want to give a consumer's eye

451
view of the problem as I and my constituents see it and to consider the sort of solutions which can be found for the problem.
Obviously, on a commuter line anywhere near London the trains are packed. This is not an unusual experience in travelling to and from work in London. It is the normal experience. There are some grounds for saying that the South-East regional commuter services into London Bridge, Charing Cross and Cannon Street form the busiest stretch of railway line in the world. But the problem to this extent is only one of a difference of degree.
Of course, one of the things which distinguishes this line and commuting on it from commuting, say, north of the river, is that it is an overground line and, from that point of view, as well as being intensely overcrowded it is subject to the vagaries of the weather. First, it is subject to fog, and this causes train delays. Secondly, it is subject to delay by frost, snow and many other things.
I want to emphasise what a train delay means. If a train coming along the Bexleyheath line to Charing Cross is delayed, it picks up at Bexleyheath and the stations surrounding it not only its own load of passengers, but also the load of passengers that would have caught the following train. As a result, when it gets to the inner ring of stations contained in my constituency, such as Ladywell, Lewisham Junction, Blackheath, the train is so crowded that people in Blackheath must choose between thrusting themselves into a compartment which is so literally packed tight that they cannot move their arms or waiting, not only for the next train but until the entire rush hour is over so that they can catch a reasonably empty train with room to move.
Not only because of the vagaries of the weather, but even because of technical considerations, one often finds the service interrupted—for example, by points failures. To arrive at a station and to be told that the trains are being delayed by a points failure in the system is not uncommon. Track maintenance has to be carried out and this also imposes its own delays on the system. In fact, I go a little further and say that, even in the finest of summer weather, delays are
452
not uncommon and can make people an hour or two late home in the evening or an hour or so late for work in the morning.
There was the famous week in high summer some years ago. On the Monday morning, the train system was thrown out of order by a train being derailed at Borough Market Junction. On the Tuesday, the whole system was thrown out of order because there was a violent thunderstorm and one or two stations were flooded heavily. On the Wednesday, as the result of the storm of the previous day, the embankment slipped and a landslide blocked the railway track. On the Thursday, believe it or not, there was an announcement that the whole system had been thrown out of gear because a lorry was across the line. I have always been grateful to the Evening Standard for publishing a picture of the lorry across the line, because I would not have believed it had I not seen it.
Frequently—about half a dozen times a winter—one arrives at Charing Cross to make one's journey home only to find that the train system has been thrown out of order and the forecourt is jammed tight with tired City humanity trying to get home and enjoy what remains of the day at their ease. I suppose that one should advise people not to pack the forecourt to that extent. Nevertheless, this seems to be a continuing trait in human nature and has existed for as many years as I can remember. Physical movement becomes very exhausting, particularly for the more elderly of the commuters. On these occasions many try to avoid travelling home by rail. This entails switching to the buses, but all the buses have vast queues wrapped round the blocks. It entails a long bus journey home by a roundabout and unfamiliar route or possibly an equally long journey through the East End by tube. All this adds to the wear and tear of commuting.
When there is severe frost and fog in the winter it has been known for the railway system on occasions to cease to function altogether. There have been several occasions in the past three or four years when, having got to the station, I have found that the trains are not running and that other arrangements have to be made either to get to or from work. Understandably, therefore, the service

453
provided is one which is received without appreciation and which some seem to render without pride.
On top of the technical difficulties which are sometimes caused on the line and the vagaries of the weather which assault it, it has its fair measure of industrial disputes and unrest. I speak not so much of the occasional one-day strikes which have upset the line, but at one stage at least two or three times a year there were go-slows and periods of work to rule by the staff—in some cases for very good reasons. Many of the experts in labour relations in British Railways felt that the motor men, who were the prime movers in these things, had a reasonable case to argue. Nevertheless, it had its effect on the regularity and smoothness of working of the line.
It can best be summed up in this way. When I announced my intention, shortly before the 1966 General Election, of becoming a candidate for Parliament, a number of my friends were led to question my sanity. I used to pull their legs by explaining that it was the only way I could avoid commuting up to London and back again for the rest of my working days. What surprised me was the number of people who seemed to take this point seriously. I am given to understand that there are some who believe that the Leader of the House, plus the rights of the Opposition to oppose, combine to impose upon us very unfortunate working hours and conditions. I accept these conditions with a great deal of fortitude, because so long as we continue to work these hours I shall be able to enjoy a gracious and calm journey home in off-peak periods.
Are these all really hardships? Do they amount to a social problem? I think that they do, and I should like to give one example to illustrate this point of view. In 1965 we had a go-slow on this stretch of line covering North Kent and south-east London to Charing Cross and Cannon Street. As a result of this go-slow there was a homeward train in the evening standing at a platform at Charing Cross for about half an hour. Someone announced over the loudspeaker that the driver for that train was on another train which had not yet come in. What was not explained—
Mr. Speaker: With respect, all this seems to be mostly day-to-day administra-
454
tion for which the Minister is not directly responsible.
Mr. Moyle: I accept that many of the points I am making relate to day-to-day administration. On the other hand, they all rest upon the provision of capital, for which the Minister is responsible. The particular point that I am trying to make will illustrate the seriousness of the problem for which capital has to be provided to bring about a solution. I intend to state the case for the provision of capital for certain portions of this line.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon come to it.
Mr. Moyle: I just wanted to conclude this illustration by saying that when the unfortunate driver arrived, he had to be escorted up the platform by a policeman and was subject to the abuse of people in the railway carriages. As he passed my compartment, one of the passengers made an attempt to assault him physically. This is a serious situation and it begins to show that an important problem has to be solved.
Why do I raise this issue at this time? Here, I turn to the point which you are anxious that I should make, Mr. Speaker. Although I would not agree that these conditions have existed since 1189, they have certainly existed since time from which the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, in the good old legal phrase, but the situation has been highlighted by recent attempts by the Southern Region to solve this problem on its own. I have every sympathy with the management in this respect. It has made a major attempt to solve the problem, but the context within which it is working is too narrow for it to provide a proper solution.
I can describe the railway system in this part of London simply. There is a widespread, fan-shaped system spreading all over south-east London and a large part of the south-east Home Counties and as the lines approach London Bridge and New Cross they narrow into about 15 or 20 tracks running on a high carriageway until they get to London Bridge Station, where the whole system is narrowed down to eight tracks. Beyond London Bridge Station at the Borough Market Junction, where the trains for Cannon Street and Charing Cross separate, the whole system is reduced to four parallel tracks.

455
This means that the whole of the commuting traffic system for south-east London and the south-east Home Counties can carry only the amount of train and passenger traffic which can be forced through those four lines at the Borough Market Junction. The result has been that British Railways have endeavoured so to organise their time tables that they can take as many trains as possible on this stretch of lines.
The point is well put in a letter from the divisional manager to a constituent of mine, saying:
"As I have said already we have had to make use of the available capacity in order to incorporate additional trains in the new timetable and it has therefore been necessary to run more trains fast through New Cross and London Bridge to obtain maximum utilisation of the tracks in the London area."
That is the nub of the problem and the techniques which have been used for solving it are running trains from the outer London suburbs straight through London Bridge to Charing Cross and Cannon Street omitting stops at the inner London stations. It also means that there is a minority of people who have been adversely affected, particularly in the inner London suburbs, such as the North Lewisham area. As a result of my mail, I am almost driven to conclude that the entire minority which British Railways say may suffer as a result of the new timetables is concentrated in North Lewisham.
Another thing which has led to a certain amount of bunching of trains is that technically, although one gets three or four or even five trains per hour between two points, a close examination of the timetable will show that they are all bunched into one half or one quarter of the hour, leaving gaps of about 40 minutes for the remainder of the time, during which people cannot travel.
The answer of British Railways is that one must make provision during these long gaps to catch a train and change at London Bridge. But this is just twisting another knife in the wound. A typical journey to work for one of my constituents involves catching a packed bus from near his home to the station, changing from the bus into a packed train, travelling to one of the London termini, getting out of the train and catching a bus or tube at the other end near his destina-
456
tion, with waits in possibly inclement weather in exposed positions. The whole thing is carried out in rush and confusion and repeated in the evening. This can be very wearing, particularly for people over 50, and even those under 50 can begin to notice it after a long period.
Changing at London Bridge is no simple matter. One gets in at one's particular platform, but one has to change. However, one does not know from which platform the next train is coming, so one usually takes up a position on the bridge, so that one can jump from one side to another as the case may be. Sometimes one gets there and the train is already in at another platform, and so one rushes madly over the bridge to catch the train, only to find that the people on the other side are rushing madly to catch your train.
This leads to a situation where an irresistible force meets an immovable object, somewhere about the middle of the bridge, and it is all very wearing and tiring. How are we to solve the problem? The whole essence of the problem is that the Railway Board is trying to put a quart into a pint pot, because of the inadequate capacity of the Borough Market Junction, to serve the entire system. This is the key to the problem.
With all respect to the Railways Board, and the Minister, the position will get far worse as the years go by. There is a continuous movement of people out from the centre of London, from the inner suburbs to the outer suburbs and from outer suburbs to areas in Kent and Sussex. It has been calculated that there might be a movement of about 300,000 people to the other suburbs, and a movement of about 400,000 people to the areas in Kent and Sussex.
This will lead to an increase in the commuter problem. More commuters will be trying to get to the packed trains going through London Bridge, and will be trying to pass through London Bridge to Charing Cross and Cannon Street. The system will probably be totally unable to carry it. Even if one does not want to project one's thoughts as far forward as I am doing, one has to have regard to the nearer practical problems.
The Greater London Council is building a new town of 60,000 people on the Erith Marshes, to be known as Thames-mead. I am happy to say that, with

457
considerable foresight, it is making plans for a large majority of the working population to work in Thamesmead. On the other hand, when I was councillor on the London Borough of Greenwich, the scheme was still for about 8,000 people living in Thamesmead to work in Central London.
It was assumed that of those 8,000, about 2,000 would travel up by bus, and 6,000 would want to travel by train. According to my calculations, this means introducing an extra four trains through London Bridge during every rush hour, morning and evening. This is not the full extent of the problem, because a similar new town of a smaller nature, is to be built on the old aerodrome at Kidbrooke. This, I believe, will mean another two trains in the rush hours.
How the system will handle this, I do not know. The residents in southeast England have now reached the point where they are beginning to draw up their own schemes for improving the capacity of Borough Market Junction to handle the traffic and are passing them on to me. I have passed them to the British Railways Board. For private people to give up their time to draw up, not a simple scheme, but a fairly complex and technical document, they must be very seriously worried about the conditions which they have to face.
No doubt the argument which will be put forward is that any proposal to increase the capacity of Borough Market junction will require substantial capital sums which cannot be provided. But if we could get people to work much more quickly, much more comfortably and much fresher, the nation would reap the benefit of the capital investment over a period of years in terms of increased effort when they got to their offices, shops or whatever may be their place of work. The trouble is that we cannot calculate these benefits and set them against the capital expenditure required. It would be a good idea if the British Railways Board attempted to assess some of the social improvements which would result from this scheme to offset against the capital expended.
It must be 20 years ago when my father was a Member of the House and I joined him here one evening. We got the last train to Bexleyheath. There was
458
a group of us and we fell to discussing that common subject in south-east London, the commuting services. We all earnestly concluded that the trouble with the south-east London commuting services was the bottleneck at Borough Market Junction. I hasten to add, to protect his memory, that my father did not represent a south-east London constituency. As I say, 20 years have elapsed and we have had a couple of timetable changes. My worry is that in 20 years' time, when my son has grown to full manhood, he might be concluding a discussion on the commuting services of south-east London and earnestly agreeing with everybody around him that the trouble with the system is the bottleneck at Borough Market Junction.
I should like to know what plans the Government have and what they intend to do about this problem. Last August, I put a Written Question to the Minister of Transport asking what she intended to do about it. The Answer which I received from the Parliamentary Secretary was that there had been approval of a £500,000 capital sum to improve the situation. It may be that my constituents are being unfair. All that I can say is that if a Gallup Poll were held among them this week they would all conclude by saying that they had not noticed the difference. The problem is large, but I think that it is about time that a scheme was evolved to solve it.
9.58 p.m.
Mr. R. W. Brown: I should like to endorse the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) about the problems of travelling in south-east London. I ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the problem south of London Bridge. The part that London Bridge as a crossing of the river should play in the future road arrangements in the area is very uncertain. As far as one can ascertain, it is likely to be not a trunk route but merely a feeder to the City area and the area south of London Bridge.
It seems to me that the proposed size for the new London Bridge—that is, six vehicle lanes instead of the present four—might prove to be too large and, furthermore, to form an attraction to through traffic. The main route for through traffic is likely to be by means of a tunnel

459
parallel to Tower Bridge. Therefore, before the positioning of the southern end of the bridge is decided, the study being undertaken by the London Borough of Southwark, together with the G.L.C., should be allowed to come to fruition.
The study is being undertaken with a view to defining a comprehensive development area under the Town Planning Acts. The area contains much of great historic value as well as constituting a commercial centre of great importance to London. It includes the Borough Market, one of London's great fruit and vegetable markets, an enormous amount of wharfage and related storage accommodation through which large imports of food flow into the southern part of England. It also contains Southwark Cathedral, Guy's Hospital and London Bridge railway station.
The study will reappraise the use of the land and make projections for the use of the land as well as the evolution of a traffic and pedestrian network. The area at present is a great jumble of buildings and highways. Therefore, any decision which is taken on the form of the new bridge without knowing the results of the study would, it seems to me, prejudge the conclusions of the comprehensive investigation and the design of the bridge and might not be compatible with requirements disclosed by the study.
Existing traffic can get on and off the bridge reasonably easily. The congestion is caused not by the bridge, but by the approaches at either end of the bridge. Priority, in improving traffic flow, seems to lie not so much with the bridge but with the roads leading to it and the road junctions at either end.
The study is designed to survey an area which, I believe, should be considered before any decision is made on the bridge. It takes in an area bounded by Southwark Bridge Road, Lant Street, Long Lane, Tower Bridge Road and the river. This area includes the London Bridge station complex, Guy's Hospital, Borough Market and Southwark Cathedral precinct. The study will cover the general planning problems in this congested area lying between the South Bank comprehensive development area to the west and the Bermondsey comprehensive
460
development area to the east. The study will deal with the traffic and transport problems, bus routes, circulation of pedestrians and redevelopment with all its economic implications.
When the study is completed, it is hoped to prepare planning proposals with a view to defining action areas within the study area and to decide which authority should be responsible for implementing them. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will realise that if the new bridge is to go ahead at a cost of from £2½ million to £3½ million before one knows what should happen at the southern end of the bridge, it would seem to me to be a gross waste of money, because, at best, it will have to be modified when the improvements which are required are known. If, therefore, it were possible to wait until the study had been made, one could design this sort of bridge with the pedestrian precincts which it requires and get the sort of outlet and inlet to the bridge which one desires.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend to address himself to the problem. I cannot expect him tonight to answer the detailed issues, but I draw the problem to his attention because I believe it to be urgent. I hope that his Department will investigate the situation urgently to ensure that before London Bridge is rebuilt, we know what will happen at the southern end.
10.4 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I welcome the opportunity to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown) on the question of travel facilities for commuters in certain areas of this great city.
There is just one personal explanation I should like to make before I come to the main part of my reply. In the ordinary way I have no occasion to use the facilities, such as they are, at London Bridge Station or Borough Market Junction, but since I have occupied this position I have made it my business to become acquainted with the position in which commuters are placed in these areas; that is to say, I have made it my business to travel as an ordinary traveller through London Bridge Station

461
at the peak hours and to study by personal observation are interchange facilities at these places.
I make no great point of that, because I do not have the daily experience, thank goodness, of that, but nevertheless, I would not like anybody to say that I am just speaking from a cold brief; I am well aware of the problems and difficulties and hardships which are experienced, and, therefore, I readily agree with many of the criticisms which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North, in the main burden of his speech.
I must say, first, that the planning and operation of the rail services in general in the Metropolis is a matter for British Railways themselves. It is true that plans for improvements requiring substantial investment must come to my right hon. Friend for approval, but my right hon. Friend has no direct power to initiate plans for improvements. That is a responsibility which correctly, is placed upon the managers of the nationalised railways. Therefore, what I have to say on this subject is necessarily limited.
It is in some ways a curious time to raise this old, long-standing problem, the capacity of Southern Region commuter services. Indeed, my hon. Friend recognised this in a fashion in his speech. As he knows, as recently as 10th July, Southern Region of British Railways introduced a completely new timetable for the commuter services. It is not necessary for me to say that there have been teething troubles. Indeed, my right hon. Friend was on the very first day involved in some little local difficulty in this respect.
I should say that, of course, nobody is satisfied with the way in which thins have gone on the Southern Region in the last fortnight, least of all Southern Region management of British Railways themselves, but, of course, they warned the public that there would inevitably be difficulties in putting this vast reorganisation into effect, and it is a fact that they were very unlucky with certain technical failures, some of them mentioned by my hon. Friend, which made things additionally difficult in the first few days. I know that Southern Region management have been making the most strenuous efforts to put these things right, and as things settle down on the Southern Region I am sure
462
that the benefits of the new timetable will become generally apparent. We should not allow these temporary difficulties to obscure the importance of this plan.
This plan, this retimetabling, provides for almost 20 per cent. more seats on trains arriving at Southern Region termini in the heaviest hour of the morning peak. That is a total of 36 more trains in the peak hours. There is a similar improvement in the evening peak as well. This reorganisation by timetabling has been based on the most painstaking studies over many years of the journeys which commuters make, and of their needs, including market surveys, and very wide consultation with the planning authorities. Thus, the increases have been concentrated where they are most needed on the South Eastern Division of the Region and particularly on Charing Cross, Cannon Street and Holborn Viaduct.
There have been suggestions that this is an attempt to obtain an improvement on the cheap, but I must point out that that is far from the case. It is true that it costs less than very many railway schemes, but, even so, as my hon. Friend mentioned, £500,000 has been spent on the associated works necessary to introduce this scheme. More important, it has produced an increase in capacity far greater and far sooner than would have been possible by any works at Borough Market Junction, for example.
I agree with my hon. Friend that Borough Market is a notorious bottleneck. For that reason, it attracted early attention some time ago, when schemes for expanding capacity were under consideration. But the difficulties and expense of further expansion here are formidable and, from the studies which have been carried out, I am afraid that the respective benefits are comparatively small. The possible increase in capacity is about 10 per cent. of train paths through London Bridge, and that compares very poorly with the 20 per cent. over the whole region which, as I have mentioned, the retimetabling carried out recently is designed to achieve.
It is obvious that engineering works at such a focal point in the system would cause widespread disruption of services while they were carried out, and it is absolutely sure that the works would take some years to carry out, so that the disruption would be for quite a long time

463
and certainly longer than the temporary disorganisation of services stemming from the new timetable.
Thus, it is reasonable that British Railways should look carefully into all possible alternatives before committing themselves to this project, and that is what they have been doing. They are now beginning to be able to make their plans against the background of the London Transportation Study and with the benefit of the cross-fertilisation of ideas which the establishment of the Transport Coordinating Council for London set up by my right hon. Friend has made possible.
There are one or two facts about commuting problems which I should bring out. It is widely assumed, and it was implied in part of my hon. Friend's speech, that commuter travel into London is still growing. In fact, the London Transportation Study and other work now being done have shown that this is not the case, and that over the past few years there has been a decline in commuting to Central London. However, within the declining total, there can be quite big increases in commuting by particular forms of transport and on particular lines, and that is true of parts of the Southern Region.
My hon. Friend mentioned the coming into existence of the new town of Thames-mead. It is estimated that, when complete, there will be 8,000 more commuters to Central London on a line which, as he said, is very busy already. I can assure him that British Railways are already planning very actively to meet that growth in demand. However, their planning in this respect is not yet complete.
464
I do not wish in any way to rule out a possible improvement at Borough Market and London Bridge. But a better alternative may well be to develop latent capacity which we know exists at other terminals. Such a scheme would, like the Borough Market scheme, cost many millions of pounds. There is no doubt that these schemes are bound to be very expensive, but the Region believes that it would deal with commuter problems in a much better way than previously considered alternatives, and I think that we must await the outcome of its planning.
Nor, of course, do developments of the Southern Region exhaust the possibilities of improving commuter services south of the Thames. There are projects for extending the Victoria Line south of the river to Brixton, and, in the longer term, and with more direct relevance to travel in the South East, for building the Fleet line southwards to Lewisham.
These are all part of the extensive plans which are at present under consideration for the improvement of public transport in the capital, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury—I said that I could not reply to him off the cuff—that we will consider the points that he has made about the bridge.
I am conscious of the importance of the subject which my hon. Friend has raised, and the need to improve, in places where it is most necessary, the capital equipment and facilities for commuter travel in the capital. I assure my hon. Friend that whether or not the Borough Market project comes to fruition, this objective of investing in the basic improvement of public transport in the capital is uppermost in our minds.

OLDER INDUSTRIAL AREAS
10.17 p.m.
Mr. Donald Coleman: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House this evening. During the last two or three days certain hints have been cast in my direction to the effect that several right hon. and hon. Members will try to take part in the debate. Because of this it is not my intention to detain the House for any longer than is necessary for me to introduce the subject which we are now debating.
This debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill affords the House an opportunity to debate the problems of the older industrial areas of the country, which, in turn, will, I hope, direct the attention of Parliament and the nation to the human problems which confront the people who live in these areas.
The areas which we are discussing came into being as a result of the Industrial Revolution. They are the areas from which the nation's wealth came in the past. Centred on them were the basic industries on which the nation's wealth depended—coal, steel, textiles, and shipbuilding. Today we are living in an age which is seeing the dawn of the technological revolution, the effect of which can nowhere be seen in greater relief than in the older industrial areas. I am sure that hon. Members who seek to take part in the debate will bring to it their experience of people in their constituencies, and the difficulties being experienced by the industries in their areas. For this reason it is not my purpose to try to discuss the problems and difficulties which arise in industries which are not found in my constituency.
In my constituency there are two valleys which in the last, have played an important part in the development of the coal industry in South Wales. In former days by far the greater majority of those who live there earned their living in the coal industry, but today this form of industrial activity has greatly diminished and those who work in the coal industry are in a minority.
The closures of collieries that have taken place in my constituency bear recital. In this way I can best illustrate the extent of the problem that exists
466
there today. In the Neath Valley, which is one of the most beautiful in South Wales, thanks to the work of the Forestry Commission, the following pits have been closed: the British Rhondda pit at Rhigos, Rock, Pentreclwydau, Garth Merthyr, Glyn Castle at Resolven, Ffaldydre, and Ynysarwd.
I now turn to the other valley—the Dulais Valley. The list here again is formidable. The following pits have been closed: Onllwyn No. 3, Rhos, Onllwyn, Seven Sisters, Brynteg, Dillwyn, and Crynant.
What has this meant to my constituency? It has meant that about 5,400 jobs for men have disappeared. Now it is threatened with a loss of a further 800 jobs, if the negotiations carried on by the Executive Council of the South Wales Area of the National Union of Mineworkers are not successful in preventing the closure of Cefn Coed Colliery, also in the Dulais Valley, which it is proposed shall take place on 27th October. It should be pointed out that the only closures in the list that I have read out that have taken place since my right hon. Friend has been responsible at the Ministry of Power are those at Dillwyn, Pentreclwydau, and Glyn Castle—and the closure of Glyn Castle was announced before this Government came to power.
My constituents are not unmindful of the fact that since this Government came to office new industry has been brought into our area, notably the Ford Motor Company's plant at Jersey Marine, but the stark fact about colliery closures as they affect the Dulais Valley is that although to date 2,800 jobs have ceased to exist in the valley not one new job has yet come there.
Currently the Board of Trade is building an advance factory in the valley, but no one can imagine that when it is completed and a tenant is found it will resolve the local unemployment problem. It is quite understandable that the feelings of those who live in the Dulais Valley and other such valleys are bitter. They suffer from a feeling of being let down when they see their valleys being raped through the disappearance of the means of employment.
For the people who live in the older industrial areas the technical revolution

467
has not meant the prospect of an increased standard of living; rather it has meant the prospect of a diminution in the means of employment for them and for their families, unless action is taken quickly to bring new work into these areas.
For some time now we have been told by the experts—and they seem to have had their way all along—that we must concentrate our industry in areas away from the valleys. Apparently this advice has been accepted. We must call a halt to the implementation of this kind of idea, for unless we do we shall find large areas of this country left completely without the means of sustaining the communities to be found in the older industrial areas. We will write off millions of pounds of social capital and, worse still, destroy communities which have built up traditions of culture and a way of life which has enriched the life of the British people.
One would imagine that communication with the Dulais Valley was difficult if one listened to the experts, but this is not so, because it is wide and easily accessible at both ends, with communications to the Midlands, London and the ports of Swansea and Port Talbot. When the Heads of the Valleys Road is completed, as the Secretary of State told us, in the 1970s, the valley will be only two hours from the Midlands, three from London and half an hour from Swansea and Port Talbot. The Minister should consider these factors to ensure that the survival of these valleys and their communities is guaranteed.
The people living in the older industrial areas are not opposed to industrial and technological change, but what makes them bitter is the sight of their industries dying out and no other employment replacing them and the sight of their young people going elsewhere for work, when they know that, if work were available, they would stay to play their part in their own communities. The other week, driving through a mining valley in a constituency of one of my hon. Friends, I saw something which I deplore and condemn, slogans daubed on walls demanding work. I can appreciate the feelings of those who painted such slogans, for they had seen their valleys denuded of employment, the
468
pits closed and no other employment brought in.
Surely it is not too much for these people to expect that, when one means of employment dries up, another should be found. I hope that the debate will enable the Minister, whom we know to have a great capacity for understanding the problems of these areas, to bring pressure to solve the problems.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. R. B. Cant: When we talk of the older industrial areas, the names which come to our lips are those of the Clydeside, South Wales, North-East Lancashire, and so on. I wish to draw attention to one of the smaller areas, a product of the Industrial Revolution, the Potteries, a name associated with the magic of the products of firms like Wedgwood, Doulton, Spode and Minton. They are associated with an industry which, in the words of Lord Stamp, the great geographer, represents the most remarkable industrial concentration in the world, because 90 per cent. of this industry's output comes from within the 30 square miles or so of the administrative area of the city of Stoke-on-Trent.
In the nomenclature which inevitably has arisen in discussion of problems of the older industrial areas, we are getting used to the term "grey areas". Only in a strictly administrative sense could the Potteries ever be called a grey area. I am an adopted son of the Potteries and I have found it an extremely lively, cultured and friendly place. Areas such as the Potteries—if the Potteries are not unique—could be described in socioeconomic terms as areas of intermediate prosperity.
I cannot say that we have a serious unemployment problem, although the problem of short-time working is becoming serious. There is a potential unemployment problem. An area which is dominated by the pottery industry and has associated with it the coal mining industry has a level of family income which is lower than that in the country as a whole. The workers in the pottery industry have acquired a very vigorous and forward-looking general secretary who has brought the wages of the adult male

469
somewhat nearer to the national average. While not detaining the House for too long, I will mention one or two consequences which flow from that.
We have to accept that because family income, even when a very high proportion of women are working in the industry, is low, the social structure of an area such as the Potteries is not in accordance with the national pattern. This must be true of many other areas. I shall not bother the House with statistics, but the population census reveals these facts quite clearly. One of the consequences which interests me greatly, having been chairman of the city education authority for many years, is that although the people of Stoke-on-Trent are proud that in terms of primary education they are the biggest spenders in England and Wales, apart from Merthyr Tydvil, and fourth highest per thousand of population in the secondary education "league table" of spenders, we do not get the sort of educational results we want from our schools. We are going over to comprehensive education and to the high school sixth form type of secondary education in the hope of producing better results, but in an area which to some extent is deficient in terms of middle-class population, this is the sort of pattern which reproduces itself throughout the country.
Incidentally, not a single senior local government officer lives within the city administrative boundaries. Inevitably these areas not only take on this sort of shape, but in physical terms they can be unattractive. We in Stoke are very conscious of the fact that people who approach the city by rail or road are under no illusion that they are approaching a city like Naples. It is deficient in some of the aesthetic characteristics which our great cities should have. Stoke, with the Potteries, is beginning to become increasingly aware of this. It is taking on a sort of corporate image which I do not think it had five or 10 years ago. It is reaching out for a place on the map of the country and we have been richly blessed by the Government in recent times because polytechnical status has been given to a college of technology and we shall shortly have "Radio Stoke" calling. We hope, too, that our local university will have a medical school
470
very soon, but I must not say too much about that.
But, even so, what we need is more assistance from the Government. We need more help with urban renewal because I do not think we can make an area like the Potteries, one of the great centres of population, attractive to executive personnel of undertakings until we have built up the social infrastructure of the City, and this is a very expensive business. The rateable value of a house in Stoke is only half that of the average house in Coventry, and this demonstrates something of our problem. We also need—and this comes nearer to my right hon. Friend's brief—some help with industrial development. We must have this not only on economic but on social grounds. I hope that he will be a little easier when industrialists come to him for industrial development certificates and will grant one or two even though, according to the official yardstick, our unemployment is not higher than the national average.
In the Budget debates, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury held out a little hope and I trust that it will materialise. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his good offices with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to get us perhaps 50 per cent. of the regional employment premium and will perhaps think in terms of giving to an area like the Potteries some measure of the investment grant privileges which go to development areas.
I shall not detain the House further. I have made one or two modest requests but I hope I have persuaded my right hon. Friend that this great industrial area, a product of the 18th century, which has become identified in the public mind with the Potteries and which, in future, will be the centre of a city region of North Staffordshire, is deserving of some greater help to supplement the undoubtedly great effort it has made on its own behalf.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Probert: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) on being called so early in this very long debate and—much more important—on his choice of subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath upon making such an eloquent plea for one of the grey areas.

471
He has delineated quite effectively some of the problems of the older industrial areas which we are discussing, but which may not be within the so-called development districts. I am pleased to say that he is joining a number of us who for many years have campaigned for ways of dealing with the problems of the so-called development areas.
I have taken the view over a number of years that the nation cannot afford to neglect so many areas of the country which can contribute profitably to the nation in terms of productivity, social costs, and, indeed, profitability to industry itself. These are some of the aspects which the nation is completely ignorant about.
I will be brief, because a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak on many subjects. Consequently, I shall deal briefly with only one or two aspects of the problems of the older areas. I may say paradoxically that I shall deal with the advantages of the older industrial areas which can accrue to the nation if we are able to solve the problems. I hope to dispel some of the myths which have grown around the problems of the redistribution of industry which, after all, is what my hon. Friend is really concerned about. Over a period of years there have been quite a number of pit closures in my area resulting in a loss of about 2,000 jobs. I will not develop any debate on the coal industry. Last week I sat throughout the whole of the night listening to my mining friends dealing with this problem. I hope, when we deal with the White Paper on Fuel Policy, that I shall be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I shall then deal with the coal industry.
Fundamentally there are two ways of dealing with the problems which afflict the older industrial areas at the present time. First, there is what I may call the purely surgical approach—to move the workers away from the areas to the so-called more prosperous areas. Secondly, there is the approach of bringing industry to these areas of very high unemployment.
In considering these two lines of approach, it is essential to appreciate which of these two methods will be the more beneficial to the people involved
472
and, in consequence, to the country as a whole.
In recent years much has been done to induce workers to move to jobs in the so-called over-employed regions. We have had retraining schemes, financial assistance for travelling and other costs. All these things are still necessary, but there should be far more emphasis on retraining, not for emigrating the worker, but to make available to industry which is being set up in the development areas the unemployed or redundant workers from the declining industries, particularly in South Wales, in relation to steel and coal. In other words, my plea is to stop emigration and retrain for jobs on the spot.
The Government are making tremendous offers to industry to transfer to the development areas with, as we are well aware, very substantial financial assistance, and I congratulate the Minister of State and, indeed, the President of the Board of Trade on what has been done in this regard.
I want to stress, once again, the importance to the country as a whole of the advantages of the development of the older difficult areas. It is not just a matter of social justice—indeed, it is not just a matter of rectifying social injustice—it is a matter of financial prudence for the nation, and a matter, if solved, which could have very substantial gains to our national economy.
Therefore, we who are making a plea tonight on behalf of the older areas are not merely pleading for charity or merely for the rectification of social injustice. We are asking for a sane approach to these problems purely in the national interest. I have always held the view that in the interests of the nation, in the interests of productivity, about which we now hear so much, and in the interests of costs and finally of our export drive it is far better to bring jobs to the workers in the development areas than it is to induce workers to go to jobs in the over-congested areas.
My researches into this problem over a number of years have shown that the oft-repeated claim that transport costs, for example, would prove excessive if industry transferred to the so-called peripheral areas is quite untrue. It is often the age-old excuse of industrialists

473
who simply do not want to move. As I have said in previous debates on this subject, the Toothill Report on the inquiry into the Scottish economy showed how illusory this claim was. Indeed, the very slight increase in transport costs is far offset by savings in rents, rates, labour costs and, just as important, the low labour turnover in these areas as compared with, say, London and the Midlands. There is also the high expense development on existing sites in congested areas.
From what I have said it is obvious that there must be other reasons which make industrialists loth to move. I have often felt that some industrialists are simply afraid of what they consider to be the unknown. The more objective, or more thinking, are probably more concerned with problems of the kind of labour to be expected, communications, transport services, what might be called the infrastructure.
There are, too, more personal considerations for which those of us who reside in these areas have a great deal of sympathy. These are the housing of families, education of children, amenities and so on, social considerations for the wives, which may particularly affect the executive class. But the industrialists themselves could do much more than has been done.
I have a case, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Neath will be well aware, which concerns the Dunlop Rubber Company which wished to expand on a site on an industrial estate which serves my hon. Friend's constituency and mine. With the co-operation of two adjacent authorities, this company brought down not only its key workers and certain executives but also their wives and children to make a tour of the area. This plan was highly successful in inducing these key workers and their families to agree to come from what they might have regarded as a more salubrious area.
I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade thought that this was such an excellent example that, although he was harassed at that time with other engagements, he squeezed in about two hours of his time to come and meet these representatives of this progressive firm and was present when they were enter-
474
tained at a local college of further education.
I would have liked to have analysed the costs and savings to industry and the nation which result from bringing jobs to the workers because as I said earlier, it is an illusion that that is far more costly than bringing workers to the job. It is beyond my comprehension why successive Governments have not tackled this problem more effectively in the past. However, I do not think that anyone can criticise the present Government, for they have offered tremendous financial inducements and the only obstacle to such regional expansion is that national expansion does not seem to exist at the moment. As we are well aware, this subject was debated yesterday and I do not want to develop that theme, but an analysis of the figures shows that the savings involved in bringing jobs to the workers in this small island of ours would be fantastic.
This bears any analysis by any statistician or economist. In 1964 the results of a study were published, showing that, taking everything into consideration, there is a net gain to the nation of something approaching £1,000 per man who is found work in a development area. If we multiply this by several thousand, we can imagine what the saving will be to the nation of bringing work to the workers, rather than transferring workers to areas with all the social difficulties involved.
This does not take into account the recent financial inducements provided by the Government. I suggest that, even if we included these, the net gain must be considerable. This calculation must surely indicate that the country is losing many millions a year by the underemployment of the labour resources in the so-called difficult areas.
Apart from rectifying social injustice, apart from a more rational distribution of industry, I believe that the country cannot afford to ignore any longer the tremendous potential here. This is so important that I believe that the Government must now view this problem in the same way as we would view a wartime operation.
I say this with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister of

475
State who is to answer this debate and without any disparagement to the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Labour, but it is time that the Government appointed a Minister solely responsible for this task. Furthermore, this Minister must not be subservient to the Board of Trade, or the Ministry of Labour, but must be solely responsible to the Prime Minister and with the authority of the Prime Minister behind him. If we have this type of Minister treating this problem as a wartime operation, then we can look hopefully to the future, and bring untold benefit to the nation as a whole.
10.54 p.m.
Mr. Bob Brown: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for giving the House the opportunity to debate this most important subject this evening. How right he was when he referred to the fact that the present prosperity enjoyed by the more affluent areas of the country was built up by the older industrial areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), referred to the need to improve the social infrastructure, and in this regard I want to refer to my own area, the North-East. We suffer badly from the dereliction of the Industrial Revolution and we have far more than our share of scars on the countryside in the form of pit heaps and other similar things.
I want to pay credit to the Government for the fact that they have made available an 85 per cent. grant for the clearance of industrial dereliction and I must say, quite pointedly, that the local authorities in these areas, my own included, are certainly not taking as much advantage of this grant as they ought to be doing. It is the job of the local authorities in these areas to give the areas a face-lift. With the 85 per cent. grant, the Government have given them a great incentive to get on with the job and I sincerely hope that it will be speeded up.
It is not proper to refer to unemployment figures without, at the same time, referring to those in employment. I do not think that it is generally realised by people who talk glibly about the worst unemployment situation since the beginning of the war that there are more people in employment today than ever before.
476
There are something like 6 million more people in employment than there were in 1940.
In July, 1940, almost a year after a war of survival had started, we had 827,266 people unemployed, as against the total for July this year of 496,372. None of us, on either side, is pleased about that figure, but it is fair to make the comparison and to remind the House that the 1940 figure, because many people were not insured under State schemes, would have been considerably less than the actual total.
The unfortunate part of the present situation is that in addition to having a pool of unemployed, the unemployment is spread unevenly across the country. From "Challenge of the Changing North", a document issued last year by the North Regional Economic Planning Council and which I recommend as good reading, we find that the position in the North is as follows. In 1960, we had 878,000 males in employment; and in 1964, 853,000. This is a minus factor of 2·8 per cent., compared with a plus factor for the rest of the country of 3 per cent.
In 1960, we had 391,000 females in employment; and in 1964, 422,000. This represents a plus factor of 8·1 per cent., as against a plus factor of 6·5 per cent. for the rest of the country. With an increase of 8·1 per cent. in the number of females in employment in four short years—over 20 per cent. in excess of the national increase in female employment—it is not too difficult to see how we get an inflated unemployment figure in the Northern Region.
The sad fact, and one which the Government cannot ignore, is that while nationally, during the period to which I have referred, 1960 to 1964, there was a 3 per cent. increase in the number of males employed, the Northern Region had a minus factor of 2·8 per cent. This is in spite of the fact that, due to Government policy, we have had a tremendously high input of new work, certainly by any yardstick of previous years.
One must ask what is the reason for this negative factor in male employment in the Northern Region. I refer again to "Challange of the Changing North", which deals with expanding and declining

477
industries and the estimated changes between 1960 and 1964 in the numbers of employees. If we look at expanding industries, we find that in the Northern Region we had a plussage of 41·5 thousand males and 34·8 females, a total 76·3 thousand in expanding industries. In the declining industries we had a minus factor of 66·26 thousand males and 3·2 thousand females, a total minus factor of 69·4 thousand—between 1960 and 1964. Here we see that we actually have this minus factor, between the declining industries and the expanding industries, of 24·7 thousand in respect of male employment.
These figures give a quite clear lesson. Whilst the nation as a whole has an old-fashioned economy, it is particularly true of the North-East, and we are paying the price of an over-rapid rundown of old, basic industries on which the North had struggled far too long. We cannot accept and do not want inefficient industry, or to see it carry on inefficiently. We have seen inefficiency in the shipbuilding industry, referred to in the Geddes Report. When Tories talk about shipbuilding in the North-East they always talk of the Swan Hunter group as though it were the standard of efficiency in the industry, and we all know that in fact that is not so. Alongside this sort of talk we have the same people regularly lambasting the National Coal Board, which is responsible for the declining publicly-owned industry.
Let me say in passing that no private enterprise employer could have tackled the rundown of an industry in the humane manner in which the Coal Board has tackled this problem. Every credit is due to the manner in which the Board has dealt with this miserable task of running down the industry. Nevertheless, I recognise, and I think that each and every one of us recognises, that the coal mines of the North-East, and of Wales, to which my hon. Friends have referred, have to be modernised or closed, and the social costs have to be borne by the industry—in other words, on the backs of the miners.
I ask the Minister of State, are Swan Hunter's to bear the social costs of modernising the shipbuilding industry? Is there to be one set of rules for private enterprise and another set of rules for public industry? We accept that moderni-
478
sation and rationalisation, long overdue, of our present industries will create further problems in the North.
Grateful as we are for the steady effort which the Government have made, we cannot be satisfied with a situation where we have steadily almost twice the national average of unemployment. We do not want just the building a of advance factories. I know that the President of the Board of Trade can trot out a proud story about the quite heavy percentage of allocations of advance factory building which the Northern Region has had in the past three or four years. I know this to be so, but we do not just want the building of advance factories: we want advance factories with industry in them from the day they are completed. If private enterprise has failed the North—and I say that private enterprise has failed the North, and pretty badly—why should not the State set the pace? Why not State factories making telecommunications equipment for the General Post Office, which now props up the telecommunications industry? Why not State enterprise making components for the building industry?
I recognise that the Port of Tyne will never be a major national port in the true sense of the word with Teesside and Humberside in such close proximity, but it does, nevertheless, need developing, and I suggest to my right hon. Friend that one way in which it can be developed is by invigorating the river by the introduction of port-using industries.
I look forward to the proposed new transport legislation. Where are the research and development facilities which these modernised industries will require to be sited? Why not in the North?
Under the heading, "Give them Cash", the leading article in the Newcastle Journal of Thursday, 20th July, said:
"The North-East needs to hear the smack of firmer Government."—
we seem to have heard that elsewhere this week—
"Sacked workers cannot live on promises and platitudes. It is nonsense, for example, for the Government to plead that it cannot place more orders with a firm like Vickers. It can and must."
That is a reference to the fact that Vickers failed, on cost and after a second bite at the cherry, to compete with the

479
Royal Ordnance factory at Leeds in tendering for Chieftain tanks. Hon. Gentlemen opposite often quote Royal Ordnance factories as monuments of inefficient public enterprise, yet after a second bite at the cherry Vickers failed to qualify for a share of the order for Chieftain tanks.
It is not for me to make a case for the Government to prop up inefficient private enterprise, but in this instance, as an act of faith in their regional policies, the Government could have said to Vickers—and with 600 jobs at stake they ought to have done so—"In spite of the fact that we do not think you have measured up efficiently in terms of cost, in fact we know you have not on your tender price, we will give you a portion of this order to tide you over until you get more work in your workships". If it is not too late, I think that even now the Government ought to consider this possibility.
Under the heading:
"Only 126 stay in mining as 4 pits close",
the Newcastle Journal of the 20th July, from which I have already quoted said:
"One thousand miners will work their last shift in four County Durham collieries today. The collieries, all in the south of the county, are being closed because the seams are exhausted."
In spite of intensive efforts to re-employ the miners, only 126 of them have been given alternative jobs by the National Coal Board. This is the kind of situation which we face in the Northern Region.
In its editorial the Journal said:
"There is also a case for a highly streamlined and skilled commando unit to go out and sell the mining areas exclusively. It would need to be an adventurous outfit, headed by a man of high calibre that could cut through red tape and be free of other responsibilities. It could be financed partly by the Government and partly by the National Coal Board. If Lord Robens were prepared to fight for such a proposal he would doubtless have the support of the mining M.P.s".
If Alf Robens is listening tonight, let me say that he has my support—and I am not a miners' M.P. Why could not the National Coal Board be encouraged and allowed to use some of the £30 million put aside to meet social costs to attract new jobs and finance the building of new factories, particularly in black spots like North-West Durham, Cumberland and
480
South Wales, where, when the mines close down, there is virtually no other employment? It is not good enough that we should be having vast areas depopulated by the closing of their basic industries.
Perhaps one of the most important issues in a rapidly changing world is that of air communications. Convinced as I am of the close relationship between developing inter-European and inter-continental air links and the location of major office and administrative centres, research and development centres and other institutions for which good air services are vital, I believe that the establishment of a northern airports authority, embracing the airports of the North-Western Region, the Yorkshire and Humberside Region, and the Northern Region, would provide an important basis for the continuing development of the north's international air services.
In addition, it would play a great part in helping the de-congestion of the London airports, about which we have heard a great deal recently. Most important, we could have, with the establishment of good, modern air communication centres such as we now enjoy at the new Newcastle airport, an added attraction for the location of offices and industries based on swift air transport facilities, facilities which at present suffer the inconvenience of a congested London.
I plead with the Government to give serious and early consideration to the establishment of a Government-sponsored research and development centre in the Northern Region, particularly bearing in mind that we are the only region without such an establishment.
11.13 p.m.
Mr. David Watkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) has chosen an important and topical subject. The debate is essentially about human problems, as he and all my hon. Friends who have spoken have said. It is always human beings and their problems that form the basis of our thoughts and what we say in a debate of this sort.
The Government have evolved and are evolving complex regional policies to deal with these problems. It always seems to me that there is a danger that regional planning can tend to be looked on merely as an emergency operation to deal with

481
the immediate problems in the older industrial areas. I would not seek to underestimate the importance of that sort of emergency measure. Every single mining constituency in the older areas has problems; mine certainly has them as much as any of those of my hon. Friends from mining areas who have spoken. Apart from emergency measures, regional planning means the establishment of the basis for long-term expansion of newer industries within the older industrial areas. Research facilities must grow and new processes and industries must be developed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) mentioned research and development, which is the theme I want to elaborate on. There is growing awareness in the northern planning region of the need for increased research and development. Four of the famous Tyneside shipyards have just announced their merger in accordance with the recommendations of the Geddes Report. They see as one of the main advantages of this the pooling of technical resources and research and development facilities, which is essential to make them competitive with the foreign shipyards which have taken so much of our traditional shipbuilding export trade in recent years.
An outstanding example of a plant with a successful research and development policy is that of the Consett Iron Company's steelworks in my constituency, which will pass into public ownership at the end of this week. [Interruption.] This matter was discussed there during the election, and, although my opponent strongly opposed public ownership, the electorate expressed their view decisively. Lately, the company has maintained a large research department with over 250 personnel, and is the only major steelworks which produces entirely by the oxygen process which has been so shamefully neglected by so much of the industry over the last 10 or 15 years. There have recently been important developments there in oil injection, which has considerably improved productivity. The company is ready to install a continuous casting plant when the National Steel Corporation gives the go-ahead.
These results of intensive research and development mean that the works is better
482
placed for future expansion today than almost any other in the country—an expansion which will do much to solve the problems of Tyneside and a large area of the North-East. The coal mines which remain open in that area are those that produce coking coal needed for the manufacture of iron and steel. This is an example of how industries are interrelated, because the expansion of the steel industry in that area can play an important part in the problems of the coal industry.
I hope that the National Steel Corporation will announce its decision to expand the steelworks at Consett as soon as possible after vesting day. I have quoted examples of concerns based in the Northern Region and the advantages of having research and development there. There has been some expansion of new industry as a result of the Government's regional policies, and while those of us who represent constituencies in development areas do not feel that there has been a sufficient influx of new industries, we recognise that there has been some. One of the disappointing features of this influx has been the comparative lack of growth of research and development in the growth of new industry.
We have had too many subsidiaries and not enough headquarters firms, which in some respects defeats the object of Government policy. In time of recession or economic squeeze, notwithstanding the relief for development areas, these subsidiaries, sub-offices, and branches tend to be closed first. This defeats the object of dealing with the emergency need for new industries in development areas. Too much of the research and development connected with these industries is in other parts of the country and that is not best for long-term expansion in the areas where that is most needed.
The Government have said that the regional employment premium will encourage research and development in the older development areas, but at present, the premium is payable only to manufacturing industry. It should be extended to include research establishments whether or not they are directly linked with manufacturing industry.

483
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West has already pressed the need for a Government research establishment in the northern planning region and I wish to take this further and suggest that the Government should consider establishing a science-based new town in the region, and that they should locate a Government research station in it. They should take special measures to encourage industry to establish its own research and development establishment within the area of the new town.
This has several advantages. It is recognised that scientists and technicians working on research need, during their working lives, to move between one research establishment and another freely, to widen their experience. If there are a number of establishments within reasonable proximity, they can do that without uprooting themselves and their families and travelling to a distant part of the country. If such a science-based new town were established in the region it would provide a research centre of considerable magnitude which could maintain close contact with the Universities of Durham and Newcastle, and even Lancaster, which, although outside the northern development area, is in proximity to the grey area of Lancashire and the northern area in general. I am certain that the establishment of such a research town would have an influence which would be felt throughout the north of England, to the general benefit of the long-term development of the whole area.
It is argued that we already have enough research and development establishments in the country but that there is not enough practical result from their activities. This is not an unfair argument. But in the older industrial areas it cannot be claimed that we have too much research and development. On the contrary, not sufficient of it is going on. If there has not been sufficient result from the research that has been done, this is in some measure because it has not been directed to the specific objectives which I have been outlining.
A week ago I visited the Services Electronics Research Laboratory at Baldock as a member of an all-party
484
team of three hon. Members. One of the things that struck me very forcibly when going through it was that although it is a defence establishment there is a very great deal of civil research work going on, and research work which is very applicable to the new industries that we particularly need to develop in the older industrial areas. I would mention work on gas lasers with possible application to metal cutting and welding to a degree of accuracy not yet achieved, ion implantation which might lead in the not too distant future to a break-through in automated manufacture of micro-electronic devices, and work on neutron tubes which has possible application in the treatment of cancer. This is the sort of work which might well be transferred to a Government civil research establishment in the northern area, something which would be entirely in line with the proposals in the Defence White Paper, which proposes a £30 million reduction in defence research, because it would assist the objects of that reduction by channelling more of such research into civil research, particularly in the older industrial areas where it is so very much needed.
I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate and other debates—[An HON. MEMBER: "Keep going."]—and in spite of that friendly interjection I shall not continue too long. I have spoken of the advantages gained by firms in the Northern Region from the research and development programmes which have been established there, and I have made the point that there has not been enough growth of research and development among the new industries which have moved into the region. Although I recognise the importance of short-term measures to deal with the immediate problems of the area, it seems to me that an increase in research and development is essential for the long-term growth and expansion of new industry, which is the only long-term solution to the problems of the older industrial areas. In particular, I hope that my suggestion for what I have called a science-based new town will be looked into, taken up and acted upon.
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Alec Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for giving me an opportunity to speak in this debate,

485
for I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friends about the problems which affect our older industrial areas in general, with special emphasis upon the particular problems of our constituencies. I shall spend most of my time in speaking of the needs of Rhondda, West.
The legacy of the people of Rhondda is a hard one, and the price which we, the present inhabitants, are having to pay for our past is high. In figures, that high price is 8 per cent. unemployment. This cold and callous statistic hides much human suffering, misfortune and indignity, and, despite the ameliorating effects of the improved unemployment benefits, for which the people of Rhondda are grateful, this misfortune persists to a great extent today.
The extent of our problem is the extent of the decline of our coal industry. It is reflected in the population figures of the Borough of Rhondda. From a thriving community of 168,000 in 1923–24, it has shrunk to about 98,000 in 1966, a drop of 70,000 people, all in my lifetime. The constituency was once dotted from top to bottom by collieries famous in the industrial life of South Wales—Cambrian, Park Dare and Naval—and of all the collieries which once existed one only remains today, and from that one not a ton of coal is lifted.
Our railway system, the old Taff Vale railway system, was brought into being mainly to serve the needs of coal mining, and on that system today not one ton of mined coal is carried.
Those facts illustrate the extent of the problem which besets not only Rhondda but other areas which have suffered the collapse of their basic industry. For the Rhondda, it is not the run-down of our basic industry; it is almost the complete collapse of that industry.
Alongside that gloomy picture of the past is the ideal of the new post-war factories which are even now producing, among other things, clothing, furniture, electric torches and batteries, life-saving rafts and equipment, metal tubes for industrial use—all new things and ideas for Rhondda which can offer a new and better life for our people. The production of these goods shows what can be done given the desire, the means and the absolute determination on the part or the
486
Government not merely to talk and to plan but actually to get things done.
The development of these new industries demonstrates several facts of life in my constituency. First, it shows the ability and adaptability of the labour force. We have men and women in Rhondda willing and able to acquire new techniques and skills if they are given the opportunity to train. Second, it demonstrates the determination and ability of those industrialists who have come to the Rhondda to make a success of their endeavours. Without wishing to be invidious in making a selection, I mention the successes of firms like Rollo Hardy and Ray-o-Vac, whose achievements in the export market bring pleasure, I am sure, to the President of the Board of Trade. They bring advantages to the people of Rhondda and they bring advantages to the trading position of the nation as a whole.
If there will be a figure engraved on the heart of this Member of Parliament for Rhondda, West, it will be the figure 8—our 8 per cent. of unemployed, who, unlike Mr. Micawber, cannot go on waiting, and ought not to be expected to go on waiting, for something to turn up. While we wait the depopulation of our valleys—especially in respect of our young, energetic workers—continues and our plight worsens.
I want to refer to the advance factory programme. This is a noble and good concept, which we welcome, but when I put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 20th July I received an Answer stating, in effect, that construction had already started on one factory—that factory was announced in September, 1965, nearly two years ago—and that it was expected to start another one next month—that factory having been announced in May, 1966, 14 months ago. This timing always seems related to the delay that occurs in the acquisition of land, and the delays affect not only advance factory programme but industrialists in existing factories who are at the moment desirous of expanding inside the borough of Rhondda. The protracted negotiations necessary in the acquisition of land causes these industrialists to lose patience, confidence and all interest in the possibility of expansion.

487
I urge the Government to take steps to speed up the acquisition of land and, if necessary, to appoint a man specifically for this purpose, for when it is left in the hands of too many Government Departments, local authorities and the National Coal Board nothing but delay seems to result.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend says, and for these reasons we are now purchasing land well in advance of the need to build factories, notably in the Llantrisant area, which is near my hon. Friend's constituency.
Mr. Jones: The news of any steps to speed up the acquisition of land will bring gladness to the people of Rhondda and other areas which experience the same delays.
I referred earlier to the adaptability of the workers of the Rhondda—but they can adapt themselves only if they are given the opportunity. I know that we now have three Government training centres in Wales, and I welcome the fact that the Royal Air Force station at St. Athan is being used to train men in industry. Some industries prefer to train their own workers, particularly young workers. But what about the old ex-miners? I accompanied a deputation from three local authorities in South Wales, Rhondda, Pontypridd, and Llantrisant and Llantwit Fardre. We met the Minister of Labour and asked that a new Government training centre be established in the areas of those three authorities. We were turned down.
I appreciate the pressure which the Minister of Labour is under from all regions for an expansion of Government training facilities, but there is evidence of a need for more skilled men in an area like Rhondda. Even if the availability of skilled men in a development area as a whole is adequate, inside the area there are districts with an acute shortage of skilled labour. This is the view expressed to me by managing directors of successful enterprises in the Rhondda at this moment, and it is borne out by a survey I carried out on 20th June.
I sent letters to the Ministry of Labour employment exchanges at Treorchy,
488
Tonypandy and Ferndale—the three employment exchanges in the area, asking about the availability of skilled labour. There were three skilled fitters, one nearly 60, one electrician, no managerial grade executives, one supervisor and 18 trained clerical staff, of whom 13 were over 60.
"The position is, of course, subject to change"—
wrote the manager of one labour exchange
"but, generally, the number of registrants in the above occupations at any given time is generally quite low."
These difficulties indicate that, despite the training and retraining steps being taken by the Government, much remains to be done in areas like this.
Have the Government considered using the facilities that are available in technical colleges in some of these areas? Why not make use of the vacant pit baths in old coalmining areas like Rhondda, certainly as part of a temporary crash programme to fill the short-term need? Unless more is done to retrain people, the skilled labour to man the new industries for which we are hoping will not be available. No industrialist will take an advance factory if the skilled manpower is not available locally.
The Government's main instrument to attract new industries to areas like Rhondda is persuasion. On another occasion I might quarrel with that. However, the financial inducements being offered are substantial and are, in some cases, massive. The Government's intentions in this matter and much of this money could be wasted unless we tackle what has come to be known as the "environmental problem"—the large-scale eyesores and ugliness of some of the old industrial areas. In Rhondda we specialise in derelict pitheads, crumbling buildings and mountainous slag heaps—all part of the mass of rubbish left by the industrial past.
I may be asked what this has to do with financial inducements. The answer is that these eyesores act as a positive disincentive to industrialists who might otherwise establish new enterprises in development areas like Rhondda. The Welsh Office has established a special unit to study these problems and this unit is doing good work. The Rhondda Borough Council is also co-operating

489
with the Welsh Office to solve this problem. But I appeal to the Minister of Power to get the National Coal Board to clear up the rubbish when pits are closed. Coal mines should not just be closed and the rubbish left behind. If the National Coal Board does not have a legal responsibility to clear it up, it certainly has a moral one.
Mr. Bob Brown: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if the N.C.B. cannot afford to clear away this rubbish, it should qualify for the 85 per cent. grant which the Government make to local authorities?
Mr. Jones: I was about to say that if the N.C.B. is not financially able to rehabilitate these old sites, the task should become a direct responsibility of the Government. Much wealth has poured out of the old industrial areas like Rhondda. It is time that the nation, which has benefited from that wealth, returned some of it by clearing away this rubbish. These scars and reminders of the industrial past must be removed.
There are many other problems of the older industrial areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) mentioned communications, housing, schools and hospitals. Any of these could be the subject of a speech, but I see one or two hon. Friends beginning to fidget, so I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I welcome the steps which have been taken to deal with these problems. I have mentioned some things which could be tried now. We were told at one time that it was so difficult to get sites, but now we have a whole list of sites which have been prepared. We have the manpower with ability to work and to be trained. We have the experience of industrialists who have shown that the job can be done. I call on the Government to declare and demonstrate by their actions their determination to revitalise these old areas so that the aspirations and hopes of my people can become realities.
It has been a great pleasure and pride to know of the concern of my hon. Friends in this problem. I am concerned that not one member of the three parties represented on the other side of the House has taken part in this debate.
11.47 p.m.
Dr. John Dunwoody: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman), not only on his selection of subject to debate this evening, but on his ability to get it fairly high in the list of subjects which were put down to discuss on this Motion.
I do not wish to detain the House for long, but it would be wrong if in a debate on the older industrial areas there was no mention of Cornwall. In Cornwall industry first started in this country. Tin mining in my constituency was probably the first real industry, certainly the first exporting industry. Cornwall today is much more than a holiday pleasure ground to which many millions, including, I suspect, many hon. Members, look forward to going in the next few weeks or months. It has much more to offer than Cornish cream and pasties. It has industrial areas and problems connected with them. I want to talk about those problems and the solutions to them which we should be talking about.
Problems of the industrial area of Cornwall have been with us longer than those connected with coal mining and the wealthy industrial areas of the North. The collapse of the tin mining industry in the 1920s occurred earlier than the industrial depression which was the beginning of the troubles for many constituencies which have been discussed this evening. Our problems, which apply particularly to Falmouth and Camborne, are those of attracting new industries and solving the problem of unemployment, which must be measured in more than percentage terms. Tonight we have talked about 6 per cent., 8 per cent., and 10 per cent. unemployment, but I remind hon. Members that a man out of work is 100 per cent. unemployed. When there are percentages such as these there are insidious effects in the community. The 6 per cent. or the 8 per cent. are always the same people in the community and there is a significant number who are out of work for many weeks or months.
We also have the problem of trying to retain young people in our area. The last thing we want to do is to deny them opportunities for travel. But what is wrong is that so many highly-skilled youngsters are driven out of the area not because they want to go but because there

491
is insufficient work for them to use their skills in their home areas.
We have to improve communications. We have been told that it is easy to exaggerate the communications problems of development areas. I agree to a certain extent but in my development area communications are a very real problem. Some hon. Members will be going to Cornwall this summer and they will have reminders of this when travelling along the Exeter by-pass and winding their way along the A30 into Cornwall through the traffic jams which are inseparable from holiday weekends in that part of England.
Another great problem is that of the standard of the social services in the development areas, and particularly in West Cornwall. Far too many of them are not developed in the way they are in some other parts of the country. From this stems a sense of rejection and social isolation.
Finding solutions to these problems is not easy. It would be naive to believe that this or any Government will be able to solve them overnight. But increasing attempts have been made in recent years to solve them and I shall pay my tribute to the efforts made by the Government, which far surpass any made before.
I remind my right hon. Friend of the publication last week of the Report of the South-West Economic Council, "A Region with a Future". This produced not only a very large amount of valuable information but some very important recommendations for future development of the area. I realise that it is impossible for my right hon Friend to give dogmatic opinions on these recommendations tonight, but I hope that he will be able to assure us that the Department will seriously consider them. They are valuable recommendations and require such serious consideration, and we in the region owe a great debt of gratitude to Professor Tress and his colleagues on the Council for the Report.
I believe that the Government in the last three years have taken action far surpassing any that has been taken previously and we are beginning to feel the first impact of their efforts in West Cornwall. We have seen the special help given to development areas increasing all
492
the time. More and more advance factories have not only been planned and built but occupied, providing jobs for those who have been out of work far too long. We are seeing the selective use of industrial development certificates having a significant effect. The regional employment premium will help development areas. I believe that we are seeing the first signs of rejuvenation and renaissance in some depressed areas which have for so long been left behind.
But we have to do much more in the future and I want to explore one or two ways which I hope the Government may use in doing so. I still remain unhappy that we divide the country into development areas and the rest. We should search for some means of variation in assistance, some greater element of flexibility in our assistance to development areas. We do this with many other forms of assistance—for example, in grant aid to local authorities. We do not divide them into two categories—those who get aid and those who do not. We grade the help according to need. I should like us to try and achieve something on those lines in our help to development areas.
All too often, the far South-West development area, because the form of assistance is uniform throughout the development areas, still gets left behind the other development areas in that it is a small area, isolated geographically and still with comparatively little industry. We need new industry; we need jobs. We need industry of the right sort, industry with a future which can offer career prospects to these bright youngsters who are so often driven out of our area today. More than that, we need industries which provide decent wages and decent working standards for the people in our area. It is wrong that in an area like Cornwall, where living costs are almost without exception higher than anywhere else in the country, average wages should be the lowest. If only these industries could be created by economic policies we would be doing a considerable amount of good.
We want to improve our social services. Many of our social services are at far too low a level in our area. The housing conditions of many of my constituents are abysmally bad. It is wrong that in

493
1967 I should have to be taking up housing problems with Ministers and local authorities on behalf of constituents of mine who not only have no running water, no electricity, but who also have no fixed baths and no sanitation. A few days ago I was concerning myself with a constituent whose only source of water was a water butt which was filled by rain coming from the roof of little better than a shed in which the family lived. The water from this source was not only for washing, but for drinking and cooking. This family, with young children of both sexes, had no sanitation facilities whatever in this place they called home.
On education, far too many of my constituents' children have to go to outdated Victorian primary schools. The backlog of primary school building in Cornwall is probably the greatest in the country. As for health, in which I am particularly interested, patients have to travel long distances to hospital. It is nearly 200 miles to the nearest teaching hospital.
Turning to artistic and cultural services in the area, we find that we are truly in what is almost a desert. There are a few brave people who are trying to fight against the apathy that exists in this direction in our area. These are important things which the Government should be thinking about.
The Government should also be thinking more about communications. I do not want to go into the details of communications, except to say to my right hon. Friend who will be answering the debate that I wish that greater consideration could be given to the development of domestic air services in parts of the country like the far South-West. By the fastest kind of public transport, it takes me nearly eight hours to get to my constituency. There are few hon. Members who take longer to get to their constituencies; yet there must be a hundred or more whose constituencies are further from Westminster than is mine.
This debate has been of considerable significance. As has been said, it is of considerable significance that every contributor has come from this side of the House. This is because we are concerned not only with the problems of our constituencies, but with the more general social problems which this subject evokes.
494
We should be thinking a great deal more about creating equality in our community not just between individuals, but between regions, cities and the various counties of this country. If we do this we will eliminate some of the most glaring injustices that exist in our society. We in Cornwall are asking not only to share fully in the prosperity of the country in the years to come, but to be given the right to share fully in the hard work that is needed to create that prosperity.
11.59 p.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: In an excellent constituency speech the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) chided this side of the House for not joining in and paying some attention to the debate. In chiding us he advertised his newness. In these Consolidated Fund Bill debates, when time is allocated to specific subjects, it is considered courteous of the other side not to muscle in and take up time unnecessarily, and that is the sort of mood that we have to respect.
However, a form of slander cannot pass unnoticed. The hon. Gentleman said that in his area new industries had replaced the old industry, but those new industries were established because of the special arrangements made by the Government which I supported. We did not have the high rate of unemployment which now obtains, or anything like that rate. But it would be wrong to turn this into a party wrangle and it would be wholly out of keeping with the mood of the debate, but the record should not contain unchallenged the innuendo that we did nothing about unemployment when the things of which the hon. Member could boast were the result of the efforts of the previous Government.
I have the greatest interest in the retraining of miners who have to leave their old established industry and go into new jobs. I hope that the Minister of State will tell us what the Board of Trade is doing in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour about this problem. Far from being uninterested, I have organised at least two Adjournment debates on this subject. In my own constituency special training facilities have been made available and negotiations with the trade unions involved have resulted in reduced

495
periods of apprenticeships to make it worth while for more mature men to get special training for new jobs.
This problem is not confined to one area, but it is not in keeping with debates on the Consolidated Fund for hon. Members, even by implication, to try to turn the debate into a party wrangle. I hope that the Minister of State will refer to helping to increase the export drive. I hope that the Government will revise the G.A.T.T. and make the positive contribution of offering export incentives.
I have intervened only because this side of the House was chided for not taking part in the debate. We were adhering to etiquette, and our record of office shows that the allegation that we did nothing has no basis.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that what my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) was trying to establish was that those who are interested in improving employment prospects in their constituencies have the right to know what alternative policy —I suspect that there is none—would come from the Opposition? It is rather alarming that there is this gross disinterest about the unemployment problem. although it is not surprising, because while right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, the rate of increase of jobs in Wales was only half the rate in England.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Hon. Members opposite are entitled to know our views, but not on the Consolidated Fund, not when the subjects for debates are in these little schedules so that the whole list can be covered. However, the Opposition have used at least two of their Supply Days during this Session for debates on this problem and have then offered solid alternatives, and on every occasion the hon. Gentleman has voted against us.
12.4 a.m.
Mr. T. W. Urwin: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) spring to the defence of his party. He is not by any means an unworthy champion and one understands the reasons
496
which prompted him to offer that kind of defence. But although on behalf of the Opposition he has expressed concern about unemployment and specifically referred to the efforts of his right hon. Friends when in office to deal with the problem, those efforts, following on the representations through Lord Hailsham, as he then was, now the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), came too late. In the 13 years during which right hon. Gentlemen opposite enjoyed office, they could have done much to alleviate the problems confronting the development areas, particularly in the North.
I welcome this opportunity to speak and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for raising this subject, although at the same time I must bemoan my own ill-luck at not having been drawn earlier in the Ballot. While we address ourselves to the development of the older industrial areas, I hope that too much attention will not be focused on this to the exclusion of the necessity to continue to develop the basic industries in these under-developed areas. In the Northern Region attention must be focused on the declining industries of shipbuilding and coal mining.
Here we are entitled to complain about the tardiness of employers in the shipbuilding industry at not having implemented more quickly the Geddes Report's proposals about the modernisation and reorganisation of shipbuilding. Unfortunately in the North, the traditional areas of shipbuilding and mining, an area which has been responsible for some of the best ships ever built, we now have a recession, rising unemployment and, perhaps by the end of the year, an even worse situation than that existing now. I sincerely hope that the rest of the Northern Region will learn very quickly the lesson to be drawn from the consortium which has been set up for the Tyne.
The riches of our country have been based on the indigenous resources of areas which we are proud to represent. The prosperity of the country has been largely built up on the mining industry, despite the hazardous nature of the work in which many of our fathers and forefathers have been involved. While we would never expect that people should continue indefinitely mining coal, and

497
would hope that the time will come when this will be unnecessary, we have to face the stark reality that, as far as we can see ahead, it will be necessary for men to go down into the bowls of the earth in order to supplement our fuel supplies.
I would remind my hon. and right hon. Friends that for some time past there has been declining confidence in the Government because of their attitude towards a fuel policy. There is an understandable difficulty in arriving at a coordinated policy. I recall very well attending the Durham Miners' Gala a fortnight ago, which is the oldest trade union demonstration in the world, and certainly the most democratic of any known to have taken place in trade union history. I have attended those demonstrations since early childhood.
I recall with joy and pleasure the attitudes of those who participated in those great demonstrations. On Saturday week, however, I noticed that instead of the spontaneity and natural gaiety with which people formerly joined the procession, marching behind banners and brass bands, there was on the faces of the people who represent the mining communities anguish because the colliery which their banner represented might become extinct before the next miners' gala. Every one of us would like coal mining to become unnecessary, but we have to appreciate that, as far as we can see ahead, it will continue to be necessary.
I wish to refer to the proposal to build a power station at Seaton Carew, outside the perimeter of my constituency, and to draw attention to the fact that in the area of the site there are six large, modern coal mines which, if a decision were taken to have a conventional coal-filed station, could pour in coal at a price highly competitive with any other kind of fuel.
We on this side have repeatedly pressed my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power to decide in favour of a coal-fired power station in that part of the North-East. The Durham area secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers has described it as a direct insult to think of any other form of energising fuel than coal. In answer to a Question last week, I was told that since vesting day it has cost the Coal Board £30 million in modernisation and pro-
498
viding new technological developments, machinery and the rest in those six pits.
One wonders how that tremendous investment will be recovered in the event of the power station being nuclear powered, as appears likely. More important still in human terms, 8,000 jobs for coal miners will be at risk, with little possibility of alternative employment being provided quickly enough to take up the slack if the power station is not coal-fired.
In addition to the situation of the declining basic industries, it is generally realised that what is required in the Northern Region, as in the other areas from which my hon. Friends have spoken, is much greater diversification of industry. I join my hon. Friends in paying a well-deserved tribute to the Government, including my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is present tonight, for their tremendous efforts to improve employment prospects and to rejuvenate the economic development of the Northern Region, as of the other underdeveloped areas.
My right hon. Friend, in replying to the debate, can rightly point to what the Government has been able to do since 1964, which is far in excess of what the Opposition, when they were the Government for 13 years, were ever able to do for us in new employment opportunities.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: Very questionable.
Mr. Urwin: I do not get the point. It is very important.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is very questionable whether the efforts which have been put on the Statute Book by the present Government have produced anything like the result of the efforts made by the previous Government for the special areas.
Mr. Urwin: Speaking purely from memory, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the present Government have provided at least 66,000 jobs since 1964, since they came into offce—
Sir Harmar Nicholls: And high unemployment.
Mr. Urwin: —and even the unemployment rate is not as high as it was in the

499
worst days of Conservative Government, especially in 1963. Moreover, as to the efforts which have been made by this present Government, one shudders to think what the unemployment position would have been had successive legislation not been introduced by my colleagues on the Front Bench.
Mr. Coleman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems we have in South Wales today are because the Government of the party opposite ran down the Board of Trade to such an extent that it has been very difficult indeed for this Government to get those programmes off the ground?
Mr. Urwin: I would agree entirely with my hon. Friend in what he says, and we were retarded. I speak here representing a constituency in the north of England, and for many years right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they were in Government, former Ministers of Labour and Presidents of the Board of Trade, used to come to the Northern Region and rely on our advice and they say they had nothing to offer us, and they could give us no alleviation for the crisis by giving new employment opportunities. I repeat what I have said before in this Chamber, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St Marylebone arrived complete with cap and bells in the Northern Region, but came much too late, 10 years too late, after 10 years of Conservative Government.
I want to progress, because there are other hon. Members who would like to participate in this debate, I am sure. Whilst my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench can quite properly claim that they have done a good deal to cushion the effects of the economic strictures introduced last July, and to good effect, there is an underlying note of warning. What we want in the Northern Region, as in the other underdeveloped areas, is not a kind of fly-by-night industry, casual industry, which comes in, takes advantage of the grants which are available, and then, in a matter of months, disappears from the scene altogether. In the face of declining industry we need something of a basic nature. As my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) and my
500
hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) said, we need research and development establishments. Efforts should be made to get firms together to participate jointly in research and development. The note of warning I would add is that there is factory space in the Northern Region as yet unused. Here, of course, is a very serious situation.
At the risk of being heavily criticised, I would suggest that, while there are certain measures which have redounded to our advantage, there is one great weakness: the legislation is permissive, permissive to the extent that prospective developers in the region have too much opportunity to involve themselves in selectivity, too many opportunities in the development areas to go round here and there and to decide upon the sites most suitable to them. We find development areas in competition with one another because of that.
At the risk of being criticised, I would suggest that the Government should be more direct in relation to this problem, if it is to be solved at all. If we are to create balance, and remove the imbalance between regions, between the underdeveloped and over-developed regions, may be it will become necessary to direct industry. In saying that I fully appreciate that direction of industry means, inevitably, direction of labour, too. This is not wholly acceptable, even in the political movement which we on this side of the House represent. Let us also bear in mind that thousands of our people are directed because of circumstances beyond their control. I am speaking specifically of mining.
From time to time when the Government have considered decentralisation we have made our case for overcrowded Government Departments in London to be moved to our areas. The last example of this was the Royal Mint. We made a powerful case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for it to be moved to the North. We lost, and I congratulate my Welsh colleagues on getting it sent to their area, but I hope that in any future decentralisation the north of England will be considered for the siting of establishments which are being moved out of London.

501
We in the Northern Region expect the regional employment premium to have a great effect on the employment situation in that area. The gross sum of £203 million over seven years, representing £29 million a year, will make a tremendous contribution to the economic resurgence of the region. There may be some justification for saying that it should be applied more selectively than the Government have so far envisaged.
We live in an area which has a great deal to offer. It has been described as the gateway to the Lake District, and we are not far from the Northumbrian coast. As a result of what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said in reply to a Question recently, I am a little concerned about the fact that we are not receiving as much by way of Government grant for the development of tourism as is being given to the Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards.
The Northern Region has the skills and the resources that are necessary for industry. There is a lot of talk about retraining, but at the moment there is far too much under-employment of the available skills. I hope that attention will be paid to this aspect of the matter.
12.23 a.m.
Mr. Michael McGuire: I add my congratulations to those which have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for initiating this very important debate, and as a Lancashire Member I want to discuss certain matters which are particularly relevant to my area.
In some ways this is a continuation of the debate last Tuesday night on the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board. The debate lasted until eight o'clock in the morning, and we discussed at great length the decline of the mining industry, and what we considered to be its impending further decline. It is noticeable that with the exception of the lone ranger the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who no doubt hopes to increase his majority at the next election, all those who have spoken in this debate have referred to the way in which the decline of the coal industry has affected their constituencies. This has particular reference to my Welsh hon. Friends who have spoken,
502
because many of the problems of unemployment, retraining and so on spring from the rapid decline of the coal industry in South Wales and, perhaps to a lesser extent, in the areas of my hon. Friends from northern and north-eastern constituencies.
I do not want to rake over the embers of our debate on the Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Order, and I do not suppose that to do so would be in order. When we talk about the older industrial areas and their problems we are really talking about the decline of such great industries as coal and cotton, and the heavy industry which was ancillary to them, shipbuilding and—we sometimes forget—the railways. Those industries remain great, but they were once much greater.
I want to concentrate on the problems of the decline of the coal and textile industries in Lancashire. Hon. Members will probably be surprised to know that at its zenith in 1914 the textile industry employed 650,000 people. In 1951 it employed 330,000 people, and in 1967 we are down to 110,000 people employed in it. More jobs have disappeared in the coal and cotton industries in Lancashire since 1951 than in coal and shipbuilding in the whole of Scotland, Wales and the north-east. That is astounding.
My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on 9th June
"… how many jobs have been lost in the last 16 years in textiles, mining and agriculture in the North-West region; and how this compares with the jobs lost in Scotland in agriculture, mining and shipbuilding during the same period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th June; Vol. 747, c. 279.]
My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour replied that 227,000 jobs in those categories had disappeared in the North-West region, and 96,000 in Scotland. Even adding the thousands that have disappeared from the primary industries in Wales and the North-East, one gets a smaller figure than that for the disappearance of jobs in Lancashire since 1951.
This does not take into account the considerable decline in employment on the railways, which we tend to forget. There is a continuing decline in the railways. There is a reduction in the motive

503
power sheds, the goods yards and shunting yards. There can be tragedies concerned with the decline of the railway industry just as much as those connected with cotton and coal.
I will instance a town I know very well, Earlstown, which was really a railway town, built around the making of wagons and engines. The recent decline hit it savagely and it still has not got over the effects of its dependence on one industry, as with so many towns in Wales and the North-East.
I hope that the Labour Government will end the neglect of the railways and the consequent choking of the roads. When we tackle this problem, Lancashire in general and my constituency in particular will benefit. The rundown of Lancashire's great industry of textiles is causing great concern there. Like other areas where primary industries have declined, we need better retraining. I do not want to kick into our own Labour goal, but we can occasionally be quietly critical and it is justifiable to criticise our retraining record, which, at a figure of about 30,000, is pathetic compared with that of Sweden, which has a much smaller population.
In this modern technological and space age which is also a euphemistic age, employing terms like "redeployment" for unemployment will not soften the blow. Ex-cotton workers, ex-miners and ex-railwaymen want to be retrained in technological industries, which is essential as much for sound economic reasons as for anything else. New industries are no good without the skilled manpower, which I hope that the Government will do something realistic to provide. The main problem is that of the over-40's who are not easily adaptable, and whom employers are often loth to take on and the Government should tackle this with greater vigour.
Lancashire has particular problems and needs more growth areas and a more limited concept of new towns. Some old towns whose primary industries are declining need diversification of industry, with a new town as a growth point built on. The new town of Skelmersdale in my constituency has not solved all the problems. On the contrary, new towns bring more problems, like those connected with requisitioned land, than many older ones.
504
There is also the problem, which I had to raise in the House, of the people who still live in the old town which is designated to become a new town. They are a little jealous of those who come in and take jobs which the older residents think they should be given, while they still have to travel to their jobs because only a certain percentage of jobs can go to old residents in the old town.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, who is to reply, told me at the end of an Adjournment debate that if there had not been a new town, the old town people would still be travelling and that they will have the benefit of the new town development and will be considerably better off in future. The biggest problem in the new town of Skelmersdale at present is of too high rents. People have been brought in from older industrial areas where they were used admittedly, to much worse housing, but in Skelmersdale the rents are exaggerated. I hope something will be done about this. There is also the problem of blending the new town. There is a need for recreational facilities, but I realise that I would be out of order if I pursued that.
One of the things which militates against us in Lancashire is linked with industrial dereliction, which we have in too large a measure, particularly where cotton was made and to a much larger extent where there was coal mining. I do not need to describe graphically the dereliction left behind when mines close, for hon. Member's, even those who do not live in mining areas, are familiar with it.
We should tackle land reclamation with more vigour. We have not a continent to plan with, but a tight little island, and every acre reclaimed is a valuable asset for the future. I hope that this and successive Labour Governments will encourage growth centres in the older industrial areas. Growth areas, with diversification created by modern industry which will be brought to them, will mean that we can guard against the sole dependence on one industry of present towns and villages.
This is particularly a problem in Lancashire, and I speak as a Lancashire Member. I hope that when we have eliminated the dereliction and the squalor that goes with it, we can have in

505
Lancashire the kind of atmosphere I always sense in the South and especially in the South-East, where there is a vastly different way of life, and different communications. People want to stay where they have been brought up and the Government should tackle this problem with vigour and charity for the people in the older industrial areas which made the country great. I will not trot out all the arguments about coal and cotton being the foundations of the country's greatness because that is admitted. I conclude by expressing the hope that we shall make these towns and villages in the North and in Lancashire in particular worthy places to live in in this new technological and space age.
12.40 a.m.
Mr. Alan Williams: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, that your wife is so soon having the experience and inconvenience to which all our wives become accustomed because of the peculiarities of the working habits of this House. But I console myself with the thought that even if I were to sit down immediately it would not substantially reduce the length of the period that you and your colleagues in the Chair will have to endure tonight.
I hope I shall be excused if I do not indulge in the temptation which such a subject as the older industrial areas offers to slip into a constituency speech. It is a natural temptation but one that I prefer to resist because it was not my intention originally to take part in the debate. It has been a good debate, and interesting points have been raised, and I should like to follow certain of those points, though I hope I shall not cover the ground already covered.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), for whom as a Member all of us on this side of the House have considerable liking—we always enjoy his contributions—gave us an utterly inadequate explanation why hon. Members opposite have shown no real interest and have not attempted to participate in the debate. It was extremely good of him to explain to those who came to this House in 1964 and since that the Conservative Members always feel that they should not participate in debates initiated on this side of the House. I can tell him that when people
506
are in the dole queue they are willing to forgo the niceties of Parliamentary procedure and would be far happier to see more enthusiasm in tackling their problems and less regard for the traditional practices of the House.
I want to look at the problem of certain attitudes which prevail when we try to deal with the difficulties which con front the older industrial areas. First, certain problems arise from the attitude of even the Board of Trade. To some extent the Board of Trade is guilty, not only under its present occupants but under their predecessors, of taking a static as opposed to dynamic approach to the problem of the old areas. There is a presumption that a uniform policy is valid. But no single policy is necessarily valid for all development areas or even for all parts of any one development area. One can have areas of unemployment which are already in the process of redevelopment, or one can have areas of unemployment which are declining into further unemployment. Those two different types of area need different approaches to their problems
Looking at it from another point of view which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) will appreciate, some areas have an economic potential and just need an economic redevelopment—they already have an infrastructure—while others areas—to some extent they will probably be very old single industry areas like the Rhondda—have not much apparent potential and need not only economic redevelopment but social redevelopment because even their infrastructure is obsolete.
The point I make is that in certain development areas or parts of development areas the infrastructure is an essential prerequisite to solving the problem, whereas in other parts no great difficulty is presented in that respect. It is for this reason that I am not exactly happy about the extension of the S.E.T. premium concept to the development areas. I regard it as rather too sweeping a way of trying to deal with the problem. It is not refined or precise enough. We are all glad that the money is available to meet the problem in these areas, but there could be a more precise use found for it.
For those areas which need economic and social redevelopment, it is no good

507
thinking in terms of establishing a new factory wherever an old unit of employment goes into decline. It is far better to recognise that certain commuting points should be established, for instance, that trading estates should be established in South Wales at the heads of the valleys and at the mouths of the valleys, so that the work is concentrated and the infrastructure costs are minimised because the need to create it is confined to a few localities. For instance, spending on roads can be reduced to some extent and made more efficient.
The point which I constantly make to the Board of Trade—though with rather frustrating lack of success—is that within the development areas there should be a two-tier approach to these problems. The Rhondda needs more inducements, it needs more financial aid or temptation to industrialists than, perhaps, does Port Talbot. Within a development area, there are black spots as well as grey areas.
We must have regard also to public attitudes. The public themselves, particularly in the old industrial areas which, by their nature, were badly planned, with factories hopelessly on top of homes, are accustomed to what has been the historical layout. But where there is this unplanned intermingling of homes and employment, it is not practicable or desirable to re-establish industry again in precisely the same places. Otherwise, we shall recreate or regenerate these areas exactly in the image of the past, which we have so often denounced as having been unplanned and irresponsible.
It is imperative that all our constituents, therefore, should appreciate the value of mobility, in some senses a limited mobility and in some senses perhaps, a quite extreme mobility. Voluntary depopulation is not always to be regarded as abhorrent. The parties are inclined to slip into the habit—we all do it—of thinking that there is something sacrosanct about our historical population patterns. They should never be forced to, but, if people want to leave an area—many young people want to leave the smaller old industrial areas—their removal should not be used as a political bludgeon with which one party can beat the other. In the nature of
508
things, population has never been static in location, and there is no reason to assume that it should be.
The other mobility is mobility to the job. In the older industrial areas, because of the hopeless intermingling of jobs and homes, people have not been accustomed to commuting. In London, people think in terms of commuting which, perhaps, absorbs a ridiculous amount of time.
On the other hand, when one refers to commuting in relation to some of the older areas one is referring to a very small amount of time spent in travelling. But there is still a reaction from the public which is out of all proportion to the benefits they would get if they came to terms with the fact that it will be necessary to travel perhaps for half an hour to find a new job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) have referred to the problem of spoilheaps. All those who come from these areas of the country recognise that the Government are trying to tackle the problem and to alter the policies effectively so as to enable us to recast these areas. In the operation of these policies some faults may be put right.
Several hon. Members have said that the 85 per cent. grant is extremely helpful. It certainly is, especially if, in the case of areas such as Rhondda, with the rate deficiency grant it becomes 95 per cent. This would be a positive inducement to local authorities to clear the spoilheaps but for one factor which is not often referred to, namely, the fact that the applicant for one of these grants does not get the full 85 per cent. or 95 per cent.; he gets a percentage of what is considered to be the value of the site after it is cleared. I think that it is the Board of Trade which makes this decision; certainly it is a Government Department which decides what the price should be.
So what started out as a generous objective does not quite work in that way, in many areas. It would be better if Government Departments showed confidence in their own evaluation and said, "We will give you a 95 per cent. or 85 per cent. grant for a start and say that this is the site value after the work has

509
been completed, but we will reclaim that amount on the sale of the land." The land is worth that much only if the local authority can sell it. If it does not—as sometimes happens—the Board of Trade, or whoever makes the evaluation, will have been wrong on the basis of its grant procedure.
These are important and valid points in our policy of dealing with spoilheaps, and the situation could easily be put right, beneficially to this country and at no tremendous cost to the Government. It could enable us to deal far more efficiently with the problem both sides would like to see dealt with—the problem of restoring old industrial areas to something like their original beauty by getting rid of some of the grosser eyesores.
I am convinced that the Government are making genuine attempts to solve the problem. Both sides want it solved; all that we disagree about is the solution. Our constituents want to be convinced that the solutions are realistic. In most cases they are, with a few provisos that I have mentioned. But it is not enough for them to be realistic they must also be quick. If they are not people will spend far too long in the dole queue. It is not a matter simply of £.s.d. or of a lower income level; reports from industrial psychiatrists show alarmingly that after people have been unemployed for long periods—perhaps two years—a psychological disintegration is created, together with a breakdown of personality and sense of purpose. It is important that we look at this problem as one not only to be solved but to be solved quickly.
12.55 a.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I shall be brief because the problems of Lancashire have been dealt with by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), but I am grateful to have the opportunity to deal with some of the problems besetting my area of North-East Lancashire. I had the benefit of an Adjournment debate on the economic problems of North-East Lancashire, answered with some eloquence by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Economic Affairs. He gave an interesting analysis of the causes of much of Lancashire's malaise, and I agreed with his remarks. Significantly he did not say
510
what the Government's solutions would be.
I hope that the Minister of State will be a little more forthcoming and detail what the Government intend to do to help North-East Lancashire. The problems are twofold. On the one hand, there is the immediate problem of the contraction in the cotton industry. It would not be right for me to go into that now, but I must tell the Minister of State, if he does not already know it, that there is a major problem of a lack of confidence in the future—indeed, in the very existence—of an industry which has been synonymous with Lancashire since the Industrial Revolution.
He cannot assuage the deep feelings in Lancashire, caused by the contraction of the industry, by a clever presentation of the facts and statistics, particularly when the forecasts presented recently by the Board of Trade do not coincide with the estimates of both sides of industry in Lancashire.
We were told that there would be a resurgence in the prosperity of the cotton textile industry in July, but July has now come, and we are still awaiting it. There are longer-term problems facing us. Many of the problems detailed tonight affecting development areas also affect Lancashire. But whereas the Government have given assistance to these areas, which I do not begrudge—and I pay tribute to the Government for doing so—they have not given assistance to North-East Lancashire, which suffers from many of the same ills.
There is the long-term problem of industrial ugliness, as a result of a legacy, not of this Government, but of neglect by successive governments for years past. It is no god describing the degree of ugliness. Ugliness is ugliness, and it is wrong that in 1967 thousands of people should be expected to live in this unhealthy environment. There is also the problem of communications, physical not verbal. This is one of the reason why there is such a drift of young people from the area. It is not surprising, because rail communications between North-East Lancashire and the two main towns of Lancashire, Manchester and Liverpool, are quite appalling. It is also wrong that in 1967 it should take

511
well over an hour to travel the 20 miles from my constituency to Manchester.
A problem with which we in North-East Lancashire are very much concerned is the lure of development areas. It is obvious that growth spots surrounding North-East Lancashire entice industry to those other areas and our part of Lancashire is by-passed. Some extra inducement should be offered to existing industry to stay and develop in this part of the county. I hope that the Government will bring forward a plan to give Lancashire a mid-development status.
I welcome the fact that a committee is now sitting and examining problems of grey areas, but I hope that the Government will not take refuge behind it. I am sure that they will not, but I am a little surprised that a committee should be set up to find what should be known already and is visible to the naked eye. There has been far too much talk about grey areas. I hope that areas in need of special assistance will be given a rather more colourful name. I hope that the Government will come forward with plans to help Lancashire, which has done much to increase the industrial prosperity of the nation. It did much to return the Labour Government and the Labour Government have done much for Lancashire. I look forward to my right hon. Friend giving us, not optimistic words and figures, but the promise of speedy action.
1.03 a.m.
Mr. Edward Lyons: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) for introducing this valuable debate. One of the oldest industrial areas and one of the most important in the United Kingdom, is the West Riding of Yorkshire. I am the only back-bench Member from the West Riding to seek to take part in this debate.
The West Riding is an area of high employment and it is a heavily populated area. The population is hard-working. Therefore, there may be a temptation for the Board of Trade to consider that its attentions would best be directed to other areas where unemployment is the principle concern, but if the Board of Trade were to do so, it would be utterly
512
misled as to the true position in the West Riding. Delighted as everyone is with the high level of employment in that area, there are very ominous indications in the textile districts of the county. There is a tiny rate of population increase, housing is old and depressing in many instances, there is a very sluggish tempo of economic growth, and with migration of population from the area the keynote is obsolescence rather than growth.
There is altogether too much dependence on textiles and, although elements in that industry are fighting hard not to submit to contraction which is taking place bit by bit, they appear to be losing the battle, partly as a result of new techniques being used elsewhere and partly as a result of the fact that certain developing countries are able to make do for themselves. The present stagnation in the textile areas could develop, given an accelerated downturn in the textile industry, into something much worse. I should like the Government to take action ahead of that contingency.
This area, although one of high employment, is one of low wage rates. The textile towns have wage rates lower than of towns surrounding them. Low wages mean less purchasing power, which in itself constitutes a disincentive to local expansion. Further, low wages mean an inability often to afford good housing and to pay the rates necessary to provide first-class amenities and an attractive environment.
Full employment, therefore, has meant for places like Bradford not prosperity but simply the absence of the extremes of poverty. The City Treasurer of Bradford, in a bitter outburst, has declared his belief that Bradford has been written off as a city without a future at either regional or national level. There is a widespread feeling in the city and other textile towns in the West Riding that their claims are ignored nationally.
Leeds has taken on the functions of a provincial capital and Bradford has been called, for example, by the Economist, "the unknown city", cut off from the Yorkshire plains. The incredible thing about the textile towns is that, although much wealth is earned there, it is not spent there. The people who are chiefly the beneficiaries of the local industry do not wish to live there.

513
A very high proportion of the executives, academics, professional men and directors earn their livelihoods in Bradford but live away from it. They have concluded, it would seem, that Bradford is out of date and unattractive, a place out of which to scoop wealth, but not one in which to spend it or enjoy it. This is something which can be said of other towns in the Yorkshire textile area. It is a dreadful indictment of local environment. The facilities of these towns are enjoyed during the day by commuters who contribute nothing as domestic ratepayers.
That is the dismal picture—old buildings, low wages, over-dependence on a single industry and towns geographically slightly off the main stream. I urge strongly that the situation desperately needs attention. I beg my right hon. Friend to remember that the people in the older areas, particularly in the textile areas, provided much of the wealth of this country for a very long time with no very great reward to themselves.
I beg my right hon. Friend to provide incentives designed to produce the rapid tempo of growth which is the only cure. Give us at least in the textile areas of West Riding half the extra incentives now being provided for development areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) has referred to such areas as "mid-development areas". Make us into a "mid-development area".
So far, not a single regional headquarters has been brought to Bradford, although it is the largest centre in the textile area. There is a dearth of new industries and I ask the Government to think again about the grey areas and provide these incentives so necessary. It is no use waiting until disaster overtakes this area of Yorkshire. The Government must think ahead, and I hope that they will act now.
1.10 a.m.
Mr. F. V. Corfield: It had not been my intention to intervene, but I have been fascinated with the debate and I join in the general congratulations to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) who introduced it.
I was invited to outline the alternative policies, but I can assure you, Mr.
514
Speaker, and the rest of the House that I will not fall into that trap at this time of night. The purpose of the debate is the rectification—I think that is an overoptimistic expectation—of grievance before Supply, but at least we can state our grievances, of which there has been no shortage.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have sought to console themselves by making somewhat bogus comparisons of what the present Government have done with what their predecessors did. I call them "bogus" because most hon. Members seem to think that nothing ever happened before my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) went to the North-East. Perhaps a more useful and enlightening comparison would be what the present Government said when they were in opposition. As we are approaching the holiday season, which ought to be a season of goodwill, perhaps I should not remind them too much of their own "stop-go", never mind any abandonment of full employment, and all the rest. I am basically a kindly man, so I will change the subject.
The truth of the matter is that we are faced with a fairly intractable problem which is aggravated by the sheer speed of change of the older industries, which is far faster than anyone could have foreseen. Newer industries are coming in, the nature of which none of us could have foreseen, let alone their growth. In many cases, industries with advanced technology do not absorb the same quantity of labour, and, where they do, they absorb a different quality of labour. The biggest problem, which has emerged from the speeches of many hon. Members, is that the level of unemployment, which used to be the basis for this sort of operation, is simply not a suitable criterion, because it gives no indication of the number of skilled people available, which is the all-important factor for the industries which are moving in.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) who made the point that there was perhaps too much competition in the sense that there were too many possibilities for industries to choose from both within a particular development area and between development areas.

515
But this is absolutely inevitable and we should face up to it. Otherwise we are asking Governments to do something they are not equipped to do. The plain fact is that at any particular time there can be only a limited amount of industry, so to speak, on the move. Industry cannot suddenly be created without a demand for its products and all that goes with it. Unless there is industry available no Government can suddenly guarantee to put an industry there and employ the labour.
In the long term the industries which are required are those which generate, or at any rate are likely to generate—none of us is a prophet—their own technological growth. With industries that merely mop up unemployment, although they are valuable in the short term, there is a great danger that they will merely reproduce the conditions which we are facing today. We are in danger of building the development regions into what might be called production subsidiaries, with the research and technology being done elsewhere. This will never hold the young and energetic and enterprising and clever people we want to hold in these areas.
I find myself in great sympathy with those who were urging Government research establishments in some of these areas. I would go even further and try to build some of the universities in the areas and make them into universities with world reputation in certain technologies, because that is where one gets the liaison with the executives and technologists. One has to make it attractive for them to work in those areas by making it possible for them to keep pace with modern technology and modern advances without feeling that they must be in the South-East to do so. One of the problems is to create a counter-magnet to the South-East and all that there is there. This is one of the enormous problems which we have to face in retraining.
As has been said, it is those who are over 40 who are the least adaptable, and many would work in the new industries which themselves are labour intensive and which would absorb unskilled workers in turn creating a demand for more unskilled workers among the younger generation, who themselves
516
would reach the age of 40 without a skill, and so a vicious circle could be produced.
I am rather against the suggestion that we should have small areas of new town, areas of growth, because I agree that we must not be fascinated by the idea that there is something sacrosanct about replacing job for job in precisely the same place as before, because an economy cannot be run on as inflexible a basis as that.
I agree with the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) that communications are at the heart of the problem, communications between regions and equally, if not even more important, communications within the development areas to allow people to commute and to have a choice of job, even though it may not be absolutely on their doorsteps. I regret that the Government did not put the £100 million which they were prepared to put into the employment premium into the infrastructure, the roads, the research establishments and the universities and all the other things which offer attractions to the technologists and scientists who must be retained if these areas are ever to "get off the ground" and be prosperous.
I cannot believe that if the communications of the South-West were put right, there would be anything to stop it from "getting off the ground" finally and for ever. It has absolutely everything except communications—it has the climate, the scenery and the people. It is an absolute tragedy that the Government have missed that point of view.
It was complained that we had run down the Board of Trade. I sometimes find it fascinating to consider the spheres in which the Board of Trade has been expanded and I wonder how the development regions are helped. The Board of Trade employs 1,200 more people because the industrial development allowance has been scrapped and replaced by grants, which could equally well have been provided by taxation allowances or free depreciation. Does it make sense to make this expansion instead of retaining the relatively small figure? It gives no employment in the development areas, but only in Whitehall.
1.18 a.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) was wrong about his last point, as about so many others when trying to score party points. He is very much better when he is not trying to score party points. The regional offices where most of these people are employed are in the development areas.
I join in the congratulations given to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) not only for raising the issues which have given rise to an interesting and important debate, but also on his astuteness in wording the title of the debate so as to allow everyone to get in and to cover the widest possible area of discussion.
The debate is concerned with the problems of the older industrial areas. Hon. Members representing some of the older industrial areas have been concerned with the rundown of the older basic industries and some have given the impression that those basic industries were now to be wiped out. This is not the case.
The basic industries on which this country's prosperity has been built—coal, iron and steel, shipbuilding, cotton and, as one of my hon. Friends mentioned, the railways—have, for one reason or another, suffered a considerable rundown in employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) mentioned the cotton textile industry. Between 1950 and 1967 this industry has lost 200,000 workers. About 100,000 workers have been lost to the railways, shipbuilding has lost about 55,000 and coal mining has lost about 175,000 workers. Nevertheless, there is a future for those employed in the rationalised and streamlined versions of these industries.
We look forward to there being a bright future for the iron and steel industry from Friday of this week. The new look which this industry is having will, I am confident, build it up into a more ambitious, efficient and expanding industry than ever before. We also believe that the Shipbuilding Industry Board, with its reorganisation proposals and with the amalgamation of shipyards, will give the shipbuilding industry a new future.
518
I appreciate that many of the operatives in the cotton textile industry have not only felt the effects of rationalisation, but also the effects of a free trade policy and can hardly be expected to approve, in present circumstances, of the turndown in trade as a result of the damping down of home demand. They have, therefore, suffered three blows at once and one can understand their feelings of anxiety. But they should accept that the future of the industry depends on streamlining and rationalisation. Measures are coming along, with the reorganisation of the Cotton Board into the Textile Council and with the Council including the manmade fibres section of the industry. With the research that is being carried out into the reorganisation of the industry and with the measures that are coming along, the industry will, we hope, expand and become viable.
Many hon. Members have raised the fundamental issue of unemployment, particularly in the development area. In a constructive speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath—who, I agree, has something about which to complain—said he was in favour of the Board of Trade building advance factories but thought that they were not being built fast enough in areas which were facing particularly severe unemployment problems as a result of the rundown of, in his constituency, the coal mining industry.
It may be of interest to the House to know that in factories put up by the Board of Trade in the development areas, there are probably more than I million people employed. In South Wales, one person in every three employed in manufacturing industry works in a Board of Trade factory. In Scotland the proportion is one in eight and in the development areas in England it is about one in ten. This is a considerable achievement. It would not have been possible to have dealt with some of the unemployment problems in the development areas if the factory building programme and the building up of industrial estates by the Board of Trade had not been undertaken.
In dealing with the financial help which has been given to private firms to go into the development areas during the seven years since the passing of the Local Employment Act, 1960, I will follow the

519
lead of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South and not make party points, although I am tempted to do so. To 31st March this year, all the forms of assistance which has been offered to firms to go into development areas totalled £230 million over the seven years, and £123 million of that was in the last three years. It is building up all the time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) brought us to the fact that it is not only in the development areas that we have problems not merely of unemployment. In most of the non-development areas there is not a great problem of unemployment, but there are problems of what my hon. Friend called intermediate prosperity when, for instance, the level of family income is below average and the social pattern is somewhat different from the general social pattern of the country. In Stoke-on-Trent, for instance, a city I know well, the population is composed almost entirely of wage and low salary earners and the area tends to be unattractive.
My hon. Friend said that in areas such as the Potteries—and this applies to the areas of North-East Lancashire—there is need for urban renewal and help with diversification of industry. He suggested that the way to do this is to give the area 50 per cent. of the regional employment premium. My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) suggested an intermediate grant between the 25 per cent. outside the development areas and the 45 per cent. within them. These are problems which can be looked at.
It is certainly true that there are far more grey areas—as I will call them to reduce the length of the debate, so that hon. Members may get on with the rest of the subjects listed for tonight—than people imagine before they consider the problems. Those grey areas are the subject of the Government inquiry under the chairmanship of Sir John Hunt. We have noted the hope expressed by several hon. Members that the Government will not hide behind that committee and that the committee's work will produce results within a reasonably short period.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) talked about the retraining of, for instance, older miners for
520
new jobs on the spot. He said that he was not pleading for charity and that it was better, cheaper and more in the national interest to bring industry to the workers where there is a rundown in an industry like coal and there is local employment as a result, and that the way to provide for the changeover from one type of job to another was to retrain the men on the spot.
There is a very, very important point here. First of all, particularly the older miners, the chaps over 50, are, as we know from experience in every part of the country where we have had to put advance factories into coal mining areas, the most adaptable people imaginable. One can understand it. They have all the skills of the miner, and long experience of all kinds of difficult jobs to be done. They are adaptable; they want to stick in the job they have come to after being thrown out of the mines, and they are very competent people. But there is another important advantage in retraining these people and making industrialists understand what good people they are, and that is that in the factories which take them there is going to be no labour turnover for at least 10 years, or whatever period of working life the older miners themselves want. This is something we can do, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare—bring home to industrialists the value of these older miners in starting off new enterprises in development areas.
We want more and more industrialists to show an interest in the development areas. We at the Board of Trade have been surprised how little some industrialists know about the opportunities and the financial inducements available for putting industrial expansion into development areas. My hon. Friends may have seen the advertisements the Board of Trade has been putting into various papers to draw attention to the value of development areas to industrialists. It is, I think, too early to begin to assess the results in any statistical way, but certainly the number of inquiries leads us to believe that we shall be getting a much better response to our appeals to industrialists to go into development areas than we have been having for some time, and that, I know, will help to cheer up some of my hon. Friends.

521
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) raised the question, as did other hon. Members, about doing far more to remove what he calls the scars of dereliction, the scars of the Industrial Revolution, the spoilheaps and the rest. This is something to which we must pay attention, and I can assure hon. Members that the views they have put forward will be borne in mind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) also raised a point which I must mention, because it is a complete myth. He said that too many subsidiaries and not the headquarters of firms go into the development districts. He may have come across evidence of subsidiaries going into them, but I can assure him that the ratio is the other way round, and that we get more firms, either without subsidiaries, or with subsidiaries, and both headquarters and subsidiaries, in development areas. We get more developments of that type than we get branches of major firms established outside the development areas. I have also taken note of the observations he made about the need to put research establishments into development areas.
I have some good news for my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. West (Mr. Alec Jones). He raised questions about the advance factories there. I do not want to go over the troubles. I think he understands the troubles we have in getting suitable land and in acquiring land. The first factory we announced in September. 1965, he says has not yet been started. That is true. There has been another reason for the delay. But it has been allocated, and a firm is going to take it over, and its size is to be extended to 37,000 sq. ft. for the benefit of the firm.
We had difficulty in obtaining a site for the second one which was announced in May, 1966, but I think my hon. Friend knows that building has started, and will be completed before the end of this year. We have not started on the third one, but I think that the information about the first one will not be unpleasing to my hon. Friend. We have site difficulties there, and I shall not go into the problems now.
I have one observation to make about the speech of my hon. Friend the Mem-
522
ber for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody). His is not exactly a grey area, but it suffers from some of the problems encountered in the grey areas in that the level of wages is not up to the national average, and the job opportunities are so few that although the employment statistics do not give the impression of a great deal of unemployment, there is considerable under-employment, and one would like to see what the figure would be if everyone were to register. There are so many people, particularly married women, who know that they will not get jobs that they do not bother to register.
The South-West Plan was published only last week, and we have not had time to study it, but we have not neglected the South-West. The total financial assistance given to the area last year was £615,000, and the total since the 1st April, 1960, is just under £4 million. This money has been provided for industrial development in the region. As I am sure my hon. Friend would agree, compared with what goes on in other areas, this is not a great deal.
I cannot answer my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) about whether the power station at Seaton Carew will be coal-fired or nuclear-powered. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power is here, and he is not going to answer the question, but I assure my hon. Friend that his views will be given serious consideration.
We do not allow fly-by-night firms to go in and take advantage of grants provided in the development areas. If a firm receives a grant, and goes out of business within five years, the money is repayable on a sliding scale. In many cases we own the factory premises and the equipment as well. We can therefore see that the money is returned, but very few firms collapse, because they are very carefully examined before any grants are made to them.
I have taken note of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince about the rundown of the mining industry, and the provision of growth centres and new towns. I am not sure that I agree with all my hon. Friend's views, but I will see that they are properly examined.

523
By talking about the problems of the West Riding of Yorkshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), brought home to me the fact that there is a saying locally, which he probably knows, that if there is any truth in the idea that God had a chosen people, they came from Hallamshire. Because I represent a section of Hallamshire, I do not want to get involved in a public discussion about the problems of Yorkshire, but I would like to discuss privately with him the problems which my hon. Friend raised about Bradford. I was not aware of the seriousness with which he regards some of the problems in that part of the world, and I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.
This has been a most interesting and constructive debate, and if I have failed, as I am sure I have, to answer all the points which have been raised, I assure hon. Members that their contributions have been most useful to us, and will be properly considered.

GAS PIPELINES
1.40 a.m.
Mr. John Farr: After the last prolonged debate, which has rather held up progress on the Bill, I shall be fairly brief and to the point in discussing a subject that is very important in most rural districts—certainly in the East Midlands and Leicestershire. It concerns the telemetric control of gas underground pipelines. Telemetric control is a method of controlling the supply and pressure of the gas in underground pipelines and I gather that the system needs the erection of chains of masts of varying height up and down the country, following the routes of the pipelines they service.
I have tabled this subject for debate because of my concern and that of a number of hon. Members who have come across the problem in their constituencies. Their numbers may not be apparent tonight, because of the late hour and the succession of late nights we have had. New gas pipelines are now running from east to west across the heart of England, to bring natural gas supplies from the North Sea to the industrial centre of England and the Potteries.
524
for instance, which were mentioned earlier. The supply and pressure of the gas in those pipelines will have to be controlled by one of two methods.
My fear is that the telemetric method may be used. It will involve the construction of chains of masts along the route of the underground pipelines, with their attendant disfigurement. Some of the masts can be as high as 300 ft. The relay masts will be 150 ft. high or more, and I understand from an answer to a Question in another place today that at this early stage it is envisaged that there will be no fewer than 50 of them up and down the country. In addition, there will be about 500 or more of the smaller masts of a height below 50 ft.
Certain sites have been considered for the masts in the East Midlands, and I have been told that sites for the very high masts have been selected in some of the most beautiful parts of the East Midlands, such as Naseby, where the ancient battle was fought. I gather that it was intended to site one at Skeffington, in Leicestershire, but that it is being re-sited.
My real point is to ask whether another method of control can be found. Across my constituency today lies a very broad scar, running from Rutland to Warwickshire, from east to west north of Market Harborough and north of Lutterworth, where the gas pipelines go underground. I welcome that. Of course it means inconvenience for farmers, landowners and those who live in the country, but this is progress and if the country is to benefit to the utmost from the large supplies of natural gas under the North Sea, the supplies must be taken where they are most needed. But what we are not so happy about is that, in two or three years, when the scars have healed and the grass grows again and the fences are replaced by the hedges, there will be a line of control masts marching across the heart of England to remind us of what lies beneath.
Inquiries on the subject to Ministers in both Houses of Parliament have received the answer, "Hon. Members need not worry because the local planning authority will have the last say and their views will be given preference," implying that, if the planning authority does not want a mast, it will not be erected. Is the nasty rumour true that, in fact, the

525
local planning authorities will have no say in the matter, that for the telemetric system of underground gas pipelines to work effectively there is only one place for the mast to be and that the Leicestershire planning authority will not be able to tell the Gas Board to put its mast elsewhere? Is it true that the siting of the mast is governed by the contours of the grounds and that what a planning authority may say does not matter two hoots?
What is the alternative to the ghastly system of masts from 50 ft. up to 100200 ft. high stretching across the country? A perfectly modern, safe and efficient alternative is to control the pipeline not by these visible monstrosities but by the landline method, with the land-lines adjacent to the underground pipe, which works effectively in many countries. Just because we are staying up fairly late to try to maintain what many of us think is the beauty of a valuable piece of the countryside and an important principle on the advance of pipelines to other parts of the country, and to argue that the invisible method should be used instead of the masts, does not mean that we do not welcome the Gas Board's modernisation of its control of the pressure of supply and the contents of the underground pipelines which it has recently installed.
Not so long ago, if there was a leak in a gas pipeline, a telephone message was sent to a Gas Board employee who cycled to the point of the leak and turned off the power. The Gas Board has come up to date and by the landline system, effective control is exercised immediately and just as effectively as it would be by the telemetric system of control. It is recognised as being just as effective by those concerned with modern advanced methods.
There is one point of confusion I should like ironed out: which Ministry is responsible for the decision as to whether we should have a telemetric system or an underground landline system of control of gas pipelines? A proliferation of Ministers has been dealing with this by correspondence in the past. I have a copy of a letter from the Minister of Housing and Local Government to a noble Lord in another place, in which the Minister states the position as he sees it. I have also been fortunate
526
enough to see correspondence which the Minister of Power has had with Members on both sides. The Postmaster-General answered questions put the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball), who is here tonight. It seems to me that the absence of complete responsibility for the control system means, despite what the Postmaster-General said the other afternoon, that there is a likelihood that the country will find itself slipping into a system of telemetric control whether we like it or not. Unless we have a useful debate about this tonight and get answers on these points, we will wake up and find the country criss-crossed by an unnecessary pattern of pylons and radio control masts.
I ask the Minister to say what the system of control is to be, whether telemetric or underground. If the Minister is taking a decision, why cannot hon. Members be consulted? If we cannot be consulted, why cannot we at least be told, so that we have a chance of discussing what in a few years' time, with the proliferation of these underground pipes, could be literally another network of masts over the countryside, similar to the pattern of electric pylons with which the countryside is disfigured at the moment.
1.55 a.m.
Mr. Marcus Kimball: My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has done a very great service to all of us who live or have constituencies in the East Midlands area by raising this subject. Like my hon. Friend I have a constituency which stretches between the North Sea and the industrial Midlands. My constituency has several areas of outstanding natural beauty, notably on the Lincolnshire Wolds, which are now threatened by this system of telemetric control of gas pipelines if the Government decide to proceed.
It is clear that the operation of dealing with North Sea gas bears the hall-mark of an operation that is being carried out in a hurried, slipshod, ill thought out and extravagant fashion typical of a nationalised industry pretending that it is meeting a great need in a very short time with waste of public money and all the normal extravagancies that one expects from this sort of operation.

527
Is the Minister satisfied that in allowing the Gas Council to embark on a system of telemetric control he is acting correctly according to Section 43 of the Pipelines Act, 1962? The Act imposes upon the Minister the perfectly clear duty to ensure that the proposed works are kept below ground as far as is practicable. It also makes it perfectly clear that the Minister in considering every single problem must bear in mind the desirability of preserving natural beauty and conserving the countryside. I hope that the debate, if nothing else, will encourage a few of the people who will be inflicted with these radio masts at various heights along the line of sight of the pipeline to pursue the Minister in the courts and hold up this desecration of the countryside until the courts have a chance of deciding whether or not the Minister is carrying out his duties in accordance with the 1962 Act.
I hope that the Minister will answer the question raised by my hon. Friend about why the pipelines cannot be controlled by landlines. I understand that there is some monopoly which prevents any private individual or even another nationalised industry laying a cable. It is the right of the Postmaster-General. Is the Postmaster-General so pushed for cables and people to lay them that he cannot lay cables for the Gas Council so that it may be able to control the pipelines with an underground cable? Is it not possible to make some arrangement with the Postmaster-General so that we can have underground control of these pipelines?
I gather that the problem arises because the gas will be pumped through the pipelines at a pressure of 1,200 lb. per sq. in. Is the Minister entirely satisfied that this is safe, that in allowing the Gas Council to do this he is acting in accordance with the sections of the Pipelines Act which seek to ensure that proper safety regulations operate in the countryside? On 9th May, 1962, when the Pipelines Bill was introduced, no fewer than four columns of HANSARD were devoted by the then Minister to dealing with the problem of the safety of the people who live around the areas of these pipelines, and he said that he thought that the Act would be quoted
528
for generations afterwards as proving that Conservative planning really works.
Is the Minister satisfied that pumping gas at 1,200 lb. per sq. in. through these pipelines is safe, and was it envisaged when the original Act was passed? I understand that through one pipeline in the East Midlands, which passes along the Welland valley in my hon. Friend's constituency, gas at this pressure is at present being pumped, with no attempt at telemetric control.
Mr. Farr: I had the privilege of serving on the Pipelines Bill Committee. At no time did we envisage an underground pipeline containing any liquid fuel at this pressure.
Mr. Kimball: This is typical of the situation. To make matters worse, the Government have shown not only indifference or callousness for the safety of people living around the pipelines but they have shown complete indifference about employment in the area. I understand that the pumps and equipment to pump the gas into the pipelines to keep the pressure up are all to be bought from America, the justification being that everything must be done so quickly that British firms could not deliver in time. The British taxpayer's money, through this nationalised industry, must, apparently, be spent to buy the pumps from the United States. The Minister knows that there are firms in Lincoln and on the perimeter of my constituency which could well supply these pumps. If there are some nice juicy law suits which hold the process up, so that people have time to reconsider it, there will be no reason why the equipment and pumps should be brought with precious dollars from the Americans, who have succeeded in doing a very hard sell to a lot of officials in the nationalised gas industry. This is all typical of the incompetence and waste of public money which is going on. At least, a Socialist Government might have considered employment in some of the Midland towns instead of ordering pumping equipment from the United States.
I hope that we shall have a satisfactory answer from the Government and an assurance that a firm directive will be given to this nationalised industry that it must not desecrate the countryside with pylons along the line of sight of the

529
underground pipelines. When the Bill was going through, the big argument for facilitating its passage was that it would make possible a marvellous way of conveying energy without damage to natural beauty. The countryside is spoiled for 18 months while the pipelines are put in, but after that they are forgotten. We remember the pictures of a field last summer showing how one could hardly tell that a pipeline had been put across only two years previously. All those arguments are made worthless if the pipelines are to bristle with wireless aerials of various heights along their length.
2.4 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I shall deal with the subject in rather less hysterical fashion than the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) did. I can give him one assurance straight away: there is no threat by way of electrocution of foxhounds from the introduction of the telemetric system.
Mr. Kimball: I suggested nothing of the kind.
Mr. Freeson: We had some rather silly language from the hon. Gentleman—slipshod planning, extravagance, waste of public money, inflictions on the people, desecration of the countryside, threats, monstrosities, and the rest. Rather foolish language, I thought. I shall not pursue it further with him, but shall try to deal with the matter more seriously. I hope to give the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan) one or two assurances on the points which he raised.
I will attempt briefly to describe what is happening in this situation. I start by saying that there should be no confusion in hon. Members' minds about the responsibilities of the two Ministries most directly involved—the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. No change is involved in planning control as a result of introducing this system. Under certain circumstances planning control will operate, and any rumour to the effect that it is being pushed aside in this respect is quite incorrect. There will be planning control operative within the law as at present.
The Gas Council is planning to construct an integrated pipeline system to carry natural gas from the coastal land-
530
ing points to the various area gas boards, and it is planned to provide natural gas to all 12 boards by 1970 in a properly-planned fashion. This will involve laying about 1,300 miles of large-diameter pipe during this period, and the system has been described in the Gas Council's booklet, "Gas Goes Natural", that was published a little while ago and was the subject of discussion in a previous debate in the House some weeks ago. There is a map on page 7 of the booklet showing the pipeline system diagramatically. It does not produce the horrors of a great criss-crossing of the countryside throughout the length and breadth of the land, either underground or overground, as was implied by some of the remarks made in the debate.
In connection with this pipeline system the Gas Council is also planning a nationwide radio network for telemetric control. The intention is that the system will ultimately provide channels for speech, teleprinter circuits and computer networks, as well as control. It is the technical view of the Gas Council that this is the most effective way to operate it. It is not for the Ministry to direct the Gas Council how to operate the industry technically. It is well established that the day-to-day management and running of this and other nationalised industries is a matter for the governing boards—or, in this case, council—of the industries. It has been concluded that this, technically, is the best way of operating the new system. How effectively it will come under planning control I have indicated already.
The reason for the proposal is that control by radio link, which is a comparatively new development, gives a much greater degree of reliability than landlines which have been used until recently for the control of pipelines. It is of particular importance for the natural gas pipeline system which will be operating at high pressures and transmitting large quantities of gas.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, there are no reasons to believe that the industry and the Ministry are in conflict on their responsibilities in law in this respect, under any legislation within which the industry is now laying down the pipeline system.

531
To throw these wild adjectives about, as if the industry or the Ministry were not concerned with the safety of the public, is nonsensical. In the interests of safety and ensuring maintenance of supplies it is clearly necessary to have as reliable a control system as is technically practicable, and this is provided by a radio link system. In other words, it is the opposite of what the hon. Member for Gainsborough suggested. The industry seeks to establish the most effective way of controlling the pipeline supply flow.
The system requires receiving aerials at the control installations on the pipelines where gas is metered before off-takes are made to area boards and gas flows regulated. The Council is, therefore, including provision for these aerials in applications being made for planning consent for the control installations. I understand that two such applications have so far been made and that others will follow.
These receiving aerials normally require only a pole mast with an aerial array on top, similar to that on a domestic television aerial. The height of the pole would depend on the contours of the site and surroundings, but often would not be more than about 50 ft. The system would also require aerials at points giving line-of-sight vision with the receiving aerials. The distances between these relay points would usually be between 20 and 30 miles. The height of the masts would depend on the contours of the land surrounding the particular site, but are likely to be 150 ft. or more in height and involve a trellis-type mast.
This form of radio communications system is already being operated, or is in process of being developed, by a number of other organisations; the G.P.O., broadcasting authorities, Home Office and electricity and gas boards. The requirements of the various users are co-ordinated by the G.P.O., which allocates radio frequencies. The approval of the G.P.O. is thus required before a system for radio communications can be adopted and, before allocating a frequency, the G.P.O. needs to be satisfied that the adoption of such a system is technically justified.
532
The Gas Council will be submitting an application to the G.P.O. for an allocation of frequencies. It is hoping to do this shortly. In considering it, the G.P.O. will be concerned with the technical requirements and need for the system. If the G.P.O. agrees to allocate a frequency, this will not carry with it any planning consent and the Gas Council will have to seek such consent in the normal way, under planning procedures. I hope that this reassures hon. Gentlemen opposite.
As I have said, the Gas Council is including provision for a receiving aerial, if this is required, in planning applications for installations at offtake points on the pipeline route, but separate applications will have to be made for relay masts where these are required.
The other organisations using radio systems have already selected some of the allocations most suitable for this form of communication, and the Gas Council intends, wherever possible, to use these existing sites. In other words, it will be seeking—and we shall encourage it to do so—to avoid unnecessary proliferation. This will, of course, require the agreement of the existing users but, subject to this, it is hoped that, in the majority of cases, the Council's requirements can be met by using existing sites. Where new sites have to be obtained because sharing is not possible, these will provide scope for use by other organisations and reduce the need for them to obtain new sites.
This sharing of sites is accepted policy and machinery exists for co-ordinating requirements, both of the nationalised fuel industries and of other users of these radio systems. While the technical planning of the system is still provisional and subject to consideration by the G.P.O., it seems likely, on present expectations, that about 50 relay points will be required throughout the United Kingdom, most of which, it is hoped, will be on existing sites.
I hope that the House will consider this general outline to cover the matter in reasonable detail, certainly at this hour. I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite accept that it would be wrong to convey the idea to the public that a new attempt is being made to desecrate the countryside. I wish to make it clear personally, as well as speaking for the Department, that I take second place to no

533
hon. Member in wanting to avoid the unnecessary destruction of amenities and the natural beauty of the countryside.
Mr. Farr: Can the hon. Gentleman indicate complete satisfaction by giving a clear and categorical assurance that a local planning authority will have effective power to prohibit the installation of a relay mast if an application is made and the local planning authority does not approve?
Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member is leading me on to ground—
Mr. Farr: Can the hon. Gentleman say "Yes"?
Mr. Freeson: I cannot say "Yes", because the hon. Member is leading me on to ground more appropriately covered by the Minister of Housing and Local Government. No local planning authority in the country has such absolute authority. There are rights of appeal and procedures whereby people can appeal in connection with any planning application against the decision of a planning authority, and the appeal may be upheld. This is the only qualifying point I make. The same applies in cases where the decision is not acceptable to the applicant. In this case it would be the Gas Council and no doubt there would be an appeal, but this is not special to the Gas Council; it is a right which can be exercised by any applicant.
Mr. Kimball: Will the hon. Gentleman see that the equipment which the Gas Council uses is of British manufacture wherever possible?
Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member should not need to ask that question, because it is the policy of the nationalised industries to buy British equipment wherever possible. The hon. Member should not press this point too far, because there is a long history attaching to it. It cannot be laid at the door of the Gas Council or of this Government that the industry has not been able to be provided with all the equipment it needs. A failure in the past goes far beyond the period of office of this Government. The hon. Member should not pursue that point too much or a number of valid points might be thrown across the Floor of the House.
I hope that I have been able to give the hon. Member for Harborough general
534
assurance. There is no attempt here to run not over the countryside any more than there was with telegraph poles. This is an attempt to produce a satisfactory technical system which is necessary and also to pay the fullest possible regard to the natural beauty of the countryside which it is the responsibility of all of us to try to preserve.

WASH BARRAGE
2.18 a.m.
Sir David Renton: I wish to draw attention to the urgent need for a feasibility study of a barrage across the Wash. Such a study would take several years and would cost £1½ million, but a preliminary desk study would take less than a year and I am told that it would cost no more than £100,000. If it were found possible to build a Wash barrier it would cost, the Water Resources Board estimates, £287 million, but this would be spread over 10 or 15 years and it would have enormous advantages for south-east England, including London as well as for the area adjoining the Wash, including King's Lynn. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) will, I hope, catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later.
Against that fairly large cost there would be many advantages which would make it a splendid investment of great national value. First, water conservation and storage; second, reclamation of about 40,000 acres of farmland at present covered by the watery wastes of the Wash; third, conservation of thousands of acres of existing farm land which might otherwise have to be flooded to provide water reservoirs; fourth, creation of a new industrial and shipping centre at King's Lynn; fifth, improved coast protection which at present in that part of the country costs a great deal of money annually; sixth, direct road communication between East Anglia and Lincolnshire and through there to the North; and last, but perhaps not least, wonderful new pleasure amenities for the people.
I shall confine myself to the water supply and agricultural advantages of a Wash barrage and in doing so I shall rely entirely upon the recommendations of the Water Resources Board and the reports made to it by its consultant engineers, Messrs. Binnie and Partners. In a very

535
detailed report which the Board said in its 1966 Annual Report it had found very useful, Messrs. Binnie and Partners said, on page 50:
"We think it likely that the many problems involved in conversion of the Wash to a freshwater reservoir can be overcome, but a thorough feasibility study supported by site investigations and model tests, is required to establish this and to determine the best line of enclosure."
In its Annual Report for the year ended 30th September, 1966, the Board very properly dealt in considerable detail with the needs of the South-East of England and in paragraph 20 referred to the "central area", which includes London and the whole of South-East England from Dorset to the Wash, except for East Norfolk and East Suffolk and counties whose shores touch the English Channel. It said:
"The cumulative deficiency in the central area at the end of the century—650 m.g.d.—is comparable with the yield estimated for a barrage across the Wash. The Report on the Water Resources of the Great Ouse Basin … suggested that this might provide about 620 m.g.d. for a capital outlay of £287 million at today's prices. A barrage scheme, however, could not be relied upon to be completed before the early 1980s and therefore cannot help to meet demands before then. Nevertheless, a feasibility study should be undertaken without delay, as the Committee recommend, so that the facts about obtaining water in this way may be available for comparative appraisal later with the prospects for bringing in water from the Severn or Wye or elsewhere."
I should mention in passing that, although it did not go deeply into the comparative costs of these other schemes, it mentioned that they might be very expensive indeed and not so good a solution as the Wash barrage.
The Board mentioned various other ways in which that deficiency of 650 million gallons a day might be partly dealt with, including, first, desalination. Great hopes have been raised about desalination, but, alas, in spite of the money spent on research, we are still a long way from getting water cheaply enough by that method.
The Water Resources Board also mentioned underground storage, and to this it gave high priority. It said that investigations should start immediately, and some work has started on exploring the possibilities of that. But there is no certainty that underground storage will go far to meet that great deficiency of
536
water storage space which will be required by the end of the century or even that it will go far to meet the smaller amounts required by 1981.
The Water Resources Board, among other possibilities, mentioned the flooding of farmland to provide surface storage reservoirs. But as to that, at page 37 of its 1966 Report, it said:
"In our proposed programme, construction of big new surface storage reservoirs in the central area is envisaged only to supplement or to follow the development of the groundwater resources and, with the exception of one major scheme for the Welland and Nene area, need not commence until after 1975. Indeed, our concern to keep to a minimum the demand upon agricultural land has been a major factor in shaping our recommendations with their provision for a reappraisal in the early 1970s. In the unlikely event of all the reservoirs listed "—
and seven are listed in the Committee's Report as being required—
"… about 35,000 acres of land would be inundated. This is equivalent to an average annual loss of 1,000 acres over the 35 years to the end of the century. These are large acreages but we emphasise that we are not yet committed to requiring them."
Let us hope that if some foresight is shown by the Government in following the other recommendations, including the possibilities of the Wash, not all those acreages will be required. Surely any sensible person contemplating this country's future, with a vast increase in population, with farmland being taken to house the people, and with the prospect of food rationing by the end of the century, would want to avoid flooding farmland merely for water storage when other projects may be available.
Surface reservoirs are merely nibbling at the problem. To me they are just miserable "ad hockery". I hope that that expression will be forgiven at this hour of the morning!
The seven new reservoirs listed in the Report include one at Abbotsley, in my constituency, where 2,200 acres of really good land which is very well farmed might be flooded at a cost of at least £10 million, but that would yield only 32 million gallons per day. The other six schemes for reservoirs mentioned as being possibly required by 1981, if other methods fail, would store only comparable amounts of water—some more, some less. Taking them all together, they would not provide even half of what the barrage would provide.

537
It has also been pointed out by the consulting engineers that if all these storage reservoirs were built, the availability of the water for the Wash would be less. In other words, the barrage and the water reservoirs combined would provide less water than theoreticaly all of them would do cumulatively.
It was for that reason that in its recommendations on page 77 of its final Report on the Water Resources for south-east England the Water Resources Board said:
"A feasibility investigation and cost benefit study of the Wash barrage project should be put in hand immediately so that consideration of the project could be included in a general review of regional storage schemes in the early 1970s."
That is not many years ahead.
Of course, it follows from that that if no such study is made, the general review, which will have to take place in the early 1970s, will be ill informed and quite inadequate. If no such study is made, the Government will have flouted the expert advice of the Water Resources Board, a statutory body which is highly respected and appointed to advise and warn and guide the Government on this vital problem of water supplies. Good farmland might have to be flooded which need not be flooded, a tragedy which should be avoided if possible. It could also mean that 40,000 acres which might be reclaimed from the Wash would remain part of the watery wastes of salt water for more years than need be. Other opportunities would also have been missed by the Government, including the considerable increase in food production which could result from providing more water for spray irrigation for farming than would otherwise be available if the Wash barrage were not created.
It may be—I do not know—that in the next few months the Government are to announce a splendid policy to stabilise the population of the United Kingdom at, say, 60 million people by 1981. If so, the Government should say so and I would be delighted. The whole complexion of this problem would then be altered, but if the Government accept the population growth figures on which the Board's recommendations and advice to the Government were based, then the Government must either at once accept the Board's recommendations for a feasi-
538
bility study for the Wash, or say why they refuse to do so. One of those two things must surely emerge tonight.
If, as one suspects, the refusal is based on lack of funds, the Government should at least agree to make a start by spending £100,000 on the desk study. It would be total folly not to do so, because it is obvious that this study will have to be made sooner or later and the Board said that it should be done immediately.
If a country the size of Holland can drain the Zuider Zee, we should be ashamed if we fail even to study, or to make a desk study, of the possibility of a barrage across the Wash.
2.35 a.m.
Mr. Derek Page: I have great pleasure in supporting the case put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). Understandably and rightly, he has paid a great deal of attention to the water conservation aspects of this great and imaginative scheme, but I have a strong feeling that the reason why our pleas for a feasibility study have been cold shouldered is that other aspects have not been properly taken into account and that, in spite of assurances given in Answers to Questions, there has been a tendency for the admittedly large cost of the ultimate scheme to be put on water alone and for the Department therefore to say that we cannot pay about 12s. per thousand gallons for water. But this is only a very small part of the picture and it is imperative that all the aspects should be fully considered.
It is extremely difficult to put a figure on flood control, for instance, but we know that the cost of the floods which have occurred from time to time in the East Anglian coastal areas has been incalculable, certainly running into multi-millions and in spite of improved coast defences, the statistical risk of millions of pounds worth of flood damage being caused again from time to time is undeniable. The Wash barrage would certainly be the only way in which to give assurance to these areas.
It would be quite unthinkable for the important ports of the Wash area to be cut off and therefore there would have to be provision for locks in any barrage. It would be impossible to build such

539
locks simply to cater for the ports as they now stand and we have to think in much bigger terms, because once the tidal surge in and out of the Wash had been stabilised, the dredging of channels would become simple and we would have the makings of a sort of British-Europort, the "Anglian Port" as it has sometimes been called. Preliminary studies suggest that the largest ship now afloat could be brought into such a port, taking goods to and from the heart of the Midlands, and offering tremendous relief to the Port of London which is now so dreadfully overcrowded. As far as I know, nobody has made a proper study of the cost benefit of such gigantic potential port facilities. I believe that the benefit could well outweigh many times over the water that we have been talking about.
Apart from ports, we have heard of the possible land reclamation, not only the saving of land which otherwise would be flooded, but the reclamation of 40,000 acres, or something like 60 square miles of additional land. That land might or might not be usable for agriculture, since it would be drained rapidly and, with little chance of silt building up, it might not be suitable.
There is a lot of talk about the buildup of overspill towns in East Anglia and of industry based on North Sea gas. We are all bemused by the use of gas for domestic purposes, but the big revolution will come with the development of large-scale industry based on gas. A few weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to see the tremendous factory development in parts of the southern States of America. It is tremendously impressive, but what a colossal impact it has on the appearance of those areas. I am sure that the people there are grateful for the extra income, but I do not know that I would like to see some of the effects of the factory building having a similar impact on the Norfolk coastal area.
There is no doubt that economic pressures will tend to drive the factories towards the well-heads. It would seem a God-given opportunity to use recovered land in the Wash area for such factories. I regard their development as inevitable, but I would hate to see Norfolk beauty spots spoilt. This 60 square miles of
540
additional land would be a perfect location for industry, right on top of the gas well-heads and on top of any port facilities which would be available, as well as having the massive amounts of water which are always necessary for industry.
The cost benefit of this type of development needs careful evaluation. I am not convinced that this has yet been done. I do not see how it could be done by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, much as I respect the quality of my right hon. and hon. Friends in that Department. There appears to be an unanswerable case for an economic and social study as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire. The cost would certainly not be more than £100,000 and might be considerably less. This is a fleabite. Such a study is necessary to answer the questions which are being raised tonight.
This is a great and imaginative project which would capture the whole of our scientific and industrial imagination. It would certainly give tremendous scope for the technological surge that we have heard talked about so often. I urge that consideration of the project should be transferred to the Department of Economic Affairs, which is the only Department with the scope to consider the numerous aspects involved.
The Government have, rightly, set up the Hunt Committee to consider the special problems of areas of comparatively low economic activity. My hon. Friends and myself have drawn attention to low earnings in parts of East Anglia. There is no doubt that the Government have taken the right step in setting up this Committee to investigate the possible changes in policy which would answer the low standards of living suffered by so many of the constituents of hon. and right hon. Members. A great and imaginative project, such as the Wash barrage, could go a long way to stimulate the right sort of development. The case for a social and economic study is completely unanswerable, and I urge my hon. Friend that he should agree, here and now, to recommend to his right hon. Friend the First Secretary that such a study should be undertaken by the one Department which can give it appropriate consideration, the Department of Economic Affairs.
2.43 p.m.
Mr. Richard Body: Before I follow the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) in discussing the exciting potentialities of the Wash barrage, may I ask the House not to overlook that there are a number of people who earn their livelihood in and around the Wash, and others whose recreation is to be found there. At the moment there is about eight square miles of deep-sea fishing that would almost certainly be lost if the Wash dam came about. Also there are those who gather mussels, cockles and shrimps from the area. The naturalist too, has something to lose from the erection of a dam.
If one goes from Fosdyke Dock, where the Welland goes out to the sea, one can walk 10 miles or more and not see a soul and scarcely a house, until one reaches the old lighthouse, not far from King John's Farm. One can then cross the river down at Sutton Bridge and walk for another 10 miles until one reaches Admiralty Point, and again not see any sign of human habitation. This is where the common seal is to be found and where, unfortunately, too many of them are being destroyed.
It is a mecca for wildfowlers and a place where lovers of nature can find uncommon plants and see unusual birds. The Wash dam will bring this rare part of England to an end. It will be sad if that comes about. Reluctantly I conclude that it will be necessary. Nothing can compensate the naturalists and the wildfowlers, but for the fisherman, if a golden bowler is not to be an appropriate headgear for them to be given, there should at least be put into their hands a silver net.
As I understand it, the one objection the Government have to the Wash dam is the huge cost involved. As all of us who are interested in the Wash dam know, the Binnie report has estimated that £287 million would be the cost of this venture. That, it goes without saying, is a huge sum, but one must examine that sum in the context of the amount of money we have already spent on water supplies since the war and the amount we shall have to spend in the next two or three decades. The money spent since the war on increasing water supplies
542
adds up to no less than £800 million. We must spend much more than that in the next two or three decades to meet the demands which were outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend. I believe that to obtain the additional 650 million gallons a day that the South-East of England will require we shall have to spend a capital sum of at least £200 million. I cannot see any lesser figure being realistic.
Not only shall we be expending money, we shall be expending land, and it is almost impossible to calculate now the capital value of the land which will be eaten up—that is not the right word: drowned, I should say—by those reservoirs. My right hon. and learned Friend named one reservoir. I think he gave a figure of £10 million. Certainly, the total sum must be very much greater than that. The Wash dam, on the other hand, will mean reclamation of a large number of acres.
The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) calculated 40,000 acres. There have been other calculations, he knows only too well, and I think he was being rather lenient to the antagonists of the scheme when he said 40,000, because others have gone up to 80,000. Of course, 40,000 is a fair figure of the land which will be of use to agriculture, and he knows how valuable agricultural land is in his constituency, and in my case, over the county border, land is even more valuable. Only a fortnight ago a 90-acre farm went for more than £700 an acre, and nothing in Norfolk can equal that. There is rich land in Lincolnshire, and it is valuable land, and if those 40,000 acres were reclaimed there is no doubt that it would be most valuable—not less, I think, than £16 million.
Again, I think one ought to set off the quite considerable cost each year in coastal protection. I believe that the figure is now running at about £300,000 a year round the Wash. If one were to capitalise that, I suppose it would be fair to put it at £20 million. Therefore, those items ought to be set off against the £287 million which has been estimated by Binnie and Partners.
The Wash dam, as the hon. Member for King's Lynn showed us so clearly, would prove an enormous capital asset. Across it could run a major highway to

543
relieve the existing A17 road and act as a link between Humberside and the East Anglian ports, the growth areas around King's Lynn, and indeed down to London as well. It is within the realms of possibility that we could have built on the dam a new Europort to serve our trade between Rotterdam and the manufacturing areas in the Midlands, which are the two major growth points on either side of the Channel.
I believe that fish farming within the dam may well be an economic proposition. Today the deep-sea trawler costs £500,000, and maintenance comes to about £100,000 a year, and these costs are increasing rapidly. Some of the pundits predict that fish may soon become an expensive commodity if it is to be obtained from the sea by present-day methods. In years to come, quite different methods of fishing may be needed, such as electrocuting fish bred in reservoirs. If this is so, the Wash dam would be a most valuable asset for commercial fishing.
Then there is the recreation which would be available, especially for those keen on sailing. This is a recreation which gains more adherents every year, and decades hence one can visualise the Wash dam serving a most valuable purpose for recreation.
There is one more point about costs. I think that the hon. Member for King's Lynn gave the figure of 12s. per thousand gallons. I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman got that figure from, but from the various reports which we have had, and from the various experts who have given opinions on this project, I understand that if one obtains 200 million gallons a day from the Wash the cost of water will work out at 5s. 4d. per thousand gallons, but if that is increased to 620 million gallons a day, the cost will be 3s. 5d. per thousand gallons. This is just about the average cost of water for users in this country; and that is the extra quantity of water that we will need in south-east England.
The figure which I have given, and the calculations which I have made, are based on the original estimate of £287 million as the cost of the Wash dam, but as those who take part in these debates, and who have studied the poten-
544
tialities of it know, Binnie and Partners are not the only ones who have examined the possibilities of the Wash dam. The hon. Member for King's Lynn and I went to Holland some months ago and saw how much was being achieved in the Rhine delta. We saw how the brilliant Dutch engineers were transforming countless acres of Holland. They were doing it by economic means and enterprising methods. We had an opportunity of discussing the Wash with them. They were unanimous in their belief that the Wash dam was a practical proposition. I had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of the leading consultant engineer in the Rhine delta. I invited him to this country to examine the situation, and he visited the National Hydraulic Laboratory and the Wash. He said categorically that the Wash dam is most certainly an economic as well as a practical proposition. Although he had more scanty material than Messrs. Binnie and Partners, he estimates the cost to be less than they envisaged.
It is significant that two other Dutch engineers have given a detailed account of what they consider the Wash dam might cost. Mr. De Weger and Professor Jansen have been here to study it and have concluded that the cost need not be more than £150 million—much less than the figure suggested by Messrs. Binnie and Partners. They have urged three phases for the dam, starting with a technical feasibility study, which they say could be completed within six months. If the scheme seems feasible they recommend going on to a detailed design study, which would take two years, followed by the third phase, the construction period, lasting seven years. The advantage of the three-phase system would be that the work could be brought to a halt at the end of the first or second phase without undue waste of money.
In rejecting the feasibility study, has the Minister considered the views publicly expressed by Professor Jansen and Mr. De Weger? If their views have been considered, why have they been rejected? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not say that the only opinion that has been considered is that contained in the report by Messrs. Binnie and Partners.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for King's Lynn that the case for a feasibility study is absolutely unanswerable.

545
I hope that tonight we shall hear that at last the Government have had second thoughts and now realise that soon it will be desperately urgent to go ahead with the feasibility study.
2.58 a.m.
Mr. Bert Hazell: I support the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). This is a matter that has caused considerable concern and great interest among hon. Members from East Anglia on both sides of the House. That is shown by the desire of hon. Members to take part in this short debate.
We feel that there are distinct possibilities of advantage to be gained from fully investigating the opportunity of using the Wash to meet the shortage of water, particularly in the South-East, which is notoriously the driest part of the country and is also one of the best agricultural areas. From an agricultural point of view alone, the use of water is now much greater than it was formerly, and therefore the demand from agriculture will be enormous. But the area is also one where new towns will be developed, and this, together with the needs of industry, means that the demand for water will be very great. I agree that we are not as courageous as our forefathers or the Dutch in reclaiming coast land. If our forefathers had been as timid as we appear to be, much of Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and Norfolk would still be inundated. They reclaimed what is now some of the most productive land in the country and we owe them much.
We lost much good land to the ravages of the sea and ought to be grateful for the opportunities of reclamation and not baulk at the small cost. The Wash provides a glorious opportunity. This is the chance to secure water from an area which not only will not take up good land but will provide some into the bargain. The Government's proposal to create vast reservoirs and explore the possibility of underground schemes on the Great Ouse and in the Lambourn Valley is causing great concern in the area. My association, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association have been holding meetings in the area which would be inundated by the reservoirs, trying to draw attention to the serious consequences for agriculture.
546
The Government have argued that, after a feasibility study, there would be no guarantee that an attempt would be practicable, but the current investigations into reservoirs and underground schemes are no guarantee of ample supplies of water in future. There is a good deal of doubt as to whether they will supply the needs of that part of the country. We should consider a feasibility study together with the Government's other proposals and should not wait unnecessarily long for the results of the investigations.
I condemn the use of good arable land for reservoirs if there is another possibility. We are losing too much good land for other essential developments. Because of this, and the need to maintain and increase the production of food from our own soil, we should consider seriously before using good land if we can meet the nation's requirements from another angle.
The cost of the feasibility study has been discussed from time to time. I do not think one can measure cost in this kind of issue. While £1 million or ·l½ million may seem a lot of money in the present economic difficulties, in the long term it is a mere fleabite and we should not boggle at this expenditure.
Following the protest meetings—joint meetings for the first time of farmers, landowners and workers—it was decided to send a deputation to meet the Minister. As president of my organisation, I accompanied that delegation only a few weeks ago. The Parliamentary Secretary was present at that meeting. The deputation, presenting its case, pointed out many features to which previous speakers have referred. The Minister said that it would be three years before the Government had an indication whether the current investigations would be worth while and five years before they had a complete picture of whether these schemes were likely to meet long-term requirements. At that time, it might be proved that the current investigation will not bring a solution and then one would start five years later on probing the possibility of the Wash barrage.
That is why I said that we should at the same time explore the possibility of the Wash barrier. An hon. Member opposite referred to the possibility of a desk study before embarking on the feasibility

547
study but I would have thought it better to go for the feasibility study and see once and for all whether the ideas of engineers who have looked at this over the years are practicable and if it will meet the requirements of this developing area for the long term. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be impressed by the fact that hon. Members on both sides are, for various reasons, unanimous in their opinion that detailed investigations into the possibility of the Wash barrage should not be put in the background, but be dealt with straight away.
3.10 a.m.
Mr. Paul Hawkins: I rise eagerly even at this late hour to support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the hon. Members for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) and Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) and others in this debate, which is a very worthwhile one.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have formed themselves into a Wash Study Group. We have had many people to talk to us on the subject, and we feel that it is worth waiting up till this time of the morning to discuss it. We have studied it to the best of our ability, and we feel that it is an exciting plan and that if it were put into operation it could transform the outlook of millions of people.
My constituency—although the Boundary Commission has other ideas—does not touch the Wash. But through my constituency runs the Great Ouse which will form part of the water supply if the Wash has a barrage. There also runs through it the great relief channel which has saved thousands of acres from flooding over the last few years. The Dutch engineer, Vermuiden, came to my constituency in about 1600. Strangely enough, his final plans were carried out only when the relief channel was built, almost entirely to his plans in 1600.
I was worried when I heard the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), whose countryside I know very well—it is a marvellous place for getting away from people, and I like to visit it after a time spent here—for they were only too true. I was frightened
548
that the build-up of hostility which occurred towards Vermuiden on the part of the people who fished and shot in the waters of the Fens around Ely might be repeated today. But I am sure that the Government will not repeat those arguments.
The adventurers started about Vermuiden's time. They were people who had ventured their money in the drainage of that wonderful area, the Black Fens of Norfolk and the Isle of Ely, producing for us land which today is some of the richest in the country.
Mr. Body: Second best!
Mr. Hawkins: I must admit that it is not quite as good as that in Holland with Boston, but it will be in future. The scheme is badly needed because of the growth of population in the country and because of the demand for water from industrial, agricultural and domestic users. I have in my constituency a man who this year, when practically every blackcurrant crop has been destroyed, has a bumper crop and is advertising for 500 women to pick it. This is simply because he installed an overhead irrigation plant which stopped the frost affecting his blackcurrant acreage. Because of housing improvements, domestic users are demanding more and more water. The scheme would provide a quantity of water large enough to meet future demand, not just the estimated demand—often in the past the estimated demand has proved an under-estimate—but all foreseeable demands.
The scheme would save several thousands of acres. I sat on a small special committee for six weeks about a year ago considering the construction of a reservoir for Teesdale and learned a lot about the amount of land which is gradually or quickly disappearing below water and what that can mean for many purposes. In addition, there will be the road across the barrage to link the Midlands with East Anglia. Gas from the North Sea will be coming ashore, and it will be possible to build big plants for it on land reclaimed. Further, the reclamation of land will give young farmers a chance, which they have not had for many years, to have additional land to farm, and farm workers, too, will have the benefit of more work opportunities.

549
Now, a word about amenity value. Sailing is becoming an extremely popular sport. The education committee of the Norfolk County Council, of which I am a member, has recently been trying to find extra broads and acres of water in order to teach sailing to the enormous number of grammar school, secondary modern and other school children who are demanding this type of recreation in Norfolk and East Anglia.
It is a most exciting project. The country badly needs it. I beg the Minister to think about it again. It is an all-party project. We hope to see it go ahead in my lifetime, within the next few years.
3.15 a.m.
Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I support everything said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and by other hon. Members. Anyone who has had the good fortune to see the work which the Dutch are doing on the delta and to go out to the North Sea gas rigs cannot but suppose that a feasibility study of the Wash barrage is an essential link in the technical reconnaissance of the development potential of East Anglia. I greatly hope that, after tonight, it will cease to be a missing link.
I shall concentrate on the question of water supply. We always tend to underestimate future demands for water rather than overprovide for them. This seems likely to be true of the use of water in agriculture. On page 70, table S, the Report tells us that the use of water for irrigation is likely to be doubled between 1965 and 2001, from 17,000 million to 35,000 million gallons seasonal use in the year of peak demand, and about 30,000 million gallons of storage space is likely to be in use in 1981, mostly in small farm reservoirs.
In at least two ways, these assumptions may be proved false. Appendix III shows that the ultimate limits for irrigation demand in each river authority's area as estimated by the Ministry of Agriculture are in most cases markedly higher than the estimates for the year 2001 worked out by the Water Resources Board. Therefore, it is at least possible that those ultimate limits may be reached earlier than 2001.
550
Second, the assumption running through the Report is that what are described as low value crops, that is, mainly sugar beet and grassland, will generally use only water which is available for direct abstraction and will not as a rule justify expenditure on conservation works.
That assumption could also easily be proved wrong. Already, in several cases the use of water on grassland has been shown to be most profitable, provided such grassland is itself converted efficiently into either milk or meat. If our agriculture is to expand to its full potential, whether we are in or out of the European Economic Community, we must expect some pressure towards higher productivity from grassland, and irrigation plus fertiliser undoubtedly offers most scope for extra productivity.
Thirdly, if there is any marked improvement, in cost and labour, in spraying water over the land, that, in itself, will lead to a faster and greater use of water. Those are reasons why the agricultural demand has probably been under-estimated. No doubt similar uncertainties about the validity of these estimates of future demand exist in other respects. Conversely, estimates of future supply may prove over-optimistic.
Throughout the Report and the country the possibility of the Wash barrage stands as a huge imponderable alternative source of supply. It may easily make good all of and more than the prospective regional deficiency which will develop in the last quarter of this century. All we know for certain is that the Wash barrage could not be of much help before 1981. Conversely, all the rest is necessarily conjectural in its scope and detail. It might, on close examination, prove too difficult or too costly in relation to its effectiveness. On the other hand, new techniques in sea wall building may make its construction much less formidable and less costly than has hitherto been supposed.
It is of great advantage to resolve these doubts. To know that the Wash barrage is a practicable and economic proposition is valuable in itself, and the earlier such knowledge is gained the more valuable it is. We can argue whether we want to go straight for the full feasibility study or whether, in view of the load on resources, both real—in

551
the sense of the technical resources required—and financial, it might be better to start with a desk study, which would be comparatively cheap.
That could be amplified if it pointed towards the probability of ultimate success, but the fact that such a study was being undertaken would be the best earnest of the Government's sincerity that they mean to protect good farmland, and it would reduce the opposition of the farming community to the taking of land for large surface reservoirs.
Otherwise each new reservoir is likely, at any rate in its own locality, and probably over a much wider area, to be opposed as Stansted airfield was opposed. The Government's present decision about Stansted airfield is alleged to be justified because of the time factor and because it claims that an insufficiently detailed study was made of alternative sites in earlier years. If that argument were true of Stansted, I beg the Government not to repeat that mistake now in relation to the study of the Wash barrage. If the Government do, they will—as they claim previous Governments have done about Stansted—have left the detailed study until it is too late to be of use.
3.25 p.m.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Whatever reply the Minister is to give us, I have no doubt that sooner or later we will build a Wash barrage. We shall do it for the simple reason that in the end we shall not be able to afford to do otherwise. It is not a question of if, but only a question of when, just as it is not a question of whether we join the European Economic Community, but rather a question of when and on what terms.
The reasons why we shall eventually build the Wash barrage are as simple and basic as food and drink itself. We shall dam the Wash partly for water to enable our growing population to have enough to drink and we shall also do it for food, so that children yet unborn will have home-grown food to grow up on.
There is another reason, and that is that we shall do it to have enough lebensraum for our people to live, to play and enjoy themselves in recreation such as water sports. In short, we will be
552
tackling this job, if not to improve the quality of life for the next generation, then at least to prevent the present quality of life from deteriorating as far as otherwise I fear is likely.
I want now to deal with matters concerning my constituency. West Suffolk is involved in an extremely ambitious expansion programme. We have 130,000 people and we are being asked to add another 40,000 in the next 15 years. Given a reasonable improvement in the standard of living, it appears that the demand for domestic water for the people of West Suffolk to drink and wash in will double over the next 10 to 15 years. Alongside this new population is industry. We are not getting enough industry to match our growing population. We are getting some and with it another vast increase in the area's demand for water. The same goes for farming.
More and more of our arable farmers, who are among the best in the world, are turning to irrigation. If the Minister would come with me I could show him this weekend, in the villages of West Suffolk, many irrigation units which are helping to produce bigger and better crops. One thing that is certain is that irrigation will go on increasing. This is true of the livestock industry. The nation badly needs more meat, and East Anglian farmers are moving over to bigger and more intensive units for pigs, poultry and cattle.
Does the Minister realise how much water the intensive pig unit uses? From my own experience I would reckon that in a modern fattening house, for drinking and cleaning one has to count on something not far short of 20 to 25 gallons of water per animal every day.
When one adds it all up—new people, new industries and new farming methods—the fact stares one in the face, namely that the demand for more water in East Anglia is growing quite prodigiously, and so too is the cost of providing it. Already we face the need to carry water from the Great Ouse catchment area to the Stour Valley area over long distances and at great expense. Simultaneously, the price of water is going up at a very rapid rate. I do not suggest that we yet face a great water shortage, but we have temporary water shortages almost every summer. So far, West Suffolk has rarely faced a major drought. What the future

553
may hold is a different matter. I have no doubt that the capital investment required to meet our growing needs will be well beyond the capacity of our local resources.
West Suffolk, like most of East Anglia, badly needs new sources of water and the Wash may be able to provide it. I do not say that this is certain; I do not know and the Minister does not know. It may be that the feasibility study we are seeking will show that the Wash is inadequate, but it is surely essential before we go on with all our vast expansions in East Anglia at least to examine the feasibility of getting more water from the Wash. To do this is a matter of urgency now before it is too late.
My second point concerns land. One aspect is the land we might gain by draining part of the Wash, but I am more concerned with the land which we are certain to lose in my constituency if the Wash barrage scheme is not adequate. We use land well in West Suffolk and we do not want to lose it any faster than we are already losing it through new roads, concrete and pylons. Yet there is the prospect in the southern part of my constituency that the Government might push through a scheme to flood 3,000 acres of good cornland in the area of Great Bradley to create a purely stop-gap surface reservoir to feed parts of Essex.
When the Water Resources Board made its Report on the South-East, it recommended a series of actions, one of which was that borings should be taken in Great Bradley and another that a feasibility study should be made of the Wash. The Minister of the day thereupon announced that he accepted the Report of the Water Resources Board as a whole. The House will note that he did not say, "I accept the Report with the exception of the feasibility study, which I do not accept". Oh, no: he accepted the Report as a whole. Farmers in my constituency took him at his word. I could have told them that that was a rather rash thing to do. Hardly was the ink dry on his acceptance of the Report as a whole than the Minister was trying to escape from his commitment to the Wash barrage study.
Some hon. Friends and I suspected that he was trying to do this and, on 14th November last year, we took him to task about it. It was the right hon. Member
554
for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) who replied:
"I welcome this chance to emphasise that the Government have not yet committed themselves either for or against a feasibility study of the Wash barrage project."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1966; Vol. 736, c. 2.]
I then warned the Minister by letter that in the case of the Great Bradley reservoir some of my constituents had agreed to admit water board surveyors to their property in the belief that he had accepted the feasibility study. I went on to say that their co-operation would not be forthcoming if he went back on what they understood to be a firm commitment on his part. The right hon. Gentleman chose to ignore this warning, which was repeated in correspondence to him. The result is that the farmers of Great Bradley are flatly refusing to admit the surveyors and, with the support of the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association and the National Union of Agricultural Workers, they are determined to go on refusing until he changes his mind and authorises the Wash study.
It is quite impossible for me to endorse this defiant stand, but I understand and sympathise with the attitude which the farmers have adopted, for the land which the Minister wishes to cover by the reservoir is lost for eternity. There is no chance of going back on this. The corn will be lost, the homes drowned and production will be finished. Before taking so drastic and irretrievable a step, it is incumbent upon any Government to weigh up all the alternatives to see whether, at any reasonable price, any other solution can be found, and that is precisely what the Board recommended. It said that the Government should look at the Wash.
The Minister has so far refused to do that. I hope that tonight we shall be told that he has changed his mind. He does not know whether there is a sensible alternative to the drowning of Great Bradley and other parts of East Anglia. Yet in his ignorance of the alternatives, and knowing that he is ignorant, he still persists apparently in pushing for the Great Bradley scheme, which will ruin the lives of some of my constituents, take away 3,000 acres of valuable land and destroy the amenities of at least two villages.

555
It is the injustice that I and my constituents so deplore. First, the Government asked the Board to make an investigation. When the Board recommended a Wash study in a report, the Government accepted those parts of the report which suited them and rejected the Wash study, apparently out of hand. It is, as has been said, the Stansted story all over again and the farmers will not stand for it.
Where once they were co-operative, now they have dug their toes in—and when Suffolk farmers decide to be stubborn they are very tough and determined customers who will not just fall into line. A resolution on the Wash barrage passed by 60 representatives of the N.F.U., the C.L.A. and the N.U.A.W. said:
"That this meeting … resolves that save in respect of those urgent local schemes where co-operation has already been forthcoming, they will do everything in their power to prevent any future agricultural land being taken for surface reservoirs until the Government has authorised the expeditious carrying out of a full feasibility study of the Wash Barrage Scheme."
This is not an idle statement but a declaration by men who mean precisely what they say, who are highly responsible and law-abiding citizens and who are not prepared to have their farms flooded by a Government who will not even take the trouble to find out in advance whether it is necessary. If the Minister is wise, and I hope and believe that he is, he will head off this revolt of the farming community by putting in hand at least the early stages of a feasibility study. He may argue against it on ground of cost but how ironic that would be in a debate on a Bill authorising Her Majesty to have access to £5,851 million.
But I put it to him in any case that the £1½ million put forward as the figure would not in any event be spent unless the preliminary signs during the study were sufficiently encouraging to justify going on with it. If it were found in preliminary soundings—and I doubt it—that the scheme would be unfeasible, then it could be called off and no further money would be spent. But stubbornly to refuse even to start a study is both penny wise and pound foolish.
If, as I predict, the Minister meets the unswerving opposition of the farm-
556
ing community, it will cost him and the country a great deal of money and time to bulldoze through these surface reservoirs. He will not save money but will only cause a row, bring ruin to large stretches of farm land and will not solve the problem of water for the eastern counties. This would be the dereliction of planning. It would be short-sighted expediency which is bad for the Great Bradley farmers, bad for West Suffolk, bad for the whole of East Anglia, and bad for Britain.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that if he continues to refuse even to countenance the beginnings of the Wash barrage study, he will only brand himself and the Government as timid, unimaginative, and utterly uninspired by the challenge of what can be and needs to be done in this country. Can he not for a moment look up from all the difficulties which he faces and contemplate, with the excitement of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite, what man is capable of doing and is doing in transforming the face of nature for his own benefit? The Soviet Union building vast new dams, huge lakes, which have transformed the climate of Central Asia; the Chinese taming the Yangtse; the Dutch having made their achievements in the North Sea; and the Israelis in the Negev Desert. These nations have done something more than simply improve their own environment. They have offered a challenge to their technicians and engineers and an inspiration to their young people which is worth as much as, if not even more than, the vast material benefits that these gigantic projects can provide. What the Dutch can do in the Zuider Zee and what the Americans can do in the swamps of Florida, let Britain do in the Wash.
The message of this debate to the Minister at twenty minutes to four in the morning is: do not be so timid; take hold of the capabilities and the resources of this country in the late twentieth century and proclaim with confidence that British engineering can and will and must do the job that the East Anglian counties sooner or later will need and sooner or later will get. With this Government, with the next Government, some time, some day, they will have it.
3.42 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The Wash barrage, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has said, is certainly something to seize the imagination, and nothing I say would in any way derogate from the great, stimulating and imaginative concept that it is. Unfortunately, the duty of my right hon. Friend and the Government is to deal with the problem of providing water at an economical cost in an efficient way and with as little waste of land as can be managed.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazen) fairly said, we do not know that the current arrangements for getting the water without the Wash barrage will work. He is right about that. We are all in a state of exploration. Our view is that the first thing to be done is to explore the other non-barrage methods of getting water before we come to the great cost of even the feasibility study, let alone the barrage scheme itself. That is the problem which faces us.
I have been rebuked by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) for not following the advice of the Water Resources Board. It is true that it wanted us to have this preliminary study—I will not pretend to run away from that—but it is not true to say that it, or, indeed, the technical experts who advised it, thought that the Wash scheme was preferable, or was likely to be preferable, to the other methods of getting water. The Technical Committee said:
"While it appears unlikely that water from such a source would be competitive in cost with or of as good quality as water from other sources outlined in that Report"—
that is, the Binnie Report—
"and in Appendix IV, we nevertheless consider that an investigation should be made."
That is about as lukewarm a recommendation as one can have, accepting as it does that almost certainly it will be more expensive and not of such good quality.
The other question is the effect of the Wash barrage on land use. Running through the debate there has been the theme that this is o dramatic and bold way in which to save the use of other land, but on a large scale that is not
558
true, because the urgency of providing sources of water is such that we would not save anything like the figures which have been quoted. We would not be likely to save more than about 12,000 acres. The other acres are bound to be required before we get to the stage when the Wash barrage could be of any use.
Again to quote from the Technical Committee's Report—and this is a point on which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds should meditate when he is advising his constituents—
"We consider it vital, however, that a study of the possibility of storage in the Wash should not be made the pretext for delay in the investigation of the various inland schemes both surface and underground and in the development of these schemes which will be needed to meet demand during the next 15 or 20 years."
That is a view confirmed by the main Board in paragraphs 28 and 29 of its Report.
That is the problem which we have to face. We have to explore the most effective and cheap ways in which to get a water supply quickly. That is not to say—and this is why I do not want to go too far the other way and condemn the Wash barrage—that if we are wrong and we cannot get the water from those other sources, we will not use the barrage. All I am saying is that it would be a very expensive source of water.
The Board's estimate of the cost is £90 million more than a combination of the inland schemes, and that is the important figure. The important figure is not the gross cost of £287 million, or whatever it may be, but the difference between the cost of the inland schemes and the cost of the barrage. It would take a long time to build the barrage and we would find ourselves in a great deal of difficulty, however quickly and smoothly the scheme proceeded. There would be difficulty about the quality of water. The Binnie Report suggested that as much as 40 per cent. of sewage effluent would be in the reservoirs formed by the barrage, and that would be another of the problems of providing good clean water at a moderate price.
There might be corresponding advantages from it. The difficulty is that of seeing what those would be. I want to say something about the question of the saving of agricultural land. A figure

559
has been quoted of about 12,000 acres, and the barrage might reclaim about 40,000 acres. There has been a lot of bold talk in the debate about the beautiful, rich and fertile land. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page), with his characteristic honesty, if that is the right word, said that he thought that the land would be pretty poor, and would not be very much value for agricultural purposes. One has only to do a simple arithmetical calculation.
Assuming that it is good land, one will save 12,000 acres, create 40,000, getting 52,000 acres, which one would not get under the inland schemes, and one will do it at a cost of £90 million. That is about £1,750 per acre, which by any test of the value of agricultural land seems to be very high. It is all very well to say that one should not think of cost when talking about saving land, but one has to if one is to have any adequate economic assessment of what one is proposing to do. One must ask the question: in terms of the loss of land, what is the corresponding advantage? On a cost basis, the amount which one will have to invest to get the land makes it beyond all reason.
My hon. Friend said that the great advantages of the scheme were not so much to do with water or agriculture, but from the point of view of the development of the area—
Mr. Hawkins: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why this feasibility study, or at least the preliminary part of it, could not go on at the same time as these deep wells, and other methods, which he is examining, and which he has said it will take five years to complete? I cannot understand why that should not go on at the same time.
Mr. MacColl: The point is that if this was something vitally necessary, if it was proved that it could provide better water than we could get by other methods, then there is a case for saying that we must spend £1½ million to find out whether we can do it. As we start from the assumption that, even if it is successful, the costs will be very high indeed, the quality of the water almost certainly poorer, it is very difficult for a Government to justify spending that
560
money until we have pushed ahead with the better schemes, and particularly the underground schemes.
The Water Resources Board made the same point, that the best and most hopeful way of saving agricultural land in the next 15 to 20 years was not with the barrage, but with the development of our ground water resources.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Why does the hon. Gentleman suggest that it is necessary to spend £1½ million simply to start the scheme? If, in the early stages, it were determined that the signs were discouraging and the project appeared not to be feasible, it would not be necessary to continue with the full expenditure.
Mr. MacColl: I had that point in mind.
In courtesy to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn, I return to the point with which I was dealing a little earlier. The difficulty about the points made by my hon. Friend concerning the non-water uses of the barrage are that, in most cases, they would involve a good deal of expenditure on the other purposes. There would be certain advantages—possibly improved road links, improved access to the Wash ports and amenities of a fresh-water lake, which would be discounted by the fact that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) would not be able to get away from it all with quite the same facility as he does now; but there would he advantages in general for recreation.
On the other hand, there would be disadvantages. There would be definite losses in sea fisheries and shellfish, there would be the cost of maintaining tidal locks and navigation channels, and the character of the salt marsh and sand dunes would be lost. Even with those additional advantages, which I do not think would have more than one-third of the extra cost of the scheme, further capital investment would be required to develop the project as an economic rather than a water exercise.
Mr. Derek Page: We would be interested to know how my hon. Friend can justify the figures which he has picked out of the air. I have never seen any justification for saying that possibly one-third of the cost would fall on those other facilities. What work has been

561
done to prove this? Does my hon. Friend's Department have the facilities to do such work?
Mr. MacColl: Certainly we do not. That was why I was putting them forward in very general terms. I am not setting myself up as an expert who can give a final answer. I am saying that on any reasonable assessment, the saving is unlikely to make a big bite into the extra £90 million which has somehow to be covered.
Mr. Hawkins: Where does the £90 million figure come from?
Mr. MacColl: From the Water Resources Board Report and the Binnie Report.
Sir D. Renton: I have before me the passage from page 13 of the introduction to the Report on Water Supplies in South-East England. Having given the matter some attention for some years, I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He seems entirely to have misunderstood the figures from which he refers to £90 million.
Mr. MacColl: I have taken the cost of the inland schemes and the other scheme, some of it inland, because one has still to go on with the inland schemes. They cannot be abandoned because of urgency and the Wash scheme. I have taken the difference between the two figures, which is £90 million.
Sir D. Renton: The hon. Gentleman overlooks that under the two schemes, different results are achieved. He has assumed that the same result would be achieved under the one scheme for £310 million and the other scheme for £400 million. He has to bear in mind that the £400 million scheme produces much larger water storage.
Mr. MacColl: The inland schemes, if successful, should be sufficient to provide for demand up to the year 2000.
I want to deal with the points which were put about the question whether it is not possible to have a sort of preliminary desk study. When my right hon. Friend saw the Water Resources Board and the rural authorities he said that he would certainly be prepared to look into this. We do not know what it would cost and what the study would
562
entail; nor are we sure what its advantages would be. It would really be a sort of feasibility study into a feasibility study. If it is to try only to do, not very efficiently, what the £1½ million study was really required to do, probably there is not very much justification for it, as some of my hon. Friends have said. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that it is possible to do something which will produce an effective result quickly and cheaply, then, of course, my right hon. Friend will give it further consideration. He has asked the Board to go into it and produce some further ideas which it has and thinks would be effective.
I would only say in regard to this—I repeat—that my right hon. Friend and the Government are not in any way against a Wash barrage in principle; they are not unromantic, not unprogressive, not unprepared to look far ahead. What they are concerned with, and regard as the most important duty at the moment, is to provide for a supply of water by the methods which will produce the cheapest and purest water, and produce it most quickly. At the moment, all the evidence we have had points to the fact that the best way of doing that is looking at underground storage and the land methods, before looking at what a barrage can do.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are still 35 debates ahead of us.

EDUCATION (NUNEATON AND BEDWORTH)
4.2 a.m.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Since I do not want to make a habit of raising at this time of the morning even matters which vitally affect my constituency, I shall be brief. First, I thank my hon. Friend and the House for the opportunity afforded me to raise a matter which affects the interests of my constituency. I should like to express my personal thanks to the Minister of State, who, I know, has made great personal efforts to be here tonight to answer. I know that her being here has necessitated quite a large amount of reorganisation in her Department, and I want to pay my thanks to her.

563
I should like to set the scene by giving a rough description of what, I think, has been the general trend in Warwickshire over the past 10 years. Before we mention primary education I think we have to look at the kind of population developments and population movements which are occurring in the county, because what has happened over the past 10 years is that the balance of population has been gradually shifting to the north. The north of the county is a developing area, although the seat of the county council is in the south of the county, and although perhaps the city and county borough of Coventry tend to obscure what is going on in the north I should not like it to be thought that the north is an area which does not deserve as much attention as the south does.
As I was a Parliamentary candidate at Warwick and Leamington in the 1966 General Election I can claim the unique experience of knowing both what goes on in the south of the county and in the north of the county where my present constituency is situated. I think we in the north of Warwickshire tend to think of ourselves as the forgotten north, although, of course, this is where most Labour county councillors come from. Only two or three years ago in one of the by-elections in my constituency a certain national newspaper referred to it as a sleepy market town. I do not think that the borough and the urban district which I represent in this House are at all sleepy market areas. Apart from the fact that we are on two main trunk roads, the A.5 and the A.444—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will come to the topic that he has chosen for the debate.
Mr. Huckfield: If I can set the background, I think that my hon. Friend will find it very helpful. In addition, we are on the main rail connection to the north, and we have thriving engineering industries there.
I think that the point is most clearly brought home if we examine the population statistics as revealed in the 1966 census. As this census does not give accurate figures of the increase in the population of school age, we have to use the overall population figures as the most accurate indicator. We could, I suppose,
564
subtract five or six years from the children's ages and thus get some indication of the child population that we had in 1961, but this would not give us any indication of the increase in the number of children who may have moved into the area in the meantime.
In 1961 Nuneaton had a population of 57,000. It now has a population of 61,000. In 1961 Bedworth had a population of 31,000. It now has a population of 36,000. This kind of population growth is considerably faster than that which has occurred in Warwick and Leamington in the south of the county, and it is these population figures which show that the constituency which I represent is probably one of the fastest growing parts of Warwickshire.
I am interested in the reason for this speed of growth, because the people now moving into my constituency are those most likely to be interested in primary education, facilities. There is what has been called by many people the executive class moving out from Birmingham and Coventry and using my constituency as a dormitory commuter area. We also have a large number of coal miners who have been transferred there from Scotland and the North-East. Apart from the fact that both these types are specifically interested in the development of primary education facilities, many of the miners were brought to my constituency almost solely on the basis that good primary education facilities would be provided.
I do not need to elaborate on the advantages of good primary education facilities. I think that the Plowden Report did that far better than I can do it, but what caught my eye about the Report was that it said that environment could be so important that it was worth spending double the amount that is spent in ordinary areas in areas which were in some ways environmentally deficient, because this could help to counteract those deficiencies. Indeed, some people tend to think, and some would argue strongly, that it is worth postponing raising the school-leaving age so that we can increase our primary education facilities. I cannot agree with that.
In the Borough of Nuneaton, which is an accepted district in the County of Warwick for education purposes, the spring 1967 figures show that we had

565
12 infant and 38 junior classes over the statutory maximum size, and we are still waiting to know exactly what is to happen to the promised Weddington primary school. More important, we would like to know what is to happen to the White-stones primary school. Both these have been mentioned in Estimates in the past, but they do not seem to have been translated into terms of a building programme. I think that these are relevant because they coincide with the areas in the Borough of Nuneaton in which we are experiencing the most rapid population growth.
I am also very interested in the Abbey Church of England School and the Chilvers Coton Church of England School. The latter in particular has one of the worst building deficiencies that we could expect to meet in a primary education. It must hold half its classes in the parish hall. School meals, assembly, physical education, dancing and ordinary classes are held there, and the school must share the facilities—benches, desks and so on—with members of the general public who also use the parish hall.
In the school building, one of the classrooms is separated from another by a mere hardboard partition. One can imagine what the children can overhear in the other classrooms. Most frightening is that the whole school fronts a very busy main road, and already one child has been run over. The school manages to exist only through the constant supervision of the members of the staff, to whom I pay tribute for so ably looking after the 120 children and preventing more road accidents. The school is not very well lighted or heated. The headmistress, Mrs. Simmons has no separate staff room. The playground and toilet facilities leave a great deal to be desired.
Again and again my predecessor and his predecessor were told that a new site was being prepared on the nearby Caldwell estate, but that the Ministry could not do anything yet because it did not know what the Ministry of Transport would say about the road widening scheme. It was therefore reluctant to spend large sums of money. We have had exactly the same kind of answer for
566
years and years, and my constituents are getting a bit fed up with it.
Meanwhile, the school building deteriorates, the accident risk gets higher and higher as the traffic increases, parents become more and more worried, and their nerves and those of the teachers become more and more strained, while nothing is done. I want to be able to tell my constituents—and I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me tonight—when something will be done, if not in capital expenditure terms in the shape of a brand new school building on the new site which has been prepared for a long time, then at least in current expenditure terms. It is one of the worst examples of primary school building in the Borough of Nuneaton.
I now turn to the urban district of Bedworth, the other part of my constituency. The situation there is rather different. Including the very ancient primary schools in the south of the constituency, there is a slight over-all surplus of primary school places. But it is achieved in a rather weird way, largely by the transporting of large numbers of children, especially from the new estate constructed on behalf of the National Coal Board for the reception of miners transferred from the North-East and Scotland by the Coal Industry Housing Association.
The school that was supposed to serve the estate is the Newdigate County Junior School in Anderton Road. A large number of miners received many glossy booklet promises from the National Coal Board, many of which have not materialised, in terms of wages, housing, social facilities, and transport. The fact that their children could no longer get into the school situated on the estate was just about the last straw.
The parents and relations of the 300 or 400 children feel that they are being discriminated against. The headmaster, Mr. Buckingham, is doing a very good job and is determined to maintain his standards and not put the extra class into the school hall as he has been asked to do. The efforts of the county council to shift some children from the nearby Leicester Road Primary School, which has as many as 53 children in some classes, to the Keresley Newland Primary School, have led to a slight improvement, but some parents on the estate

567
are prepared to go to prison rather than let their children leave the estate for these other schools. The fact that their children cannot even get into the school which was virtually promised in the glossy booklets is the last straw.
In view of the environment, lack of facilities and overcrowding in this part of Bedworth, surely Plowden's emphasis on primary education making up for environmental deficiencies applies. There are mumblings about having to wait for another 150 Coal Board houses, but I wonder whether we will get them and still have no school extension. I should like an answer if not in capital terms, at least in current terms.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not claim that the matter is being held up by the difficulties in reorganising secondary education. The Nuneaton comprehensive scheme does not fit in with the proposal for the rest of the country, being a three-tier system as opposed to an all-in scheme, and it could be claimed that, while these difficulties exist nothing will be said about primary schools. But there have always been excuses about doing nothing about these schools.
They are both special cases—one with severe building deficiencies and the other with severe environmental deficiencies. If they do not merit the expenditure immediately, at least their conditions should be improved. I should like to be able to tell not only the parents of children at these two schools but all the parents in my constituency that things will improve. I hope that I can give them some better news as a result of the debate than they have had for many years.
4.19 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) first for his kind remarks about me and second for his keenness and vitality in raising this subject. His constituency is lucky to have a Member who can wax so eloquent at 4.15 in the morning. My hon. Friend mentioned the increase in population in Warwickshire but it is perhaps worth mentioning that Warwickshire is not among the counties with a very
568
rapid rate of population increase, compared to a number of areas of which the House will be conscious and because the basic need for a roof over children's heads is reflected in the building programme, it is bound to have an effect on his county's share. He will be aware that, in the next five years, there will be about 1 million more children in the primary schools and that, therefore, much as we should like to replace inadequate schools, we have to give first priority to the children who would otherwise have no schools to go to. Whereas rather under a quarter of the major school building programme in the years 1960 to 1965 was new primary schools, something over 40 per cent. were new primary schools in the last two years, taking all together as an average.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that this Administration is not unaware of the great needs of primary education. He will recall that only the day before yesterday in this House it was announced that an additional £16 million was to be found to assist primary schools in the areas of socially handicapped environment to which he referred.
Turning to the questions which my hon. Friend raised, he mentioned that a number of schools in Nuneaton had oversized classes. That is not entirely uncommon, but the proportion of oversized classes nationally is declining steadily and we hope that the additions in teacher supply will begin to make an impact on Nuneaton as well.
I shall make clear the precise difference of responsibility between the Department of Education and Science and the local education authority for the rebuilding or replacement of primary schools. The order of priority and the list of projects is not a matter for the Department of Education and Science, but originally for the local education authority, and only from the list of projects provided by that authority can the Department decide which projects to approve, so some of my hon. Friend's remarks are perhaps a matter to discuss with the local education authority rather than the Department, because these are not our responsibilities, nor are they matters which I think the local education authority would wish to become our responsibility. The control of minor works projects, as distinct from overall allocation, which he mentioned,

569
is a matter over which the local education authority has complete freedom.
I will not dispute my hon. Friend's judgment about Chilvercoton Church of England School. He referred to complications over the site and these complications, as he correctly said, have delayed replacement of the school. This again is not a matter which is subject to the Department's control, but is for the authority to settle with the other Ministry concerned. If the local authority wishes to put forward a replacement scheme, we should be pleased to consider it and we recognise some of the difficulties the school has to contend with.
My hon. Friend mentioned the dangers of children crossing the main road from Chilvercoton School and the tragic case of a child who suffered an accident while crossing that road. Again I suggest that my hon. Friend might like to take up with the local education authority the question of a school crossing patrol until such time as the school can be replaced. A school crossing patrol or alternative arrangements with the police are matters which lie within the discretion of the local education authority. Only last year my right hon. Friend sent out a circular to local authorities pointing out that road traffic hazards would be regarded as a good reason for providing free transport for school children within the normal statutory limits. In short, an authority can provide transport under the statutory minimum limits if there are reasons connected with road traffic hazards which might affect children.
Turning to the other specific case mentioned by my hon. Friend, I recognise how strongly he feels about it and the strength of feeling among parents on the estate. But I think that he is being a little hard on the National Coal Board when he says that the promises about primary education were not kept. Until January, 1966, all the children on the estate as it was built up went to school outside it, most being accommodated at the Leicester Road Schools, Bedworth, nearly two miles away. In January, 1966, a new school, the Newdigate Junior School, was completed. It was originally planned as a two-form entry junior school with accommodation for 320 children. It was subsequently enlarged to the extent of three temporary classrooms to give provision for 440 children.
570
It was believed that that would be sufficient to meet the need within the existing housing on the estate, 550 houses being planned up to that time. But it emerged that the estate was rather more willing to have large families than the average for estates of this kind. So I plead guilty. The local education authority and to some extent the Department under-estimated the number of children for whom school accommodation would be required. So there were 125 more children than had been planned for at the Newdigate School, and they have to attend the Leicester Road Schools, Bedworth, about two miles away. All these children are offered free transport. None has to walk more than 200 yards. The longest it takes any child to get to school is 25 minutes starting at 8.35 a.m. from the most distant part of the estate. The children at the Leicester Road Schools are almost all back home before the children at the local estate junior school have got home, because the Leicester Roads Schools end school half an hour earlier than the estate school. In consequence, there is no question of children attending the Leicester Road Schools having excessively long school days.
I appreciate that the parents would rather have further expansion of the school on the estate. But, as my hon. Friend frankly and honestly pointed out, there is the difficulty that within a radius of two miles of the centre of the estate there are more places in schools, some of them fairly new schools, than there are children to fill them. For example, in the last few months there was accommodation for 1,676 children within a radius of two miles of the centre of the estate and there were 1,469 children on the roll, which meant a surplus of 207 places.
Much as we would wish it to be the case that every school should be a convenient neighbourhood school for the parents of the area, I am afraid that it is quite impossible and would be very unfair to authorities which are more hard pressed to make such generous provision. Since we have a surplus of 207 places within this fairly reasonable travelling distance we cannot at the moment agree to programme an additional school for the estate. This has been recognised by the local education authority, which put forward a scheme

571
for an infants school for the estate in 1967–68 but has not made a subsequent bid in either the 1968–69 or the 1969–70 programme.
We should be very willing to consider again the possibility of programming an infants school for the estate should there be indications that the estate will now build up to the originally programmed size of 700 houses, but work that was intended to be started on the additional houses has not yet been started. My hon. Friend implied that this might be due to an absence of demand for houses on the estate from the miners for whom it was intended, but there is another reason, namely, that there is a serious sewage disposal problem on the site which has not yet been resolved.
To sum up, with regard to the Chilvers Coton school, I have given one of the reasons which has stood in the way of a replacement school being programmed, but I assure my hon. Friend that we should be very willing to consider it for an early building programme should the authority be able to put it forward soon for one of the next building programme exercises.
Second, as regards the estate school, while I cannot promise my hon. Friend that we can at the moment consider an expansion, we shall certainly do so if there is any indication of emerging further basic need. I mention again that, before January, 1966, none of the children on the estate were educated upon it, and now the great bulk of them are.
While I recognise the strength of feeling among the parents, I assure them that the schools to which their children are now going are very good schools, for the most part, and that the travelling time involved for young children is really moderate by the standards which, for example, rural education authorities are only too familiar with in bringing village children to a school which can have a sufficient catchment area to make adequate education possible.

SCOTLAND (FUEL COSTS)
4.31 a.m.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The importance of the subject of high fuel costs in Scotland is reflected
572
in the substantial number of hon. Members present on both sides of the House at this hour of the morning. One may fairly say that we have present on these benches the cream of the Scottish Conservative Party as well as the mainstream of progressive Conservative thought in Scotland.
Our main problems in Scotland are three. First, emigration, which is running at the rate of over 47,000 a year. Next, an over-concentration on heavy industry, on shipbuilding, on steel and on engineering, the consequence of which is that we have not the growth potential in our industry which other parts of the country have. Moreover, the high fuel element in our costs tends to make the difficulties of these industries even greater. Our third basic problem is the simple one of costs, high costs of transport, of rates and of fuel.
Almost all the fuels used in Scotland by industry, commerce and the people come from the nationalised industries. It is the duty of Governments to decide, in principle, on the pricing policies of our nationalised industries. But we have wide differentials in various parts of Great Britain, and in almost every case we pay considerably more in Scotland.
It is sometimes asked why one part of the country should subsidise another, why, for example, consumers of coal in Yorkshire should pay more and Scotland should pay less. The same argument can be applied within Scotland. Why should consumers in Lanarkshire subsidise consumers in Stornoway, Perth, Angus or anywhere else? In Scotland we have uniformity of pricing.
We have to decide either to go for the full rigours of the market discipline in the capitalist system and say that prices should follow the market or to go for equal prices, by and large, throughout the country.
We put forward the argument in favour of uniform steel prices on the Report stage of the Iron and Steel Bill. This proposition was bitterly opposed by the Government and they went into the Lobby to vote against it. What has happened since? Only a few days ago we heard of the decision to have uniform prices for steel in Great Britain, and competition only in servicing and delivery. I look upon that as a triumph for the point of view we put forward.

573
But if there are price differentials in coal how can the Government justify uniform prices in the nationalised steel industry?
We know that John Summers and Colville's pay the highest prices for coking coal in the United Kingdom. Clearly their costs will be high, yet the price of steel provided by them has to be the same as that of other firms. I am glad about this, but I wish that we could apply the argument to other nationalised industries.
Then we had the strange episode of the late night debate on the coal industry in which the Government put forward the view that the electricity and gas industries would be asked to use even more coal, and that the community would pay the difference. We can have a polarisation of coal prices in the country but we cannot have this status quo in respect of the power boards. Where do the differentials stem from? In coal they stem from the decision made on 1st January, 1962—which was an unfortunate one—to increase the price of industrial coal in Scotland. At that time the Coal Consumers' Council pointed out that this would have a bad effect in Scotland and would also have a great effect on the prices of gas and electricity. Since then differentials have grown substantially, when precise information is extremely difficult to obtain from the Government. One might almost think that there was a conspiracy either of silence or ignorance.
Let me give two examples. First, in Committee on the Iron and Steel Bill we pressed the Minister for information about the price of coking coal in the various regions for the steel industry. It was not possible to obtain any information. Eventually I obtained the information myself and provided it in Committee. On 23rd January of this year I asked the Government for the up-to-date information they had and they told me that they had no information more recent than that which I had quoted in Committee. It is disgraceful that in respect of a matter so serious as this, affecting Scottish industry, the Government apparently did not have the resources to obtain the figures.
What were the figures I provided? Colville's in Scotland was paying 133s. 6d.
574
per ton for its coking coal at the turn of the year and the price is still the same, I believe. United Coke—a competitor firm in Yorkshire—was paying 100s. ld., a differential of about 33s. The Steel Company of Wales and Richard Thomas & Baldwins were paying 115s. In Derbyshire, Stantons, Staveley and Stewarts and Lloyds were paying 105s. and the nearest competitor to Scotland in coal—John Summers of Lancashire—had a differential of only 7s. 7d. That firm, like Colville's uses about 2 million tons of coal a year. The differential, compared with United Coke, comes to about £3 million. If the Parliamentary Secretary says that the effect of the differentials is not considerable let him remember that in this case the differential means that the Scottish firm had to make £3 million profit before it could come level with its competitor English firm.
Similar problems have arisen in other sections of the nationalised fuel industry. The Scottish electricity industry pays 20s. per ton more for its coal than is paid elsewhere in the country. The 1966 Report of the South of Scotland Electricity Board pointed out that the 1966 surcharge would cost the Board an extra £4 million. Meanwhile, the Board is being required to use more coal and its new stations at Longannet and Cockenzie burn a great deal of coal. The Board has pointed out that while the per therm cost using oil is 4d., the per therm cost in the existing coal-fired stations is 5·8d. This gives some idea of the differential that exists.
The same can be said of other industries, including gas. A fortnight ago I asked, in a Parliamentary Question, for up-to-date information about the price of gas in Scotland compared with the price in the rest of Britain. I was told that no information, except for the year 1965–66, was available. Apparently there are no monthly or even six-monthly figures. Considering the serious situation that exists, it is shocking that up-to-date information is not available. Not even an estimate was given.
However, we see from the 1965–66 figures that the average revenue per gas unit in Scotland was 25·92d. while for the country as a whole, including Scotland, it was ls. 10½d. This meant that the average revenue per therm—which

575
is the price for all practical purposes—in Scotland was more than 15 per cent. more than the national average. Since then the price of gas has increased in Scotland by 19 per cent. In no other part of the country has it increased by even half that amount. Today the position is even worse, for the average revenue must be at least one-fifth higher than the national average.
I have received an interesting letter from a colleague containing figures worked out in consultation with the Board. Between 17th February, 1964, and 17th February, 1967—these figures are based on the consumption of 363 therms of gas per quarter on the Board's optional two-part tariff—one's gas bill would have increased from £24 17s. 9d. to £33 Os. 9d., an increase of 32½ per cent. Examples could be quoted to show how consumers have suffered smaller increases, but, on average, it stands out a mile that the price of gas in Scotland is much higher than the national average.
The same story can be told of the price of smokeless fuel, Gloco and other smokeless fuels costing more in Scotland than elsewhere in Britain. It even costs more to have a domestic cooker installed—£3 7s. 6d. in Scotland compared with £2 10s. in the North Thames Gas Board's area. Although for the domestic user the price may not be unreasonable, most industrialists take the view that the price for electricity is considerably higher in Scotland than in the rest of the country. A Clyde shipbuilder told me that on an average ship of about 12,000 tons he had to allow more than £5,000 extra for electricity costs alone compared with one built on the north-east coast of England.
I was amazed to receive an Answer from the Minister not long ago that to remove differentials would make a difference of only about 2 per cent. I should like to know where that figure came from. It was not clear whether it was 2 per cent. on industrial costs or fuel costs, but I think there is room for a much more careful scrutiny. If it is 2 per cent. on industrial costs as opposed to fuel costs it is a considerable burden on the Scottish economy which must be overcome if we are to begin to compete with the rest of the country.
576
We are not asking for special treatment but for equality within the United Kingdom. I can see the argument against this. If we had uniformity some prices would go up and some would go down, but the time has long past when we could have one pricing principle for the steel industry, another for the coal industry and so on. The Government have to come down on one side or the other on this question. It might be that any change would have to be made gradually over some years, but there is just as much justification for uniform prices within Great Britain as within Scotland, within Glasgow, or within Cathcart. The principle can be justified and must be accepted for the sake of the Scottish economy.
We have more than 80,000 unemployed in Scotland, our population is going down, emigration is soaring and business confidence is weak. If we are to have a leap forward or a break-through in our economy, the Scottish economy must not start with a ball and chain around its feet. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that this matter will be considered carefully by a committee of those who know business and can look at it in depth, or that general pricing policies will be reviewed and differentials removed as a matter of Government policy.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this subject and I thank my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite for listening to me. I hope that together we can achieve something for Scotland on the lines I have suggested.
4.48 a.m.
Mr. Alex Eadie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on bringing before the House a very important aspect of the whole Scottish economy. It is a little ironic that he should have referred to the fact that at this late hour the cream of the Conservative Party is present. When I was speaking at 4.14 a.m. in a debate on coal, with the exception of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) the benches opposite were empty. I do not make much of this as a debating point, but to some extent it was allied to the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. He knows that since

577
I came to this House I have opposed the selective coal price policy. I believe that it is nonsense.
It does not help much to realise that the policy was initiated by the party opposite when in office, and that is no excuse for the Government cultivating bad habits of the Opposition. I will not pursue that point, however. The case put by the hon. Gentleman was very strong. The policy is damaging to the whole of the Scottish economy. But he let slip his view about the discipline of the free market.
I was a miner for many years before coming to this House and I welcome opportunities to debate fuel prices because I noted when I was in the mines that, whenever people talked about coal prices, the miners got the blame. Editorial after editorial in the Press would appear saying that, if only the miners worked harder, we should be able to solve this problem of solid fuel prices. I cannot lay that charge against the hon. Gentleman. He argued his case clearly and I do not suggest that he tried to blame the miners. But such blame has been cast at them and I welcome the chance to answer the accusations in this debate.
It is ironic that it costs more to distribute coal than it costs the miners to produce it. Fuel pricing in Scotland is a ridiculous situation. It is right that the House should discuss this subject even at this hour because it must bear some responsibility for the situation. I remind the Opposition that on 10th June, 1958, the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), as Paymaster-General, announced, with somewhat indecent haste, decontrol over coal supplies and prices.
It was on the very day that the Robson Report was published and Parliament did not even have an opportunity to discuss that Report, which dealt with the whole aspect of prices which was material to Scotland's economy and Scottish consumers. It is interesting to know that when the statement was introduced the then Paymaster-General said something that was allied to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cathcart has said. He said that the reason that the then Tory Government had decided to operate this policy of decontrol was,
578
"The restoration of free competition and freedom for the householder to buy from any merchant should encourage producers and distributors to offer the public the qualities of coal they need at the most competitive prices. With the ending of control, administrative expenditure of nearly £1 million a year will be brought to an end."
That statement was challenged by the then Labour Opposition. The specific question put to the then Conservative Government was:
"Does that not mean that under this new freedom which the Minister is imposing on the industry the Coal Board is to be the prisoner in this matter while the distributors will be entitled to charge what prices they like for the qualities they offer?"
The reply made by the Paymaster-General was:
"The right hon. Gentleman has not observed that, while the Boal Board is a monopoly, the distributors will be subject to keen competition."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 10th June, 1958; Vol. 589, cc. 42, 43.]
In developing this argument about prices that affect Scotland it is interesting to examine the Robson Report which Parliament never had an opportunity to discuss. It went on to deal with the whole distributive aspect of coal. For example, the National Coal Board, according to the Robson Report, was responsible for 3 per cent., the cooperative societies 16 per cent., and other traders 81 per cent. The other traders came to the global number of 16,778, although they were not all engaged exclusively in the distribution of hard fuel.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that when the National Coal Board asked for £80 million additional revenue to help it in its financial difficulties, a report was called for and refered to the National Board for Prices and Incomes. This is Report No. 10, not No. 5 which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart mentioned.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: It is No. 12. Report No. 7 deals with gas and electricity prices.
Mr. Eadie: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am wrong, too. It is report No. 21. A report was called for which revealed some of the reasons for high costs. This exonerated the miners, but it did not give them any consolation.
Chapter 3 of the Report breaks up the trade in relation to pricing. This is material to the argument developed by

579
the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, because I am talking now about the wholesale trade. Of the wholesale trade, 50 per cent. was in the hands of the National Coal Board and just about half was handled by private wholesalers. About three-quarters of that trade was in the hands of about a dozen firms.
The Robson Report shows that in 1956 the wholesale gross profit margin was Is. 2d. a ton, of which 9d. met costs and 5d. profit, whereas the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board shows that by 1966 the wholesale gross profit margin was an average of Is. 6d. a ton, 1s. 1d. for costs and 5d. for profit. That showed that the profit margins for wholesalers had changed very little in the 10 years, although the margin was probably slightly higher with domestic coal.
The Report also showed that the National Coal Board had between 3 and 4 per cent. of the retail trade, the cooperative societies, about 14 per cent.—spread among about 500 societies—while the rest of the trade was in the hands of about 12,000 private traders. Between 1st January, 1958, and 1st January, 1966, the average cost per ton to the domestic consumer rose from 155s. 2d. to 207s. 2d., an increase of 34 per cent. That is the result of decontrol, of the free market, a process which was to go ahead on the philosophy that everything would be all right in the long run; but that 34 per cent. increase has to be compared with an increase of 24 per cent. in the Ministry of Labour retail price index. During that period the pithead price increased by 28 per cent. which is substantial, and transport charges by 8 per cent., but the greatest increase was in distribution charges, which affect domestic consumers.
The Report says:
"The greatest relative increase took place, however, in distribution charges and particularly in retail gross profit margins—i.e., the difference in the price at which the retailer buys and sells. From our enquiry into the margins of firms handling over 2,000 tons a year and a more limited enquiry among firms handling lesser tonnages we would estimate the average increase in retail gross margins between 1958 and 1966 to have been between 65 and 70 per cent. This increase reflects an increase both in profits and costs.
At 1st January, 1958, retail margins were still controlled by the Government; they were decontrolled later in that year. The net profit margin fixed by the Government at the beginning of 1958 was 2s. 9d. a ton (rising to
580
3s. 3d. in certain circumstances), including bank interest and hire purchase interest. At the time, the trade thought the profit margin was unduly low, and that it ought to be increased to 6s. a ton. After decontrol, profits per ton rose; according to our inquiry they were 6s. 6d. a ton in 1965. (Bank and hire purchase interest have been added in to place the figure on a comparable basis with the 1958 figure.)."
The Report concludes that net profit margins had doubled since the date of decontrol, while a decline had taken place in the total tonnage distributed.
The Report mentions that in five years the amount handled was 745 tons, falling to 715 tons. Profits rose, and in order to maintain them the prices to the consumer were increased. That this was happening with no increase in productivity is a matter for investigation. The hon. Member for Cathcart is entitled to draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the outstanding anomalies about coal pricing in Scotland, but I am entitled to reinforce his argument by calling for some investigation into why the consumer is being fleeced.
We have heard about fancy phrases such as the question of coal distribution needing rationalisation. My hon. Friend has said in many Parliamentary Answers to me that the whole market is under investigation. I will probably anger hon. Gentlemen opposite, but this is a clear case where private enterprise has failed. It is a clear case when allowing the market to go ahead has not, in the long run, benefited the consumer. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider not only rationalisation, but some form of public ownership. The Co-operative Movement is a form of public ownership, and according to the figures that I have given, would be capable of handling coal distribution. It could not make any more of a mess of it than private enterprise. I trust that we shall consider this because it would be beneficial to Scotland's economy.
5.9 a.m.
Sir John Gilmour: A great deal of the industrial heart of Scotland was built on the coal industry. I was very interested to listen to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) because, although he represents a constituency on the other side of the Forth from mine, he lives in the same county as I do and he and I served together on the same county council.

581
It is interesting to reflect that a Socialist-controlled county council, living, one might say, on a coal mine, quickly came to the conclusion in the post-war years that it was cheaper to fit up all the schools that it was building with oil-fired central heating than to use coal.
Mr. Eadie: That is not true.
Sir J. Gilmour:That is exactly what happened. Almost all the schools that were rebuilt and re-equipped after the war were fitted up, although there was coal underground beneath the schools, with oil-fired central heating. That is the sort of thing that we now have to compete with.
Mr. Eadie: I am sure that the hon. Member would not like to make a point which is not correct. What he has said about all the new schools in Fife is not true. I can speak with authority as a former education committee chairman in the County of Fife. Some schools are heated by oil at the behest of the Government because a shortage of fuel of all kinds was expected.
Sir J. Gilmour: I know that the hon. Member is knowledgeable on the subject, but this matter came up in the county council when he and I were there and there were many occasions when we approved schemes for oil-fired heating in schools although there was sometimes coal within literally hundreds of yards of a school.
One of the troubles about bringing industry to Scotland is that at any new town, such as Glenrothes, which the hon. Member and I know very well, none of the new industries which are being set up is putting in coal-fired installations to provide the heating. They are all putting in oil heating. At the same time, in spite of the fact that the coal industry is running down, we are pursuing a policy of imposing a surcharge on oil to make it more expensive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) stressed very well the difficulties which industry experiences, but I should like to draw attention to the effect on the individual consumer. Whilst we argue about whether we should have oil, coal or any other form of firing, many
582
thousands of people, particularly old-age pensioners, living in houses which have simply a coal-fired grate, have no other means of heating than coal, and they must buy the coal at whatever price is set down by the Government. That is surely something in which we should have a good deal more interest than we have had in the past.
My hon. Friend mentioned the cost of smokeless fuel. It was brought to light last year that smokeless fuel manufactured in Scotland, after bearing transport charges to the Midlands, was selling at a cheaper price in England than in Scotland. That can only be because a bureaucratic system says that, because there is a surcharge on coal in Scotland, the coal in Scotland must be more expensive than coal in England.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power will explain why an edict is issued that coal must be more expensive in Scotland as a result of which people who have to look after themselves and keep themselves warm are forced to pay more for it. The consequence is that people cannot continue to buy this fuel because it is expensive and they decide to change to some other form of heating. As soon as they go to some other form of heating they find that the surcharge on coal puts up for them the cost of electricity and the cost of gas. So there is that spiral the whole time, and it is having its effect.
Certainly we know the difficulty this is to industry, but it is having a much more telling effect on the old-age pensioners, people who, after all, have to exist on exactly the same amount of money whether they live in Scotland or in England. I do not know that the Order the Home Secretary is imposing upon us, so that we shall have summer time all the year round, will be very helpful. I asked a Question of the Secretary of State for Scotland the other day to find out what time sunrise would be in various parts of Scotland in midwinter. In certain parts of the north of Scotland sunrise will take place at 10 o'clock in the morning, so that people will have to get up and keep themselves warm in the dark, and that will add to the expense. In Scotland we have some 45 or 50 minutes less daylight in midwinter than they do in the South. As

583
a result, we need more fuel and more light than people do in the South, and yet we have to pay a surcharge on our heating and our light, and to the ordinary citizen in Scotland this is becoming intolerable, and it ought to be redressed.
What otherwise is the use of saying that we have a universal system of benefits? Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House say it is inconceivable that we should discriminate in any way, and that everything must be absolutely the same for everyone and all must be equal. How are all the people to be equal unless account is taken of the differences there are in daylight and temperature? But these appear to be forgotten entirely by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
So quite apart from the effect on the location of industry, quite apart from the difficulties of the shipbuilding industry and the other industries which have been the strength of the Scottish economy, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will pay attention particularly to the effect on the ordinary citizens who live in the small houses and on small incomes, and who are being penalised by this discrimination in fuel prices in Scotland.
5.17 a.m.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I should like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) upon raising this very important subject.
I want particularly to deal with some of the problems in the remoter areas in Scotland. Certainly, the farther we go down the line, or, to put it another way, the farther we go north, the greater these difficulties and problems become, and the much more serious become these impositions.
This is particularly true, of course, in relation to transport, with which my hon. Friend did not deal in quite so much dertail. The farther north, and the farther into the remoter areas of the north, the greater becomes the proportion of a person's expenditure on transport in one form or another. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said, this expenditure is very important for the individual ordinary citizens living in rural areas. For getting to work and for social pur-
584
poses they depend upon their cars, and those who rely on bus services have generally greater distances to travel than do those who live in the industrial areas farther south.
The same argument applies to the basic industries of agriculture and fishing. Supplies have to be brought in for those industries, and their produce has to be taken out. Take a case we all know—potatoes from the north of Scotland; their price is much lower than prices are in the south of Scotland, because of the transport costs of getting the produce to the areas where it is consumed. The same is true of industry; raw materials have to be taken in, finished products have to be taken out.
It is to the credit of many of the industrial firms, small and large, in the North-East and in the Highlands, that they have overcome this great obstacle of higher transport costs. One firm in my constituency makes tractor cabs, and in spite of the problem of transport costs, it sends its products to Devon and Cornwall. Another firm there makes prefabricated joinery fittings for houses, and sends its products to, and competes with firms in, central Scotland. That shows the initiative and enterprise by which firms in the remoter areas have overcome the ball and chain problem to which my hon. Friend referred. In contrast to what the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said, I pay tribute to our private road haulage industry, the private firms which help to keep down the costs in these remoter areas, and thus help to maintain a sound economy in the face of many difficulties.
The problem of coal prices becomes relatively greater the further north one goes in Scotland. In my constituency, for example, the River North Esk marks the line at which the price of coal increases still further compared with the price paid further south. This extra cost means, of course, that there is an extra charge to industry and to private individuals.
The same is true of electricity charges, and in reply to a Question which I asked yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland said that in the area of the South of Scotland Electricity Board charges were going up by 10 per cent. and by 11 per cent, in the area of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.

585
I remind hon. Members that this is not a true picture of the burden which ordinary people have to bear, because a householder not only has to pay increased charges on domestic consumption, but has to pay for the increases incurred by his local authority in the provision of street lighting, and of course this will be further increased as a result of the change in summer time. He also has to pay for the increased costs incurred in heating and lighting schools. It will be seen, therefore, that the percentage increase which the average person will have to pay will be very much higher than the bare percentage increase which the Secretary of State gave me.
With regard to the agriculture industry, we see from a reply which the Ministry of Power gave on Monday that the increase in electricity charges will mean an additional burden of £400,000 a year on the industry, and if we add to that the recent increase in fuel oil prices it means that the industry will have to find another £250,000 a year, amounting to a total increase of £650,000.
When we consider this tremendous increase in charges, and when we consider at the same time the difficulties facing the agriculture industry, particularly the livestock sections of it, those producing store stock, and those sections of it in the remoter areas which have to bear a greater proportionate share of the increase in transport charges, we realise that they are in great difficulty, especially as they have little prospect of getting any increase in return from the market.
The fishing industry is in a particularly serious position. Late yesterday evening I received a copy of a letter sent by the Scottish Trawlers' Federation to the Department of Agriculture in Scotland. It is plain from this letter that the Secretary of State has rejected an appeal from the Federation that he should offset the effect of the surcharge of 2d. a gallon which the oil companies had imposed on all fuel and lubricating oils. I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has rejected this plea, particularly as later this morning we shall be debating a reduction in subsidies to our fishing fleets. They will be placed in an extremely serious situation.
The letter says:
" The imposition of over £2 per ton on fuel may constitute the last straw for many vessels
586
and these may be forced to tie up at the quay wall."
That is what faces our fishing industry in Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman said in reply to another Question of mine, it is costing our fishing industry—the inshore fleet and the trawling fleet—£250,000 a year. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the letter, and that later in the debate he will show that he will do something positive about it. The letter adds that immediate action is necessary to avert what appears to be growing into a major disaster for the trawling industry.
It is not just a question of the trawling industry. The inshore industry is also very important in certain parts of my constituency as a source of work where there is very little other employment. In areas such as Aberdeen it is one of the major industries and an imposition like this and the other extra charges, at the same time as the Government are reducing the amount of assistance they give to the industry, put it into a very serious situation.
I should like to end by briefly stating the effect on industry as I see it. In reply to a Question of mine on Monday, the Secretary of State said that the increase in electricity charges would mean a rise of £500,000 in Scottish industry's costs. The increase in the price of fuel oil is adding £5 million a year to industry's costs in Scotland. That is bad enough for existing industry, but it will be much worse in its effect on the attraction of new industry to Scotland, at a time when new industry is desperately needed.
The two main industrial towns in my constituency are Montrose and Brechin. The most recent unemployment figures at the beginning of June show that the percentage in Montrose was over 4 per cent., the highest for many years, having risen from 2½ per cent. a year ago. In Brechin it has risen from 2½ per cent. a year ago to 3·8 per cent., a very alarming figure when we are trying to attract new industry and when we see the tremendous imposition of higher charges on industry.
Some of the extra costs are not the Government's responsibility. We cannot blame them entirely for the increase in fuel oil costs. But electricity, coal and gas charges are the responsibility of the

587
Government. If the Government are sincere in their wish to help industry in Scotland—and not just manufacturing industry but agriculture, fishing and the ordinary citizen—there is room to help through those fuel industries for which the Government are responsible. There is time to take action now, before it is too late.
5.30 a.m.
Mr. George Younger: We are fortunate to be able to discuss fuel prices, although it is midsummer, when people feel their impact less. There is time between now and next winter—which we know will be difficult for the economy and for many people, especially in Scotland—for the Government to take some action to mitigate this heavy burden. My hon. Friend's case that the cost of fuel in Scotland is higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom needs no reinforcement.
One point which is evident from Members' postbags is the public's bewilderment because fuel charges seem to continue to rise when incomes are frozen. The object of the freeze was supposed to be a standstill in wages and in prices. The whole policy depended as much on a freeze of prices as of wages, which is why people are bewildered by increases in fuel prices when the freeze still affects the wage earner. Electricity prices increased by 6 per cent.—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): What increases in fuel prices have there been during the wage and price freeze?
Mr. Younger: I am coming to that. There have been increases in the price of electricity. The Central Scotland Electricity Board's prices were raised by 6 per cent. on 1st April, 1967—
Mr. Freeson: That was before the freeze.
Mr. Younger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let me finish—
Mr. Freeson: I put a specific point, because we should not distort the situation. The measures were announced in July last year and it is now 12 months later. I asked the hon. Gentleman what
588
increases in fuel prices there have been during the period of the standstill and he gave none.
Mr. Younger: It is very late in the debate, but either the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me or he did not heir me, because I have just given both the increase and the date on which it was done—
Mr. Freeson: Before the freeze.
Mr. Younger: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain how 1st April, 1967, is before the freeze. What is the Ministry of Power's revised date of the freeze?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Freeson: The hon. Member must not mislead the House quite deliberately on this point. There have been no fuel price increases in this country during the period of the 12 months' standstill. The only increases he refers to took place, by his own statement, before the freeze or have been announced to take place at the end of the 12 months' period.
Mr. Younger: I think the hon. Member and I must agree to differ on this point. I have made what I am informed is a correct statement that the increases in South of Scotland Electricity Board prices take effect on 1st April, 1967.
Turning to the Hydro Electric Board, there the increase in price is about 10 per cent. and the charge is effective on 1st July, 1967, and, as the Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt say, that is just after the end of the freeze period.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: May I give a quotation from The Scotsman of 25th March in support of my hon. Friend?
"The South of Scotland Electricity Board have secured the Government's sanction to introduce their suspended six per cent. tariff increases on April 1—eght months after the board first agreed to freeze them.…"
Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing, for about the fifth time, what I said in exchanges with the Parliamentary Secretary.
The whole of industry was asked in the freeze to co-operate by keeping its charges down and avoiding price increases, and hon. Members have been on record many times since, saying that

589
they are grateful for the co-operation of industry in avoiding prices increases. We know, from the activities of the First Secretary of State, of the Department of Economic Affairs and the Prices and Incomes Board, that they have tried to persuade industries all over the country to avoid putting up prices. What sort of example is it, whether increases come just after, before or during the squeeze, for all industry throughout the country to increase its prices by between 6 and 10 per cent.? What would the outcome have been if all groceries had gone up 10 per cent. in the last six months? There would, quite rightly, have been a great outcry. If the Government reply "We have to balance our books because the costs to the electricity industry have gone up", I say to them that no private industry anywhere in the country has not had to face exactly these problems in the past year. All industries face rising costs and difficulty in keeping down prices.
If we take a straight comparison between the performance of industry generally and the Government's own industry, it is pretty clear where the best support for keeping prices down has come from. I hope that the Government will take this much to heart, because people throughout Scotland are disturbed to find that their electricity bills are higher than before although wages are frozen and they are continually preaching to industry to keep prices down. There is nothing very remarkable about the idea of keeping a straight price level over the country. Most private industry does this. One pays the same for a certain brand of biscuits in one part of the country as in another. One pays standard prices all over the United Kingdom for all sorts of products although it costs more to transport an item further away from the factory. So there is nothing particularly remarkable about the suggestion that we should have a straight cost for fuel as we have for so many other items.
I hope that those who are anxious to see the remoter areas and the development areas given preference and help to bring their economy up to the general standard of the country will bear in mind that nothing could give such great encouragement to the bringing in of industry and discouragement to emigra-
590
tion and the other ills that we are trying to solve as a clear statement that a flat rate fuel pricing policy was the policy of the Government.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary say anything about the likely performance of prices for North Sea gas in this connection? If we are not to have the principle of a flat rate for fuel prices over the country and assuming that North Sea gas were found off the coast of Scotland, are we to have a cheaper rate for the gas nearby in Scotland than in the rest of the country, or shall we have a flat rate price for all these products just the same as we ought to have for all the fuel that is produced? This is an interesting point, and I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary could comment on it.
This has been a most interesting subject. In raising it we are voicing the concern of many people about rising fuel bills, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure us.
5.42 a.m.
Mr. Hector Monro: I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on initiating the debate even at this early hour of the morning. There is no doubt in the minds of most of us that power and transport are probably the two future suppliers of lifeblood to the Scottish economy. At the moment it is obvious that the situation in Scotland is serious in the extreme and that the action that the Government have taken or intend to take will not rectify it, particularly bearing in mind the very high unemployment figures in Scotland.
Like the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), I participated in the coal industry debate last week. It is unfortunate that an important industry has to be discussed at very odd hours of the morning. For all that, it was an important debate. Because the Government promised that the views put forward by hon. Members that night would be considered when the White Paper on fuel policy is being drawn up I will not touch on more than one or two points that we discussed then.
Much of the debate today touches on the differential price of coal in Scotland. This is the crux of the argument. In fact, it is more of a complaint. This is one of the reasons why industry is not

591
being attracted to Scotland as we would like. Despite the large number of advance factories announced for Scotland in recent years, they have so far produced only 181 jobs, and when one sets that against 80,000 unemployed, it is clear that we are not moving rapidly towards the incentives to bring industry to Scotland that we must have.
I want the number of jobs for miners in Scotland to be kept as high as possible, provided that there is a margin of profitability. Efficiency has risen progressively in recent years. Output per manshift has gone up. Although there is still room for more, and there will be more between now and the 1970s, it has been a commendable effort. But, because of this increase in productivity, there are now huge stocks of coal above ground, and this is causing grave concern to the industry.
One of the reasons for the size of the coal stocks is the differential coal price. We had a mild winter, which in its way helped to keep unemployment down, but, at the same time, the lower demand for domestic fuel brought a dramatic increase in stocks during the early part of this year. Moreover, the high cost of domestic and industrial coal, coupled with the stagnant economy, made people feel that they just could not afford to buy as much as they would have liked.
Large stocks above ground and a lack of profitability have led to more pit closures. In areas of already high unemployment like South Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, this is aggravating an already worrying situation. Last week, the Minister of Power told us of one or two proposals to help elderly miners and to help to reduce coal prices to the electricity boards. But we have to go a great deal further than that if we are to deal properly with the situation, which is now approaching a critical stage. Although Ministers have said a lot about what the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Power will do to help miners displaced by closures because of lack of profitability, an enormous amount more must be done actually to provide the jobs before closures. I have voiced this complaint to the three Ministries over the last two or three years.
592
Translating the high cost of coal into terms of other forms of energy, we can see just how worrying the situation is for the mining industry. There is atomic energy and the A.G.R. programme. We have two stations in Scotland now, and one recently announced. We have our conventional generation of electricity, we have conventional gas and chemical gas —I pay high tribute to the gas industry for its development of non-toxic chemical gas—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said, we now have North Sea gas. It is time that Scotland was told when North Sea gas is to be piped across the Border into Scotland. It seems to me that, as usual —whether it be in connection with the B.B.C., the gas industry, or anything else —Scotland is low down the priority list for distribution.
I could not understand the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary on the price of electricity. We know that the freeze began last July, and that the electricity board had to contain itself and not put up the price of electricity when it wished to do so, but on 1st April—eight months after the freeze begap—the price was increased by 6 per cent. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says, like every other person and industry in Scotland I have been paying 6 per cent. more since that date. I cannot see why the hon. Gentleman complains about our statements to that effect. We are having to pay rather more than we would had the price increase been allowed last July. Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman replies to the debate he will be able to explain what he meant by his intervention.
The Minister of Power last week held out some hope for the coal industry into the 1970s. We know that 160 million tons were produced last year and that the Minister has indicated that, all being well, it could be 155 million tons by 1970. He gave various indications and expressed various opinions and hopes that as much coal as could be produced economically would be. This will help to boost the morale of the industry—a morale which has been somewhat shaken over the last two years.
I naturally am not in favour of keeping open a hopelessly uneconomic pit for an indefinite period, but over a short period I hope that the Minister realises that there may be a social advantage in

593
doing just that, if the jobs are not available and the only alternatives open to the miners affected are to emigrate to the collieries in the Midlands or stay at home and be unemployed. A miner with one or two children would receive about £12 or £14 a week, with his wage-related unemployment benefit, and it is probably cheaper to keep a mine going at a loss than it is to pay out large sums in respect of unemployed miners. It is also very much better for the men to have jobs than to stand around doing nothing.
To attain these objectives we must try to sell more coal, and there are three things that the Minister should do in this regard. First, he should reduce the price differential in Scotland to the English price level. This would be an immediate benefit to the steel and electricity industries, and to every other industry in Scotland that uses coal to produce its power.
Secondly, the Minister must look urgently at the possibility of making a reduction in the price of domestic coal in Scotland. If the stocks are there it is better to sell them at a slightly lower price than to have them piling up and tying up huge amounts of capital.
Thirdly, there is a great deal to be done to help the merchants sell more coal. There has been continual difficulty over the past with British Rail closing down coal depots at its stations and the merchants having to travel much greater distances to collect coal. They have endless difficulties. This is a question that the Minister and British Rail should sort out, and it could be done right away. If coal production can be efficient and profitable, as many miners as possible should be able to work in mines near to where they live.
My hon. Friends have illustrated the high cost of fuel oil and petrol in Scotland. From the point of view of buses and other forms of public transport, this must increase the cost of living. The differential exists the wrong way round. The further north one goes, into the Highlands and Islands, the cost of fuel becomes higher, when it should be lower. If we could bring it down we would attract more industries to the area. The cost of fuel in Scotland is of primary importance to the country's economy and I trust that immediate action will be taken to remedy the present differential.
5.56 a.m.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: This has been an interesting debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is to be congratulated for initiating it. I think we should also thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for being here, although it is right that they should be here. It is also pleasant to greet the Scottish Whip, who is seated on the Government Front Bench counting his chickens, although there is only one Mother Carey's chicken for him to count on the benches behind him. We are also honoured by the presence of the Leader of the House, who is paying us one of his little visits, rather like the absentee landlord come to visit his tenantry.
Mr. Eadie: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say whether he was here during the last coal debate?
Mr. MacArthur: On that occasion I took the sensible course of being fast asleep in bed, having been awake and in attendance for almost the whole of every night that week.
Mr. Eadie: So had we all.
Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that.
Mr. Eadie: I was here.
Mr. MacArthur: No, not every night. In October, 1964—not long ago—the Labour Party said in its election manifesto that a vote for the Socialists could guarantee
"… that the British again become the go-ahead people with a sense of national purpose, thriving in an expanding community.…"
It is sad to quote those words today—part of the slick salesmanship that helped the Labour Party to come to power. It was a false prospectus if ever there was one. Are we thriving—with the real value of wages in Scotland down, unemployment up and with worse to come this winter? Are we living in an expanding community—with migration soaring and probably running at a higher level this year, and with the population of Scotland falling sharply? Emigration has gone up and population has fallen for a variety of reasons, but one is the higher prices and costs which people have

595
to face in Scotland despite the promise in the 1964 manifesto under the heading, "Plan for Stable Prices". We know what has happened to the Plan. And the Retail Price Index has gone up 12 points.
An important factor in the costs we have to face in Scotland is the incidence of the cost of fuel, petrol, coal, gas and electricity. My hon. Friends have reminded the House of the amounts by which these fuels have gone up and the times at which they went up. I was surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary did not know that the South of Scotland Electricity Board put up its prices on 1st April. It is surprising that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not tell him that. If the hon. Gentleman finds that he was wrong in what he said, I hope that he will make a personal statement before we rise for the Summer Recess. He should do that in his own interest, because there will be a sense of shock in Scotland when it is known that he does not know what is happening there.
The effect of increased costs runs right through the economy. Increased fuel costs and the increased cost of living which follows hits everyone, but those who are hit particularly hard are the old and the poor. Increased costs, particularly of coal, and to some extent electricity, account for a very large proportion of the expenditure of old and poor people. Earlier today I was looking at the Family Expenditure Survey, 1965. It relates to the whole of Britain and possibly the amount spent on fuel in Scotland is higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom because of the climate and the shorter winter days.
It is interesting to note one of the statistical comparisons emerging from those figures. In households with a weekly income of £5—which surely means one person only—the amount spent each week on fuel, light and power is 17s. 5d. In an equivalent house where the head of the household is 65 or over, a pensioner, the expenditure jumps sharply to 22s. 9d. How much the pensioner is dependent on fuel is illustrated in the pattern of spending. There are some other interesting comparisons. People over 65 with an income of £5 a week, spend £3 6d. on food. In better-off households where the income of the head of the family is
596
£15 or more, the amount extra spent on fuel is very little more—30s. 3d., which is only 7s. 6d. more than hard-up pensioners. Of course, it is on food that the greatest increase occurs, from £3 6s. to £5 3d.
What I am trying to establish from these figures is that the proportion of total expenditure spent on fuel by the old age pensioner on a very small income is very high. Examining the figures closely, one sees the dependence of the pensioner on coal. It is surprising to see that the pensioner household with an income of under £5 a week spends more on coal per week than the average of all households. It spends half as much again on coal as the household with three times the income or more. Similarly, of course, the better off the home, the more is spent on electricity.
On fuel, light and power, therefore, 22s. 9d. is being spent by the average pensioner with an income of under £5 a week and that figure is likely to be higher in Scotland for the reasons I have given. Roughly speaking, these costs are going up by 10 per cent. or something approaching 2s. 6d. a week.
We have all had the experience of seeing in our constituencies pensioners who, recognising the heavy cost of fuel, have to make some weekly provision for it, particularly for the electricity charge, which comes in quarterly. They cannot meet such a bill in a lump sum so they save pennies or shillings every week to provide for it.
In the north of Scotland, served by the Hydro-Electricity Board, the increased electricity charges took effect from 1st July and pensioners are putting aside money each week for the next quarterly bill on the assumption, no doubt, that it will bear some relationship to the last bill they received. But they will find it up by 10 per cent. Indeed, I believe that it will be up by more than that. This is where these rough and ready estimates can be so misleading.
The tariff of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board is rather different from those in other areas. The cost of the unit depends on the number of units used. The first 80 units used cost no less than 6d. a unit; the next 350 units cost 2d. a unit until 1st July and now cost 2¼d. a unit; units used thereafter are going up from 1¼d. to 1⅜d. It does not

597
take much electricity to use up 80 units. The increase at the next stage is the sharpest in proportion and it is in that range that many pensioners and old people are mainly affected. They do not use a lot of electricity and it is in that centre range that their consumption falls. That being so, their bills will be up by more than 10 per cent. and it will be a heavy blow to them.
The dependence of elderly people on fuel and light was demonstrated evocatively and dramatically to me during the winter when I called on a constituent, an old lady pensioner living, in a small house in the country. As it got dark in the middle of the afternoon, she asked me, "Will you have the light or the fire?" The light or the fire—that is the choice which still has to be made by some homes in Scotland—perhaps by more homes than we know. The light or the fire—an evocative reminder to us all of the need to identify hardship and channel larger help to ease it within our social security system. It is these people who are the hardest hit by increases in the cost of coal, electricity and gas. These increases affect everyone in Scotland directly, and indirectly through the additions that they make to the cost of living. Through these increased costs on industry we find a system of charging, with Government encouragement, which hampers our progress.
6.10 a.m.
Mr. Michael Noble: This is the second debate that we have had during the course of tonight on the problems that affect the less lucky parts of the country. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for inaugurating the debate and giving it a start and for the contributions from my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) in bringing the whole problem of fuel and fuel costs before the House at this stage in the Session.
There are two questions about the future which I should like to raise with the Under Secretary. One is the same as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), namely, whether he can give a firm guarantee about the Government's policy on the North Sea gas. The second question, which is also one for the future, concerns
598
the problem of coal for Longannet. This is a matter with which I was closely concerned a number of years ago. At the time there was a great deal of apprehension on the part of the mining community—and if the hon. Member for Midlothian had been in the House then I am sure that he would have made very long speeches, and I should have listened to them—that, if possible, this big new power station should be fired by coal. I have read reports put out by the South of Scotland Electricity Board that it does not believe that the Coal Board will be able to provide coal at the price which was arranged for Longannet without enormously putting up the price of the coal that is delivered to every other station. If this is true then the negotiation which was carried out in my time, and which was done specifically to help the mining community by providing 7,000 extra mining jobs in Scotland, was carried out by the Coal Board under totally false pretences. I should be grateful if the Under Secretary can give some information about that.
While paying tribute to the wide range of important points which my hon. Friends have raised—industry, agriculture, fishing and so on—I should like to concentrate on the immediate problems which face us in Scotland over the next nine months. This is something which, when we are to be away for three months, the indicia we have been able to look at show that the picture is almost certain to get steadily worse. We should like to make certain that the Government appreciate our worry and our hope that they will not talk pretty complacently, as in a debate a fortnight ago, but will really begin to take action to try to save Scotland from another very grim winter. I say "pretty complacently" because, two days after our debate, the Scottish Office statistical people put out the figures for production. Not only were they stagnant, but they had gone backwards. Nothing of that sort was admitted by the Secretary of State, and within a week we had the unemployment figures which were a good deal worse than anything that we had reason to expect.
The cost of fuel is a very important part of industrial costs. It is certain that in the next few months many firms will have to make up their minds about how they are to cut costs. They cannot

599
increase profits, as is perfectly clear from report after report from almost every industrial concern in the country. Therefore, in the next six months, if the Minister of Power and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has some responsibility in this respect, allow fuel costs to rise, one of the only ways in which firms will be able to maintain their viability will be by considering what can be cut from their labour forces.
There are not many ways in which costs can be cut quickly when fuel costs are rising other than getting rid of people who can be spared, however inconvenient that may be. I ask the Government in their thinking about what action to take over the next five or six months to help the Scottish economy not to load it with extra fuel or other costs which will immediately have the reaction of increasing unemployment.
I should like to make certain that the Government realise, and of course they do, when they think about it, that the toughest time for any community is when unemployment is high. It always means a shortage of money not only among those who are unemployed and among the widows and pensioners, but over a wider range, among those who own small shops and so on, who find that there is not sufficient money about to keep them going. For these people, too, next winter will be tough if the weather is cold and fuel prices continue to rise and are apparently encouraged by the Government to rise.
6.17 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): If I do not pursue the somewhat wider aspects of the subject which have been raised in the course of the debate, it will not be because of any lack of interest in or concern for the broader issues which are involved in the problems of unemployment and regional development generally, but because I want to confine myself to the more particular aspects of the situation in Scotland to which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred. There have been, and will be, occasions when, although it is not the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Power, we shall nevertheless have views to express and comments to make about
600
the wider aspects of fuel policy in so far as it interlocks with other economic policies and needs in Scotland and elsewhere.
The general principle behind the pricing policies of the nationalised fuel industries is that prices should reflect the costs of supply. There is nothing magical about that and there is no hard and fast rule laid down in any ideology or creed which says that there must be a particular pricing policy, whether a postalisation policy, or a regional variation, or any other kind of variation. It must be related to what we are seeking to do by the present policy. There is no implicit truth.
However, there have been several studies and reports about this aspect of policy, and the idea of maintaining regional differences in cost where reflected in regional differences in prices has been endorsed by all the independent committees, in this country by the Ridley Committee of 1952, and, internationally, by the Robinson Report to O.E.E.C. in 1960.
As to the facts, most fuels do cost more in Scotland than in England and Wales as a whole. Electricity in Scotland has tended to be cheaper on average than in England and Wales. In 1965–66 the average revenue per unit from electricity sales in Scotland was 1·598d. compared with 1·737d. for England and Wales, although the average level for industrial sales was higher, a point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart.
Since then Scottish electricity prices have gone up by way of the April increase of 6 per cent., which was, as one hon. Member indicated, rather hurriedly, a suspended increase from the point of view that the July announcement was made, and there is this special consideration. In other words, the increase was already in process at the time that the Government made their decisions of July last. This was suspended.
Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman will accept that, however much he may care to dress this up in coloured clothes, the fact remains that electricity prices in the South of Scotland went up on 1st April, 1967—within the period of the freeze.
Mr. Freeson: I have explained what happened. One should not do logic-hopping on a thing like this. There is a "gelling" together of many aspects of what has gone on over the past few months, and to take out little items does not get us very far.
Mr. Noble Mr. Noble rose—
Mr. Freeson: Let us not get into another ragged exchange, it is not necessary to make a meal of it. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) went on to imply, it seemed, that the 10 per cent. increase more recently announced would bring added hardship and burdens to the people of Scotland. He went on to talk about the elderly people. That is not so, because the subsequent increase announced on 12th May will affect only those in England and Wales.
Mr. MacArthur: I am sorry to intervene again to explain the Scottish position. We have two Scottish electricity boards, the North of Scotland Hydro Board and the Southern—
Mr. Freeson: I understand the position about the two boards, and the 10 per cent. increase. I was making the point that there could have been some misunderstanding about what the hon. Gentleman was saying. I had the impression, perhaps it is wrong, that he was saying that the 10 per cent. increase announced by the Minister on 12th May imposed additional burdens in Scotland. [Interruption.] I am making the point, quite clearly, that there is no additional burden in Scotland as a result of that announcement. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire can go to bed happy.
If I may now turn to gas. Although the Scottish Gas Board has raised tariffs twice since the beginning of 1965 the average income from gas sales in Scotland is not the highest tariff in the country. I think that the hon. Member has on more than one occasion, perhaps mistakenly, indicated that this was so. The highest tariff area in the country is south-west England. Coal prices in general are higher in Scotland, as has been pointed out. In particular coking coal costs more in Scotland than England and Wales. This has implications for the
602
steel industry to which hon. Members have referred.
Let me turn to the question of the coalfield price differential. Under the April, 1966, coal prices increases, pithead prices of coal for industry, for power stations and gas-making were raised by 15s. a ton in Scotland. The range for other coalfields was from nil in the East Midlands—which is understandable for that area—to 30s. in South Wales, Kent and Somerset. In all, in three fields the changes were less than for Scotland, in four fields they were higher and in the other two they were the same as for Scotland.
The National Board for Prices and Incomes approved the policy of selective increases. Against the background of what I have said, one gets a better sense of proportion about this. I do not try to belittle the difficulties for Scotland in pointing out these facts. The selective increases help to prevent the good coalfields from being priced out of their markets by having to subsidise those with higher production costs. This is the key economic fact for the coal industry against the idea of postalising prices in the industry, apart from the comments that one might make about the other fuel industries.
Postalisation in the industry in Scotland would seriously distort the economics of the industry to such an extent that the process of modernisation and rationalisation in the industry, which will eventually produce much more economic operation, would be put out of joint so that at the end of rationalisation and the reshaping of the industry we would not get the results which undoubtedly will come. With all the difficulties which the industry faces, that will come if the process of reshaping is allowed to continue.
At this stage I should refer to distribution costs, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian made great mention. I can only repeat briefly the points which have been made on previous occasions when we have discussed the matter or Questions have been asked. The Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on this aspect of the industry indicated that the profit margins were not excessive.
The big problem in the industry, to which my hon. Friend referred, is the

603
structure of the distribution industry and the wide range of activities of companies in it. This points very much to the need, to which the Prices and Incomes Board referred, for rationalisation and concentration and modernisation of distribution, in which the National Coal Board is playing an increasingly bigger role and will continue to do so. Fortunately, the Department is very concerned to encourage that kind of process.
The figures were queried about the effect of postalisation of a uniform system of pricing in Scotland. I was asked whether the figure of about 2 per cent. which has been quoted in the past referred to the economy, to industry generally or to fuel costs. It refers to fuel costs. All I can say is that the figures have been put into the machine and have been worked to the best of the ability of the economists and the statisticians, and this is the result. One could be amazed at it, as the hon. Member for Cathcart was, but that is the resultant approximation of the effect of any uniform pricing system in Scotland were it to be introduced.
We take the view, however, that it would be wrong to single out Scotland for such a policy, bearing in mind what I have said recently in reply to Questions on this matter that, were there to be uniformity of pricing and a postalisation policy, while it would benefit Scotland to the approximate level of 2 per cent. on fuel prices, other development areas would suffer. On the other hand, prosperous areas would benefit. The South and the South-East would benefit by postalisation. In other words, certain areas which need assistance and help would suffer while people in prosperous areas would benefit, although in this context Scotland would benefit to a certain degree.
We have, however, to look at the policy as a whole, and if a postalisation policy were to produce a worsening of the balance between the prosperous areas and the development areas, we would not achieve for the country as a whole what the hon. Member seeks to achieve simply for Scotland. We must go about regional development policies by other means, and it is not for me at this hour of the morning to go into the detailed activities with which other Departments are concerned.
604
I was asked about natural gas policy. I am afraid that the two hon. Members who raised this question are about a month out of date. I made it quite clear in the House on 19th June that natural gas sold to area boards by the Gas Council will be at a uniform tariff with variations only for load factor.
With regard to Longannet, it is not for me, in a debate here, to start intervening in the negotiations and discussions going on between the two Boards concerned. I prefer them to continue their discussions. I am sure they will produce satisfactory results in the end, if we do not interfere by entering into the negotiations by open debate in the House.
Mr. MacArthur: They were started three years ago.
Mr. Freeson: I was not here three years ago, and nor were the present Government, so if there was any responsibility three years ago it rests with hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
I think I have covered all the points to the best of my ability—at any rate, the points particularly germane to the matter introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. I have no doubt we shall be hearing from him again on this score, and from other hon. Members.

LEEDS—BRADFORD AIRPORT
6.32 a.m.
Sir Donald Kaberry: At half-past six in the morning, when the first international jet aircraft beginning to scream and stream into London Airport, I do not propose to occupy the time of the House very long talking about the development of the Leeds—Bradford Airport and developments in relation to the question of a national airports plan. I should first like to acknowledge the presence of the Minister who is to reply, who has been here the whole evening. As this is a Leeds—Bradford matter I should like to acknowledge also the presence of the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), who is here, but who, I think, has exhausted his right to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill.
I want to raise a matter which is of concern to my constituents in North-West Leeds, the whole population of the

605
West Riding of Yorkshire, and, I suppose, the Ministry, in so far as the necessity for a national airports plan arises in relation to the future use of this particular airport. To be very brief, the Leeds—Bradford Airport was formed some time before the 1939 war. It was a grass field. It was used primarily by private aircraft. During the war a concrete runway was put down, and larger aircraft used it. Since the war it has been developed as a municipal airport by the joint authorities, Leeds Corporation, Bradford Corporation, and, more recently, the West Riding County Council. It has been largely operated by private companies, which in recent years have had increasing business. The number of flights a year and the number of passengers carried have increased. But that has brought with it a lot of problems which concern the people who use the airport and certainly concern my constituents who live nearby.
I want to ask the Minister a series of questions which, I hope, he will be able to answer this morning; but if he cannot answer this morning, at any rate I hope that he will promise to let me know the answers later.
The airport is at the moment being thoroughly reconditioned, overhauled, and extended. There was a disastrous fire about two years ago. It destroyed the passenger terminal, and for the past two years passengers have had very bad accommodation in a hangar which has been adapted for quick use in and out; there is no comfort for anyone to stay there. That will cease at the end of this year, when a very good new passenger terminal should be available. That will be a step in the right direction. One of the runways has recently been lengthened, but this has brought its own problems because of the type of aircraft using the airport, and there are suggestions about lengthening the runway in order to take larger aircraft.
It is to this point that I should like to draw the Minister's attention, because my constituents are concerned about the type of aircraft which will use the airport in future. In the past we have had the modest private plane. The private companies have used DC3s, the Avro turboprop 748, and more recently one or two ancient Viscounts have appeared on the scene. They have used the existing run-
606
way, but the suggestion is to extend it, and this can be done only at what I would call considerable expense, for such is the nature of the airport that it is restricted in its size by roads on almost every side. It will mean crossing a main highway to put in an extended runway, which will cause many problems of architecture, design, and construction.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that the Ministry will take great care to control the noise of aircraft using the airport. I say this advisedly, because in making the approach run aircraft have to come quite low over high ground in the north-western part of my constituency, and there have been complaints about the increased noise.
That leads me to my second point, the whole question of the future development of the airport itself. Is it to be yet one more international airport? Is it to compete with Manchester Airport? Is it to compete with Prestwick or London Airport? Or is to be used merely as an airport for feeder services? If we can be told the future nature of the airport, the public can know what kind of aircraft they can expect to see using it.
If it is to be used for feeder services only, surely we shall have only the more modest type of aircraft using it, and not making too much noise, but if it is to be yet another international airport, we shall have screaming over Leeds and Bradford large international jet aircraft of the kind which at this moment are over the centre of London making their approach run in.
Those are the questions which I wanted to ask the Minister. I do not propose to detain him any longer at this late hour. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
6.38 a.m.
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. MallaIieu): I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) on the pithiness and speed with which he has put his points. Not for the first time Yorkshire is providing a shining example which might be followed by Scotland.
The points made by the hon. Gentleman are important to everyone in the area, which to some extent includes my constituency We all know that noise is a

607
curse, particularly aircraft noise, but it would not be the wish of people in our region in Yorkshire, or indeed in any other region, that because noise is a nuisance we must stop the development of civil aviation. I do not think that anybody seriously suggests that. What they do say is that those who are responsible for the control of airports, in this instance the consortium of local authorities, must themselves watch the noise problem and lay down rules about the degree of noise which is permissible. I have not the slightest doubt that those who are dependent on the electorate are very susceptible to pressure in this matter.
It is difficult to say whether noise is likely to increase at the airport in the future. At present consideration is merely being given to a possible extension of the runway. No decision has been made, but if it were decided that the runway should be extended, it would mean that it could be used by jets, by larger aeroplanes than use it at present.
That is where the Government as a whole must come in. There was fairly recently an international conference on noise, when certain suggestions were made for noise certification of all future aircraft engines. They are now being followed up. We feel that it is so important to get international agreement about noise certification on future engines that we are pressing the point as hard as we can, and we hope reasonably shortly to make proposals which will ensure that noise levels are diminished rather than increased, as would otherwise happen.
I wish that I could give a direct answer to the hon. Gentleman on the future of the airport. I am not trying to evade him, but recently an examination has been made under the leadership of the West Riding into the future possibilities of Yeadon and of siting a new airport somewhere else in the region in the longterm future. As the hon. Gentleman said, Yeadon has limitations. The runways tend to suffer from cross-winds, and although the airport is very well placed for Bradford and Leeds it is less well placed for Huddersfield and other towns. It is not ideally sited.
The report of the inquiry is to be published, I think, tomorrow. Until it has been published and considered it
608
would be very unwise for me to give my own views of the likely developments. But I consider that the airport, which I use fairly frequently, has been a tremendous asset to the immediate area. It is a very good example of the municipal enterprise of Bradford and Leeds and, latterly, of the West Riding. A good deal of money has been spent on it, and in spite of the setback of the fire and so on the traffic has risen by much more than the average of other airports. There is no doubt that it will continue to serve a good and useful purpose for the immediate area.
I should not like to say much about the long-term question of a regional airport. The report to be published tomorrow must be considered by the British Airports Authority and others. It will go to the Regional Planning Committee and the economic development committees not only of our region but the whole of the North. The investigations and considerations will be under the general supervision of the Board of Trade.

COUNCIL FOR WALES
6.45 a.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Two recent White Papers have attracted considerable discussion in the Principality of Wales, but nothing has attracted more hostile criticism than the Government's proposal to set up a Nominated Council for Wales, so it is right that the matter should be debated before the Recess. I am sorry that the Minister of State has been kept out of bed all night but I am sure that she will welcome the opportunity to make the Government's views clear.
I completely oppose any nominated council for Wales, and this view is shared by hon. Members opposite. Such a council is not new. Wales was governed by the Nominated Council for Wales and the Marches several centuries ago, and the redoubtable Bishop Roland Lee of Worcester, who probably hanged more Welshmen than anyone else—[AN HON. MEMBER: "He was very efficient."] He was certainly vicious.
In 1948 the then Labour Government proposed the setting up of a nominated council, and many views expressed in

609
that debate were echoed in the Government's White Paper. Presenting the proposals, the late Herbert Morrison said:
"I think this scheme will prove to be acceptable to the general body of Welsh Members, but the fact is that we cannot think of anything better. We think this is the best expedient open to us and we should be most regretful if hon. Members took such an opposite view that we did not go on with this.
We are unable, as have been Governments before us, to think of anything better than this; we think this is good."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1275.]
The best which the Government of the day could think of was this council responsible to the Minister responsible for Welsh Affairs.
The position has now changed. There is a Secretary of State, a Minister of State and an Under-Secretary of State for Wales and well-developed—though not sufficiently well-developed—Welsh Office. We congratulated the Government on setting up the Welsh Office as a major step forward, but why, therefore, is there any need for this Council of a kind usually reserved for backward colonies who cannot elect their own representatives? The Government have made no case in the White Paper for the Council. It says:
"Proposals have been made by various bodies and by some of the informal local government advisers that, as part of the reorganisation of local government, new machinery should be created at an all-Wales level."
There is a widespread desire in Wales for a good deal of devolution. Opinions may differ as to the extent of devolution desirable. Opinions in this House vary about it, but there is a great body of opinion in favour. An all-Wales body is a body which represents Wales, but does the nominated Council represent Wales? How is it nominated and how will it differ from the Council set up by the Government in 1949 and abolished over a year ago as virtually redundant? There was a good deal of pressure from within the Government and certainly from the Labour Party for an elected Council for Wales. The Government have ignored a great deal of opinion on either side of the House in favour of an elected, rather than a nominated, Council, and the House has a right to know why this was rejected. The view expressed in 1948 was that the nominated Council should be accepted as something which could be developed into something
610
elected and acceptable to the general body of people in Wales, but that view proved entirely unfounded.
It is suggested in the White Paper that the Welsh Council should have among its responsibilities:
"To provide a forum for the interchange of views and information on developments in the economic and cultural fields, and to advise on the implications for Wales of national policies."
Why on earth do we need nominated people to do this? Wales has elected Members in this House. Other areas do not need nominated bodies to advise the Minister how people think, and on developments in the economic and cultural fields.
The next power suggested is:
"To assist in the formulation of plans for Wales, having regard to the best use of its resources, and to advise the Secretary of State for Wales on major land use and economic planning matters."
Why is it necessary to have a nominated Council for a purpose of this kind?
The hostile reception for this plan has been fully justified. It would be a retrograde step for this nominated Council to be set up. This was an important White Paper. On all sides there is agreement that reform of local government for Wales is necessary. Most of the discussion on the White Paper is centred, not on the proposals for reform of local government, but on proposals for a nominated Council, and the minds of people of Wales have been taken from the valuable suggestions in the rest of the Report. I do not agree with it all, but it is a feasible scheme and a good basis for discussion.
I hope that the hon. Lady, the Minister of State, will be able to reassure the House that the Government ate not tied irrevocably to the idea of a nominated Council. It will hold back the idea of devolution of an elected body in Wales because all these councils build up vested interests and, once thrust upon us, they are difficult to remove.
Now we have a Secretary of State for Wales and we have had some administrative devolution. The next step should be greater administrative and legislative devolution. Where does this Council help in that process? The White Paper completely fails to make out a good case for this nominated body.
6.55 a.m.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on his initiative in securing a debate on this matter which is of great interest and significance to Wales. The fervency with which the Liberal Party in Wales approaches Welsh issues since the Carmarthen by-election of 12 months ago is as welcome as it is understandable. This proposal for a nominated Council is a compromise between the views of those who would sweep away any all-Wales machinery and those who would firmly stand for an elected Council. However commendable compromise might be in the Anglo-Saxon context, harsh Celtic logicality regards it as rather monstrous and in this connection the compromise is a hermaphrodite creation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree with me that no section of Welsh opinion has been jubilant in welcoming the establishment of this nominated Council for Wales.
Therefore, the Welsh Office has been caught in a crossfire from both sides, from those who feel that the establishment of such a Council is at best a superfluity or at worst a concession to dangerous nationalist feelings, and from those who feel that a nominated Council is an affront to Welsh nationhood. These two factions are now in unholy alliance attacking the new proposal.
Before mentioning the deficiencies of the nominated Council, it is only fair and proper that one should stress one ameliorative feature. This is not only common to the proposal to establish a nominated Council but runs through the whole rationale of the Government's published plans for the reorganisation of local government in Wales. It is the rejection of the temptation to consider that the north-west of Wales should be linked to Merseyside and the South-East to the Bristol and Severnside conurbation. After all, this is a plan which does regard Wales as one distinctive entity. That in itself is a minor victory, for certain academics have from time to time pressed the other view that there should be this splitting up of Wales and joining it after dismembering to various parts of England.
I urge upon the House the consideration that there are three very serious defects in the idea of a nominated Council for Wales. First, the Council is not
612
representative of the people of Wales. I do not prejudge the calibre of persons who will be appointed. I am not saying that they will not be foremost in Welsh life, that they will not be typical of Welsh outlook or that they will not be dedicated to the welfare of Wales. I am sure that those who are nominated will be suitable, people of industry and integrity and well qualified in their fields to serve on an all-Wales body. But as appointed members of the body they will not be responsible to the Welsh people. They will not have behind them the vote of a single Welshman or Welshwoman to support their membership or mandate their actions.
Further, this nominated body will have to deal with elected bodies. Consider what would be the position if there were a Member of this House who had been nominated rather than elected to Parliament. What would be his authority? What would his status vis-à-vis the other Members of the House? A person looking at the development of Welsh institutions from 1945 would, I think, come to the conclusion that there was an inevitable trend of progressiveness from the publication of the first White Paper on Wales in 1946 to the establishment of the Welsh Office in 1964. But this nominated Council is not part of any such progressive pattern of development. In fact, we have come back full circle to the position which existed in 1949. There has been a reinstatement of the council which was abolished in 1966.
The second point I stress is that this is an advisory body, and, as such, it lacks real authority, executive or otherwise. Wales already has a plenitude of advisory non-authoritative bodies. Few nations can have had so rich a dowry. Advisory bodies have their place in the life of every community, but they run the gauntlet in a very narrow course. On the one hand, there is the danger that they may be so robust in their activity and have such influence in the life of the community that they trespass upon the democratic principle in that they are not responsible to the people whom they serve. On the other hand, there is the danger that they may so lack authority that their functions are nothing more than a charade.
From its establishment in 1949 to its demise in 1966, how many of the reports

613
of the Council for Wales and Monmouth have been acted upon, how many were fully debated, how many have passed into obscurity, gathering respectable dust in some pigeon-hole in Whitehall?
Third—and this, I believe, is the true gravamen of the indictment against the nominated Council—it supplants a far more desirable and very necessary body, that is, an elected council for Wales. It is not in order now to discuss the proposals relating to local government reorganisation in Wales. I say only this. There are many in Wales who would wish to have seen a pattern of reorganisation of local government based upon 36 most-purpose authorities, with a higher tier of a regional body, and an elected one at that.
In the White Paper, arguments are articulated against such a body. The main argument was of the "heads I win, tails you lose" variety. It is said that, in so far as an elected body could have culled functions from both local and central government, such a reform would require
"extensive alterations in existing legislation".
Again, it is said that, in so far as the local government functions are concerned, the main purpose of this reorganisation, after all, was to strengthen local government bodies in Wales. It would then not be proper for any functions to be taken away from the present pattern and consequently to weaken those very bodies.
It is only fair to remember that extensive alterations are anticipated by the plans which have been published in regard to local government reorganisation. Legislation will be necessary. Although the Government argue in the White Paper that the creation of an elected council would entail discussions on "wider issues", I submit that this would have been within their terms of reference in this context. They do not make the point that it would have been ultra vires for it to have considered this situation.
I also feel that the main criticism under this heading is that the Government have failed to show clearly in their White Paper that Wales has a distinctive character and composition as a land and
614
nation and that it is right for it to have its own specific structure and Government. If Wales were nothing more than a region there might be force in the argument that any reform should be regarded as part of a wider study, but the case here does not rest upon regionalism; it rests on nationhood. When the Welsh Office was established in 1964 it was not argued that such a development should be part of a comprehensive study of the devolution of the powers of central Government; it was embarked upon as a wholly independent act. If the nationhood of Wales justified such action in October, 1964, why should the attitude have changed in July 1967?
Again, I consider that in the White Paper there was a failure to treat the arguments relating not only to central Government but local government—
Mr. Alan Williams: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing self-evident in the proposition that nationhood automatically demands its own Parliamentary structure, and also that the social links, which may sometimes be very nebulous, with the national background may not coincide with the more practical links governmentally?
Mr. Morgan: It is too early in the morning to launch into a lengthy argument on the rights of nationhood. The justification for the creation of the Welsh Office, according to every declaration made by the Government, was the fact of Welsh nationhood. The creation of the Welsh Office was not put forward as part of a comprehensive plan but as a specific Welsh development, confined to Wales. If Welsh nationhood justified specific treatment in 1964, can it logically be argued that there should be no specific treatment in 1967?
There is also a failure to deal with the local government aspect of this development. The great danger that arises when—as in the case of this plan—there is created a tier of county councils and then of district councils is that such local government bodies often experience friction and jealousy. A pattern of 36 most-purpose Councils with a regional authority would have avoided this peril.

615
Not only do I regret the decision which the Government have arrived at but I also regret the failure to deal fully with the question of an elected council. It would have been proper in the White Paper to have shown the functions which could have been culled from the realm of local government and also central Government—functions such as police, fire and ambulance services on the one hand and, from central Government, functions relating to forestry, water resources and economic planning. Some attempt should have been made to assess the role which this Council could play in the life of Wales. I feel that it is a body which can inspire national feelings and aspirations. It could have been a focal point for the loyalties of people from all parts of Wales—people of different views and diverse languages. It could have been a unifying force in the life of a nation which is divided by so many factors.
Wales is much more than a geographical area which commends itself to the geometry of regional planners. It is a country and a national community and any body which is to serve it effectively must be vested not only with real power but be so constituted as to command the respect of the Welsh people. There is sufficient veneration for the functions of democracy in Wales and a proper pride in nationhood as to demand that such a body should be manned by people elected by the Welsh people and be responsible to them.
Some will say that a great and decisive battle has been lost, but I do not believe that. Nothing has yet been lost, and I stress the opening words of the White Paper:
"This White Paper sets out for public discussion the Government's proposals for reorganising local government in Wales."
I urge the Government to reappraise their plan. It will take two to three years for legislation to be implemented in this connection and, meanwhile, a study of Welsh opinion on this vital point should be made. I am sure that the results would show how robust and adventurous is the feeling in Wales on this issue. Thereafter, a Government working party could be established to prepare a detailed plan for regional government in Wales, built around a system of an elected council,
616
such a plan dovetailing into a new pattern of local government.
Eighty years ago, when Welsh local government was reformed, there were cries for a national body to serve Wales. Despite the virile national feelings of the time, these cries were ignored. Nevertheless, the spirit of nationhood in Wales grew stronger. At the turn of the century the Liberal Party both encouraged and exploited this spirit. Yet when the Liberals gained a huge majority of 365 seats in 1906, capturing all the seats in Wales, with one exception—it saw fit to betray the trust that had been vested in it by Welsh national feeling.
Mr. Hooson: If the hon. Gentleman knew anything about the history of this matter he would know that between 1906 and 1917 the Liberal Party tried to give first priority to Ireland, although every Bill was rejected by the House of Lords.
Mr. Morgan: As for history—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot now go into the history of the Liberal Party in detail.
Mr. Morgan: I am not castigating the Liberal Party for its failure to pass the necessary legislation but for never ever having attempted to carry it through, even in the days of its absolute strength in this House. I hope that the present Government, who have received the franchise of nearly two-thirds of the Welsh people and who hold five-sixths of the constituencies in Wales, will not fall into the same error, but will, when the time comes to implement their plans, give Wales an elected body of which the nation can be proud.
7.15 a.m.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): A debate on Wales is welcome at any time, even at this time in the morning. We are naturally gratified that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) should have come here and initiated a discussion on matters which are of great importance to the Principality, but, having been here all night, I rather hoped that when we reached this subject we would have a more constructive and less superficial speech from him.
The only advantage the hon. and learned Member has over the Conservative Party, which has not chosen to be

617
represented here at all this morning, is that he is at least concerned with a possible body for the whole of Wales, whereas a few months before the last election the Conservative Party issued a map of its proposed regional government which split Wales, putting the whole of the North Wales littoral in with Merseyside and South-East Lancashire, leaving mid-Wales as another region, South and South-West Wales and West Monmouthshire as another, and East Monmouthshire with Severnside. The Liberal Party has not suggested anything of that kind.
On another occasion I should like to have an opportunity of discussion of the whole problem of local government in Wales, but I do not think this is an occasion to enter into a general discussion of the reform of local government. I only say to the hon. and learned Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) that of course we considered very carefully the possibility of 36 or any other number of all-purpose authorities in Wales and came deliberately to the conclusion that a pattern of that kind, whereas it might be suitable for other parts of the United Kingdom or for certain areas of Wales, would not be suitable for Wales as a whole because the resulting authorities would be far too small for many of the functions they would have to perform.
I do not want to go into full detail of the proposed pattern of local government as it is set out in the White Paper, but I confine myself to the final chapter of the White Paper which is concerned with the proposed Welsh Council. To some extent both hon. Members have been tilting at windmills. We expect that from the Liberal Party, but I was rather disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan should have fallen into the same error, because it is quite clear to anyone who reads the White Paper that the proposals of the Secretary of State concerning a possible all-Wales administrative body fall into two parts. This is made clear in paragraph 57, which says:
"It is proposed to take action in two stages. The first stage is the extension of the terms of reference and membership of the present Welsh Economic Council."
Then it is made perfectly plain that further consideration will be given to possible subsequent developments.
618
This procedure, far from arousing hostile comment as has been suggested, in all quarters has received the commendation of those who are knowledgeable in this field. I quote from an article which appeared last week in the Local Government Chronicle by Professor Ivor Gowan of the University of Wales in which, discussing the proposal to deal with this matter in two stages, he says:
"This is an eminently reasonable suggestion and it is far more empirical and level headed than the extravagant comments which have come from one or two of the minor Welsh political parties."
I am sure the hon. and learned Member will recognise himself in that context.
Mr. Hooson: No.
Mrs. White: The immediate intention as described in the White Paper is in my view the only sensible one which could have been adopted at this stage for the very good reason that a fairly lengthy period is bound to elapse before the proposed new local authorities are actually functioning. With the length of time required to draft and pass the complex legislation needed, it can hardly be less than three years.
So what could be wiser than to extend somewhat the terms of reference and membership of the existing Welsh Economic Council, as proposed for stage one? From remarks made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, both on this occasion and in the Welsh Grand Committee in 1964, it is plain that he holds a very poor view of advisory bodies. He made in 1964 some extremely denigratory remarks about the former Council for Wales. I ask him to read again the very impressive foreword to the final Report of that Council, signed by its Chairman, Councillor Bccston, a mail who, incidentally, has unrivalled experience as an elected member in another sphere of activity.
Councillor Beeston pointed out that what the Government wanted was advice, not independent action, on the special needs of Wales. He thought that a guiding principle of the Council had been to back its advice with solid evidence and to resist the temptation to rush into resolutions formulated from inadequate study and discussion.
Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Lady has not dealt with the point made by

619
the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). What were the achievements of the nominated Council?
Mrs. White: I was coming to that if I had not been interrupted. It will be within the recollection of all those who are knowledgeable about the former Council for Wales that it provided the basis and the stimulus for a very large number of important developments in Wales, not least the Welsh Office itself. I should have thought also that any hon. Member representing part of mid-Wales would have expressed a little gratitude for the Council's report on mid-Wales. There were also reports on depopulation, rural transport and the Welsh language, which most of us would have regarded as the forerunner of the Welsh Language Bill. The suggestion that the work of this Council, because it was advisory and based on research rather than slogans, was of little use is completely misplaced.
In that final statement on behalf of the Council, Councillor Beeston quite properly declared:
"It would in any event have been wrong for the Government to confer on a nominated Council powers of executive action over such a wide field."
He was referring to the Council's terms of reference. All this is true mutatis mutandis of the Welsh Council proposed in the White Paper. If it is advice we are seeking, a nominated body is not only justified but for certain purposes it is essential because otherwise we would deprive ourselves of the knowledge and experience possessed by a wide range of men and women who would not or perhaps by nature of their occupations could not stand for election to an elected body.
We can all think of people of very great value in industrial and academic life who would be debarred from giving us the benefit of their knowledge, experience and advice if the only channel open to them were that of membership of an elected body, and therefore this contempt for nominated advisory bodies is entirely misplaced.
It is when one comes to executive action, including, of course, the spending of other people's money, that there is proper concern about representation and democratic control, and one could mention that on no more suitable occasion than the Consolidated Fund Bill.
620
With all our defects we have this control more or less satisfactorily at central government level and we have it at local government level as local government is now understood, but it is in between these two levels that we do not yet see the path altogether clearly. Administrative activity is bound to grow at points intermediate between Whitehall and the county and county boroughs which are the major authorities of local government.
The question to be resolved is what form the control of this intermediate administration should take. It can be seen either as the apex of local government or as a regional or, in the case of Wales and Scotland, a national extension of central government. Extension of central government which is itself based on democratic election is not undemocratic. One should clear one's mind of misapprehension and, if I might even say so, of cant on this point. What strikes an ordinary citizen as undemocratic is when a body is interposed; that is, when a body with executive functions is set up by central Government nomination to act in a particular area and which, by virtue of being nominated, is or can be unresponsive to local opinion. There are circumstances in which such a body is acceptable. A new town corporation is such an example where the nature of the case demands rapid and concentrated executive action more high powered than the normal organs of local government could control. When it has done its job there is a natural clamour for it to die away and for the town to revert to the normal processes of representative government.
But there are other bodies which are not ad hoc, but continuing, over which public opinion becomes restive, and one can fully understand why. For some of them at least straightforward election by itself might not be the answer. These are specialist bodies which need a specialist element, as well as a popular element, if they are to function effectively.
We have not yet worked out a satisfactory formula for this type of administration. It is touched on by Professor Gowan in the article to which I referred a few moments ago. In the context of an all-Wales body he refers to an elected body with a range of executive functions

621
which would have nominated members on its committees.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is clear that we do not wish to set up any such body, however constituted, which would simply deprive the newly enlarged local authorities of some of their major duties. As he says in paragraph 48 of the White Paper:
"… it would not be consistent to strengthen the local authorities for the better discharge of their functions and at the same time transfer the most important of these functions elsewhere."
Some adjustment of functions may, with experience, prove desirable, but I believe that any all-Wales body which may evolve will be primarily concerned with functions devolved from central Government. Some of these possible functions are referred to in the White Paper. The new transport authorities which the Minister of Transport is currently discussing and the proposed Countryside Commission are obvious examples. One can think of others. Devolution of this kind not only needs the complicated legislation which is referred to and which has been mentioned by both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken this morning, but it should be discussed in a United Kingdom context.
As I said in Colwyn Bay last week, at county and county borough level and below, I believe that the structure of local government set out in the White Paper is basically right for Wales and should stand, whatever is proposed ultimately for England and Scotland. But if one is talking about devolution from central Government, then surely it is sensible to see what general pattern is likely to evolve, and we can do this only when we have the reports of the two Royal Commissions for England and Scotland. We are, after all, part of the Government and administration of the United Kingdom.
Unless one is a complete separatist, which I understand neither hon. Gentleman to be, it is only sensible if we are talking about devolution from central Government to consider the proposal in the general context.
It is not only a matter of legislation, but there are quite complicated principles of finance which have to be worked out if one is pursuing a development of this
622
kind. Whatever my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan may say about the particularity of Wales, when discussing finance from the United Kingdom Treasury it is only sensible to discuss this in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole. Naturally, one would wish to adapt whatever resulted from this consideration to the particular conditions of Wales, but that does not mean that we can discuss it wisely in vacuo.
I believe that the development of this intermediate stage of administration which I have described is inevitable and I am sure that in time we shall work out a satisfactory pattern which will be without detriment to the newly enlarged local authorities. On the contrary, work which could be done for the local authorities on a co-operative basis, including such things as computerisation of financial and other records, staff training, bulk purchase and so on, may come under the aegis of such an all-Wales body provided in that case, of course, that the local authorities had representation. I would also hope that we could reduce the number of bodies dealing with some of our Welsh problems, not least in mid-Wales, by their absorption into an all-Wales organ. But this development will clearly take time and need very full consideration.
It would have been most foolish to have rushed into an elected Council without having clearly thought out first what we wanted to do. Neither hon. Gentleman has gone into any detail as to the functions which he thinks a body such as is being advocated should perform, nor has either made any suggestion about this important subject of finance. Only when one has considered these matters and thought them through logically and clearly can one decide how any such body should be composed and on what pattern the interests of central and local government, the specialists as well as the general public, should he represented and, not least, what the relationship of such a body to elected Members of Parliament for Wales sitting in this House might be.
It is very easy to make an emotional appeal which in turn arouses emotional opposition. I think that the path which we proposed to follow and which has been set out by my right hon. Friend the

623
Secretary of State for Wales in his White Paper may give less scope for rhetoric, but I am certain that it is the statesmanlike way ahead for Wales.

DRUG ADDICTION (CLINICS)
7.34 a.m.
Mr. William Deedes: May I start by saying that I am sorry to have given the Minister of Health a disturbed night. Indeed, I feel a little sorry for myself. If he accepts, as I know he does, that one can hardly go to too much trouble over this matter of drug addiction and its treatment, he will agree that the hour is quite immaterial.
The establishment in London of treatment centres for addicts represents a major departure in our administration and they are to be the linchpin of our arrangements about the hard drug problem. The centres will be of critical importance and I know that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that on their success or failure may well turn the battle against drug addiction.
To judge from my analysis of the Home Office figures, the problem which the treatment centres will be called upon to meet appears to be getting progressively worse. These figures bear scrutiny. In 1964, the figure was 753 addicts and, in 1965, 927 addicts. The Minister of State, Home Office, gave me figures for the first nine months of 1966 showing that there were 1,036 addicts. In April, on the Second Reading of the Dangerous Drugs Bill, she gave a revised, or provisional figure, for those nine months, of 1,139. A few days ago the Home Secretary gave the final figure for 1966, to 31st December, which, he said, was 1,349.
On the face of it, it looks like an increase of 300 in the last three months. I know that one has to be careful about taking averages, because one does not know what the true figure is, but as I read these figures there are 300 in the last quarter, an average of 100 a month. It is not impossible, and if it is true it is very serious. The Home Secretary has admitted that he cannot estimate the total. We do not know.
This takes me to the first point that I want to raise. The London teaching hospitals are reckoning to deal with,
624
broadly speaking, a total of 1,000 addicts. I hope that this will be treated as a highly provisional figure, for more than one reason. In the first place, it is a mistake to treat all addicts, even "hard" drug addicts, in one class. If I am not mistaken, there are quite a number in the London area who are running on perhaps one or two grains of heroin a day. They may run up to 15 grains, but there are a lot on the lower limits.
These people are not now going through the usual channels. The moment that the new arrangements come into force they will be joining the queues outside the London teaching hospitals. How many will appear is something about which no one can offer a reliable estimate, and that is why our arrangements for staff in the London have to be very tentative in terms of the final figure. The Ministry would be well advised to work on not less than 2,000, doubling the figure.
The trend is unmistakable, and it underlines how important it will be to achieve this transition successfully. I accept that they will have time. But this is taking time. The Ministry's first memorandum, sent out to hospitals, on the treatment and supervision of heroin addiction went out in March of this year. We have not got the Bill yet. We are still waiting Amendments from another place. We will not see those before the autumn, and this machinery is unlikely to be working until the early part of next year.
We must accept that. What I want to be sure about is that between now and the operating of the machinery the arrangements made are seen and accepted to be workable by the hospitals who have to put them into action. There is a lot of misgiving on this score, and it is partly to allow the right hon. Gentleman the chance to allay anxiety that I thought I would introduce this subject before we part for the Recess.
When the Bill left this House I thought that I understood the position about treatment centres, but since then, in the light of Government statements elsewhere, I have grown somewhat confused. I must not quote exchanges from another place, but after carefully studying the record I am left rather confused. Not that this matters. What does matter

625
is that there is confusion among some people who are to be responsible for implementing these proposals.
In a statement made in another place, about ten days ago, the Government indicated broadly, that the psychiatric hospitals would provide most of the inpatient facilities for drug addicts and the teaching hospitals would look after the out-patient service. That we know and accepted. It went on to indicate that there are now in operation eleven outpatient clinics in London, and plans for four more are under urgent discussion.
What are these? Where do they come into the pattern, because I have not heard of this before? I am not clear, and nor are a lot of other people, about what this is supposed to represent in terms of the new arrangements. Are those outpatient clinics in the London teaching hospitals? Are they private clinics? What is their eventual rôle, It is a pity that one newspaper, in inquiring about all this, has published the names of some places. The Minister and I are, I think, agreed that no names should be mentioned in any circumstances. I do not ask for names. I ask only for enlightenment about these clinics.
What troubles me a great deal is that there is a difference between what the Government say and what the hospitals are saying. I have lately had cause to wonder whether the Government know what the hospitals are saying. Again, to give an example, on 26th June I had exchanges with the Minister. Among other things, I asked whether he knew that certain London teaching hospitals had expressed great misgivings about aspects of the scheme. The Minister replied, at col. 77, that he would be interested to hear further details of what I had said. As far as he was aware, there was no general dissent among those primarily concerned with this matter about the way the Department was proceeding.
I must assume that the right hon. Gentleman was not at that time aware that a confidential memorandum had been sent to his Ministry, which he should have seen, on behalf of the London teaching hospitals, making their misgivings abundantly clear. I shall not quote from the memorandum or mention its source, but it carried some disquieting questions and doubts, which were sup-
626
ported by the administrators of the London teaching hospitals.
Since then—I quote this not because I think that it still obtains, but as an example of, I fear, the differences which sometimes arise between the Ministry and the teaching hospitals—a working party has got together and has met this week and something new has been hammered out. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that we are on the way to a more agreed solution. I hope that what have been differences of understanding between the London teaching hospitals and the Ministry will be ironed out before the final stages of the plan.
The Minister sees, I think, in his mind's eye, a dozen London teaching hospitals playing their part in all this. Their enthusiasm for it all is far from uniform. Some are willing—indeed, anxious—to play a part. Some are rather doubtful and reluctant. They are doubtful whether they can play a part. There is nothing disgraceful about this. It is natural that there should be a great difference of approach between the London teaching hospitals, but this must he taken into account in the arrangements which are being made.
The doubts and misgivings on certain matters expressed by those hospitals must not be brushed off. If I may mention three of them, the first is that the assessment of addict needs, from which most people envisage 48 hours of in-treatment and the use of beds, will be very difficult indeed. The moment these people begin to apply to the hospitals, the hospitals must make an assessment of their needs. It is no good taking a note from the previous doctor. They are worried about how this will be done without the extensive use of beds.
The second point is liaison between the centres. It is important that everyone should know what everyone else is doing. People are not happy about the sort of intelligence system which will have to be created and the links with the centre where notification is made. Staffing will be difficult, partly because of the lack of expertise and partly because experience has shown that everyone involved in the work must be an enthusiast. It is no good having anyone who is not enthusiastic. There is a shortage of people who are both expert and enthusiastic. The

627
London hospitals naturally worry because they see themselves having to produce more bodies than exist.
The last point by which I illustrate their doubts is the question of hours. This is really crucial. The noble Lady in another place has indicated that the Minister does not wish to consider a 24-hour service—that is, an all around the clock service—in the London hospitals as a standard arrangement. She added, rather inconsequentially, that if any hospital would like to do it, it would be welcome.
But I wonder whether it really would be welcome. If one hospital were to undertake a 24-hour service in the London area I think that we should have a very curious result, because it would become the focal point for nearly every addict, and would distort the pattern. I think that the answer there is what a lot of medical opinion is expressing, that the maintenance programmes must be uniform. I hope the centres can operate on less than a 24-hour basis. They will be a great nuisance unless they can, but what we know is that the treatment of these people is a great nuisance. They keep and they demand irregular hours; they have their private emergencies; they have no sense of time, many of them; they lose their prescriptions and then they lose their heads.
It will be very difficult to operate this on less than 18 hours at most of the centres. I know that there has been an argument whether we really want the dozen teaching hospitals the Minister favours, or whether in the London area we should have four fairly big units, fully staffed. I am bound to say that I side entirely with the Ministry, because if we think in terms of 2,000 patients when four units would be unworkable. They would have to handle about 500 patients each.
Here I raise a point which, again, is causing a certain amount of anxiety. How is the prescribing for these people being envisaged? One or two hospitals are thinking at the moment in terms of a week's prescription which would be "cashed", as it were, by the chemist daily. But will this work? I should have thought that there would have to be close, continuing contact between the patients and the out-patients' unit.
628
I do not want to go on at this hour of the morning, and I will end by saying that the central point is that the system, if it is to work, must command the confidence of the hospitals required to work it. At the moment, I would not say that confidence is there. Their willingness to co-operate generally is beyond question, but they do see, what I am bound to say the Ministry does not appear to me to see, some of the difficulties which the detailed application of this plan will cause. They are more aware of its complexities than the Ministry. They are being asked to undertake a disagreeable and difficult job which will have disruptive effects on their own regimes, and I think they are entitled to consideration of their views.
I hope that the Minister will arm himself against the Treasury. The Treasury must be persuaded that its normal methods will not work here. I am not talking about money just now, but the Minister knows very well that the normal Treasury assessments will not work out here.
I leave this thought with him, that London has by far the biggest part of the problem. I am not disparaging what he and the Home Office are trying to do when I say that I am not sure we are going to produce the right, final answer for London on these present lines.
The Minister will have to think in terms of a central directorate in London, because I doubt whether the Ministry, on top of all its other work, will be able to handle these treatment centres. It is a most complex task we are embarking on. It involves the terms of a new Bill; it involves notification, intelligence, doctors; above all, it involves faultless liaison between hospitals. Endless complications will arise, from day to day and hour to hour. I do not think all this can be settled in the Minister's office.
Birmingham is well worth studying, and shows what a concerted, coherent, co-operative policy can do, on a scale of 1 million citizens, by way of directorship at the centre. I do not look for directorship at the centre of London, but I look for more than we have now. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to keep an open mind about some form of central control within treatment centres. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to think about

629
this now, and not in a year's time, when it may be too late.
7.50 a.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: I begin by expressing appreciation from this side of the House that the Minister himself has decided to answer the serious matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). The Minister's presence is indicative of the seriousness of the subject, and I would like to think—I am sure that I am right about this—that it is recognition by him of the growing anxiety felt by members of the medical profession and social workers in the field combating the evil of drug abuse that the Government's measures fall short of what is required.
The Minister knows that both my right hon. Friend and I have been pressing him since the publication of the Second Report of the Brain Committee two years ago to speed action to deal with this growing problem. We have been told repeatedly, but in somewhat vague terms, that everything was in hand and that treatment was available in numerous hospitals and clinics, although the details have been difficult to find. But while the Dangerous Drugs Bill was going through the House, with every support from both sides, it became abundantly clear that full treatment facilities did not exist, and we wrung from the right hon. Gentleman the admission that the Bill would not be implemented until these were available.
This, incidentally, is the position two years after the Brain Committee concluded that addiction to hard drugs was becoming, to use its own words, an epidemic, and that coupled with compulsory notification of addicts special treatment centres would have to be provided. On 20th April the right hon. Gentleman said:
"I hope that treatment facilities will be ready on this scale by the time that the regulations are made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 20th April, 1967; c. 47.]
That is what we had hoped, too.
On 3rd July, in reply to me, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"I have already made it clear that we shall not bring in the regulations prohibiting prescribing by general practitioners for addicts until we are satisfied that the hospital facilities are adequate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 1239.]
630
When will adequate treatment centres be available? Will they be ready by the end of the year, which will be two and a half years after the Brain Committee reported that we had an epidemic on our hands, or will they be ready some time later? if the answer is later, what interim arrangements will be made? How much longer will it be lawful for a doctor to sit in a Baker Street cafe dishing out prescriptions to any addict who cares to go to him and pay him money because adequate facilities are not available on the lines recommended so long ago?
Whenever any of us have pressed the Minister about this, we have been fobbed off with statements that facilities already exist in every hospital region in the country. On 3rd July, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"In-patient services for heroin addicts are available in all, and out-patient services in 12 regional hospital board areas; the need for expansion of services is being kept under review."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1967 Vol. 749. c. 1238.]
I shall not quote from the Sunday Times article. I agree with my right hon. Friend. I thought it most unfortunate that particular hospitals which were said by the Ministry to be providing these facilities were named, especially as some of these hospitals said that this was a matter of surprise to them and they did not yet have the facilities. The article merely added to the confusion. Indeed, confusion has been piled on confusion by the extraordinary statements by Government spokesmen in another place during the passage of the Dangerous Drugs Bill, when the greatest difficulty was experienced in getting any details of the treatment centres planned in London.
Reference was made to 11 out-patient clinics. I understand that these have nothing to do with the treatment centres, which are crucial to the Bill and must be available once the right to prescribe hard drugs is withdrawn from general practitioners. When I suggested to the right hon. Gentleman on 26th June that the London teaching hospitals were doubtful that his plan for treatment centres would be workable he rejected the suggestion and said:
"There is no suggestion that the hospital authorities have told me that the system is unworkable. There are difficulties, of course.

631
We always knew that there would be difficulties, and there has never been any denial from this Box that there are difficulties. But I have no evidence at present that the scheme is not progressing satisfactorily. I have already said that there are about 30 hospitals in the London area providing treatment at this moment"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June; Vol. 749, c. 77.]
We must accept that that was the Minister's information at the time, and that he genuinely believed it.
But on 3rd July I pursued the matter further. I asked whether certain London teaching hospitals had told him that his scheme for out-patient facilities was unlikely to work in its present form, and would be inadequate to deal with the expected number of addicts. He replied:
"No such advice in those terms has reached me. Certainly some doctors in some London teaching hospitals have doubts about whether the scheme will succeed. None of us can be confident, as I have made abundantly clear on many occasions, but the suggestion that London teaching hospitals regard the scheme as unworkable is not confirmed by my information."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 1238.]
There is also the question whether those hospitals were thinking of the scheme being unworkable within the time scale laid down by the Minister.
My right hon. Friend was right to raise the matter today. In the light of what he said and of the latest information, does the Minister still deny that that is the position? There has been a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding, and perhaps the Minister can clear it up. May I put the issue to him in another way? When he and his colleagues have talked about treatment facilities in hospitals, is it not clear that they have been talking about the present arrangements under which it is still lawful for a general practitioner to prescribe drugs for addicts, and that the hospital facilities they talk about provide psycho-therapy, but not necessarily maintenance in respect of drugs? Will he now realise that we are interested not in this situation, whether drugs can now be obtained by addicts from general practitioners, but in the situation that will obtain once the right to prescribe such drugs has been withdrawn from the general practitioners, which is the Government's intention.
Will he realise that we are interested not in the perpetuation of arrangements for continuing to supply drugs to addicts
632
from what might be described as prescription centres, but with the setting up of treatment centres, where a relationship with the addict can be established which will help win him away from addiction? That is always a long, hard task, which is often impossible under present circumstances. We and the hospitals want to know what will be the pattern of treatment facilities after the regulations come into force, especially in London. Where will the treatment centres be? I am not asking for hospitals to be specifically named. How many will there be, and will these provide a pattern of uniform treatment to which my right hon. Friend referred, offering, perhaps, a 24-hour service?
I agree with my right hon. Friend; I do not mean by what I have said that we should pander to the addict. Those addicts who visit an out-patient clinic should know the times when the service is available. But there will have to be some treatment centres where a patient is retained for at least 48 hours for assessment. Adequate in-patients facilities are, therefore, a key to tackling the whole problem in a positive way.
If my right hon. Friend is right, there is a real conflict between what the Minister hopes to introduce when he brings in the regulations and what the London hospitals think is necessary. What we are trying to get resolved this morning is what appears to be two major points of disagreement. First, there is the scale of provision. My right hon. Friend asked whether the Home Office figures were related to reality. Is the right hon. Gentleman assuming a figure of 1,000 addicts requiring treatment facilities. The Home Office figures are in the region of 1,350 and those in the field put the total closer to 2,000. We must know the scale of the problem. Will the necessary beds be available by that time.
The second point of disagreement seems to arise out of the hospitals arguing that it is nonsense to launch a scheme of this kind without first ensuring effective liaison between treatment centres. These will necessarily be experimental and will need to compare results, and must have follow-up procedures and care in the community. But all this will depend on the recruitment and training of staff and the acquisition of suitable premises which do not exist at present. Surely the Minister is aware that the majority

633
of young heroin addicts are unemployed and incapable of work, Immediately after treatment, they drift back to their old haunts and the very environment which led to their undoing. One leading psychiatrist in this field has told me that the relapse rate is extraordinarily high, perhaps of the order of 80 per cent. What is being done, therefore, to tackle the problem on the lines which some London teaching hospitals have advised.
There is nothing new in this advice. Leading figures in the field such as Dr. Max Glatt, of Bernard's Hospital, Southall, have described what sort of treatment centres should be set up and that these should be accompanied by proper follow-up and supporting services in the community. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman if the London teaching hospitals have told him that he is taking a grave risk in launching his scheme on its present lines?
Addiction to hard drugs is growing fast and addiction to soft drugs is becoming widespread, especially among young people. Despite the claim of the sloppy and irresponsible elements in our society that soft drugs are not harmful, we know that the majority of hard drug addicts started on amphetamines, marijuana and barbiturates. Time is not on the side of those who seek to control drug abuse. If the Minister has been deprived of the necessary resources to tackle the problem realistically he must shock his colleagues in the Government, of whom we are glad to see so many have joined him on the front bench, into speaking out and taking resolute action to stamp out this scourge. He is perfectly capable of doing this, as he is a man with great courage and integrity. I can assure him that he can rely on our support.
8.4 a.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I am glad of this opportunity to discuss drug addiction, although none of us would have chosen this hour, but there is much that I should like to clear up. I thank the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for, as usual, a constructive and helpful speech. I would not, however, describe it as a "shot in the arm", which I thought was one of his more unhappy metaphors in this context.
Anxieties have been expressed in the House and outside which I would like
634
to allay. I should explain that I shall be using the term "drug addicts" in this debate to mean addicts to heroin and cocaine, since it is to the treatment of these forms of addiction that the present measures are being directed.
It might be helpful if I began by explaining the ways in which hospitals can provide this treatment. I am often asked, and today has been no exception, how many treatment centres are or will be available, but the expression "treatment centres" is ambiguous. It could be used to mean part of a hospital given over exclusively to the treatment of addicts, or any hospital that provides specialised treatment, whether or not it is given in a unit that treats addicts exclusively. It may also be used to refer to the new out-patient services for heroin addicts which are being developed, or to both in-patient and out-patient services combined.
The organisation of hospital treatment facilities for drug addicts depends on several factors, such as the local prevalence of addiction, the scale of current and potential demand for treatment, the resources—staff and accommodation—that can be provided, and the views of hospital boards, taking account of medical advice, on the best way to organise treatment. It follows that treatment facilities are provided in different ways and that there is no standard package called a "treatment centre". I will outline the different types of treatment facilities that exist or are planned.
In most parts of the country, the prevalence of heroin addiction is thought to be very small, as is the demand for treatment. In-patient and out-patient treatment is available for those areas, if required, at most mental hospitals and at some psychiatric departments of general hospitals. Drug addicts will continue to be treated there with other patients unless they become sufficiently numerous to justify providing special facilities for them.
In Birmingham, where there is a concentration of addicts—but on a very much smaller scale than in London—one mental hospital, All Saints, provides inpatient and out-patient treatment. Heroin addicts are treated in a unit which specialises in addiction to drugs and to alcohol.

635
The major concentration of heroin addicts is in London and arrangements for treatment there are more complex. Most of the out-patient treatment is expected to be provided by teaching hospitals with psychiatric departments which are situated in central London. Some of these hospitals will have a few beds for in-patient treatment or assessment; all will have links with mental hospitals so that in-patient treatment or assessment can be arranged as soon as the patient is willing to enter hospital.
Some regional hospital boards are providing in-patient and out-patient treatment at the same hospital, mainly in mental hospitals outside central London. The extent to which drug addicts will be treated apart from other patients varies, and may well change in the light of experience. Some out-patient services are being provided in separate accommodation; most will be provided in existing premises at times when they are not in use for other patients. It is too soon to say whether doctors will judge it suitable to treat persons addicted to other drugs with the heroin addicts.
There is, therefore, variety in the form of service. Arrangements must be regarded as experimental and they will be evaluated in the usual way by the medical profession and by my Department. At this stage one simply cannot assert that any particular form of service is the right one. Similarly, within the framework of those services, it is for the clinicians to determine the treatment appropriate to each patient and I have no doubt that various methods will be used.
Returning to the meaning of "treatment centre" it is clear, I think, that there is no specific definition and it is probably better to refer to in-patient or to out-patient facilities, if these are intended, or to hospital treatment facilities if the service given embraces both. Having talked generally about treatment facilities, I want to say something about the particular problems in London, because I know that the House and particularly the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who have discussed this, are concerned that the main concentrations of addicts are adequately provided for.
636
It may be helpful if I explain the general basis on which the planning of provision for hospital treatment for addicts in London is being conducted. The underlying medical policy—and the way in which addicts are treated is essentially a matter of clinical judgment—was discussed and accepted at a conference of the psychiatrists concerned. The general conclusion was that outpatient facilities needed to be provided at a number of points, at both teaching and non-teaching hospitals. It was thought that if there were enough of these it would ensure that the task was shared and that no one hospital carried too heavy a load. It would also at least reduce the risk of perpetuating the mutual support for their addiction which addicts in large numbers engender.
The Metropolitan regional hospital boards and the London teaching hospital boards were asked to plan on this basis. The general expectation was that because most hospitals in the heart of London were teaching hospitals a considerable part of the out-patient task in that part of London would in practice fall to the teaching hospitals.
The urgency for meeting the need, as well as lack of space on hospital sites, rules out the possibility of new building, except as a relatively long-term measure. So, in practice, my Department has been considering with each teaching hospital and each regional board what existing buildings can be used, possibly with minor adaptations. The staffing problem, particularly the medical staffing, is again one which can be tackled only hospital by hospital in the light of the amount of additional time each consultant psychiatrist is able to spare and in the light of each consultant's views on the way in which he prefers to treat his patients.
In practice, therefore, the arrangements in the hospitals are likely to vary; there will not be a string of identical units, each run and manned in an identical way. Apart from the practical difficulties of achieving uniformity, the differing views of psychiatrists about methods of treatment and the need for greater experience in this field make it unlikely that a standard pattern of treatment will emerge in the immediate future.

637
I make these points because some people have said that my Department ought to have laid down a standard pattern. Even if practical difficulties and the need for greater experience had not prevented it we should not have done this because it is not my Department's function to dictate how treatment should be provided, nor indeed would I wish it to do so.
Mr. Marcus Worsley: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking of treatment centres in every case in hospitals. Is he also considering treatment centres outside hospitals on the ground that these might be more approachable to addicts, being in a physically separate building, even though linked to hospitals?
Mr. Robinson: A good deal of thought has been given to this, but at the moment, as I have told the hon. Gentleman before, we are satisfied that we ought to start by providing these facilities in a hospital setting for a period at any rate after the Bill becomes operative and the regulations under it become operative.
I know that there has been some other doubts among individual members of hospital staff about the adequacy and nature of the provision proposed for London. I think that this is only to be expected in a situation in which new and radical thinking is called for, and that there need be cause for anxiety only if the doubts were really widespread. I am satisfied that they are not.
I know that some of the teaching hospital administrators have expressed misgivings. I confirm that the right hon. Gentleman is correct and that I had not seen the document in question on the date that he referred to. But these misgivings were largely based on a misconception, which I think has now been removed about the estimated number of addicts. I will try to explain how the misconception arose. In the United Kingdom 899 persons were known by the Home Office to have been heroin addicts at some time during 1966. Of these, 760 came to notice in the London area.
To obtain some guide to the number currently addicted, an inquiry was conducted in December among general practitioners in the London area who were known to treat heroin addicts. This showed that about 220 addicts were currently under the care of, and were receiv-
638
ing prescriptions for heroin from, these doctors. Doubtless, others were receiving supplies from other sources, and some may well have been in hospital. I think that the later figures quoted by the right hon. Gentleman may well include addiction to drugs other than heroin and cocaine.
The working estimate produced by my Department after consultation with the Home Office and after examining most carefully all the available figures is, as the right hon. Gentleman thought, that out-patient provision should be planned for the possibility that up to 1,000 addicts in the London area may come forward for hospital out-patient treatment. The demand for treatment cannot be precisely estimated, but I am satisfied that, on the information which we have at present, it is reasonable to have this figure in mind in making plans. The figure is, of course, subject to revision in the light of any later information which may emerge.
So far, 10 hospitals in the London area provide in-patient treatment for drug addiction, and 13 provide outpatient treatment. In illustration of the varied way in which treatment is provided, at six of the latter—those where out-patient treatment is provided—a service is available in the casualty department 24 hours a day. At three others there is a service five days a week, and at the remaining four facilities are available less frequently. I ought to mention that, in the view of some psychiatrists, a service available to the addict as and when he pleases is a positive disadvantage because getting the addict to come at a definite time every so often is part of his training.
The right hon. Gentleman expressed some doubt about the weekly prescription arrangements. I remind him that this is the system which is operated at All Saint's, Birmingham, and has been for some time, with considerable success. We have no reason to believe that it cannot be adapted for the London area.
Until these services are developed to a point at which facilities are available generally, and until the notification regulations are introduced and there are reliable means of identification, it would be premature, and in the long run against

639
the interests of the addicts themselves, to give publicity to the names of the hospitals. I gather that there is nothing between us about that. The hospital authorities have, however, been asked to notify executive councils of the services as they become available so that general practitioners in the areas can be made aware of them.
It is hoped that, by the end of the year, the services at several of the hospitals now providing facilities will have considerably expanded. Detailed arrangements are being discussed with the hospital authorities concerned, and it is not yet possible to say how many addicts a particular hospital will be able to manage. It is thus too early to be specific about the date when the outpatient provision planned will justify the introduction of regulations prohibiting the prescribing of heroin and cocaine by general practitioners for addicts. I can, however, assure the House that the change
640
will not be made until we are satisfied that the hospital facilities are ready to take up the expected load, but I would expect this to take place not later than the new year.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Committee Tomorrow.

DRUG ADDICTION (CLINICS)

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eight o'clock a.m.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Stansted Airport (Lee Conservancy Catchment Board)
  Stansted Airport (Lee Conservancy Catchment Board)
  Rent Rebate Schemes
  Rent Rebate Schemes
  Rate Rebate (Bristol)
  Rate Rebate (Bristol)
  Caravans (Planning Permissions)
  Caravans (Planning Permissions)
  Maud Committee (Aldermanic System)
  Maud Committee (Aldermanic System)
  Land Commission (Acquisition Proposals)
  Land Commission (Acquisition Proposals)
  Trees (Unlawful Felling)
  Trees (Unlawful Felling)
  Non-Returnable Bottles
  Non-Returnable Bottles
  Litter Act (Broken Glass)
  Litter Act (Broken Glass)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  New Towns Commission (Transfer of Assets)
  New Towns Commission (Transfer of Assets)
  New Town Development Corporations (Loan Interest)
  New Town Development Corporations (Loan Interest)
  Ashford (Consultant's Report)
  Ashford (Consultant's Report)
  Ipswich (Draft New Town Designation Order)
  Ipswich (Draft New Town Designation Order)
  Ipswich (Consultant's Report)
  Ipswich (Consultant's Report)
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Statutory Undertakers (Planning and Compensation)
  Statutory Undertakers (Planning and Compensation)
  Environmental Health
  Environmental Health
  Southend Airport (Runway)
  Southend Airport (Runway)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Inquiries)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Inquiries)
  Planning Proposals (Inquiries)
  Planning Proposals (Inquiries)
  Planning Permission (Appeals)
  Planning Permission (Appeals)
  Building Inspectors
  Building Inspectors
  Management Study and Development Control
  Management Study and Development Control
  Councillors (Expulsion)
  Councillors (Expulsion)
HOUSING
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Constructions (Greater London Council)
  Constructions (Greater London Council)
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Leasehold Enfranchisement
  Rents (European Economic Community)
  Rents (European Economic Community)
  Option Mortgage Scheme (Publicity)
  Option Mortgage Scheme (Publicity)
  Swindon
  Swindon
  Interest Rate (Newham)
  Interest Rate (Newham)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Big Brother Movement
  Big Brother Movement
  St. Kitts (Mr. Gaskell)
  St. Kitts (Mr. Gaskell)
  Malta
  Malta
  Caribbean Commonwealth Countries (London Consultations)
  Caribbean Commonwealth Countries (London Consultations)
  United Kingdom Emigrants
  United Kingdom Emigrants
  St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla
  St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla
  Expo 67 (British Exhibits)
  Expo 67 (British Exhibits)
  India (Drug Smuggling)
  India (Drug Smuggling)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Kenya (Expulsions)
  Kenya (Expulsions)
  Africa (British Subjects)
  Africa (British Subjects)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Gas and Electricity Industries (Co-operation)
  Gas and Electricity Industries (Co-operation)
  Lysine
  Lysine
  Fuels (Expenditure)
  Fuels (Expenditure)
  Oil Rig "Sea Gem" (Report)
  Oil Rig "Sea Gem" (Report)
  Heating Plant and Appliances (Capital Expenditure)
  Heating Plant and Appliances (Capital Expenditure)
COAL
  Welsh Pits
  Welsh Pits
GAS
  North Sea Supplies
  North Sea Supplies
ELECTRICITY
  Nuclear Power (Cost)
  Nuclear Power (Cost)
TECHNOLOGY
  Computers (Research and Development)
  Computers (Research and Development)
  Sonic Bangs
  Sonic Bangs
  Hovertrain
  Hovertrain
  Aeronautics (Anglo-French Co-operation)
  Aeronautics (Anglo-French Co-operation)
  Public Accounts Committee (Report)
  Public Accounts Committee (Report)
  Bristol Siddeley Engines
  Bristol Siddeley Engines
  Dragon Project
  Dragon Project
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax (Blind Persons)
  Income Tax (Blind Persons)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Charities
  Charities
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Civil Service Union (Women Cleaners)
  Civil Service Union (Women Cleaners)
  Welfare State Benefits
  Welfare State Benefits
  Middle East Oil Imports
  Middle East Oil Imports
  Inflation
  Inflation
  £1 Sterling
  £1 Sterling
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  University Accounts
  University Accounts
  Deutschmark
  Deutschmark
  Net Incomes
  Net Incomes
  MIDDLE EAST
  MIDDLE EAST
  EGYPT (RUSSIAN ARMS)
  EGYPT (RUSSIAN ARMS)
  ADEN
  ADEN
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  GIBRALTAR
  GIBRALTAR
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Humberside Feasibility Study
  Humberside Feasibility Study
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  F111K Aircraft
  F111K Aircraft
  United Nations Forces (British Units)
  United Nations Forces (British Units)
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Uniformed Personnel)
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Uniformed Personnel)
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow Centre for Rheumatic Diseases
  Glasgow Centre for Rheumatic Diseases
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Sheriff Courts (Press Representatives)
  Sheriff Courts (Press Representatives)
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (PRESS GALLERY CATERING BOYCOTT)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (PRESS GALLERY CATERING BOYCOTT)
AVIATION
  Sonic Bangs
  Sonic Bangs
  Carriage By Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 Exemptions
  Carriage By Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 Exemptions
BOARD OF TRADE
  Fiesta Tours Limited
  Fiesta Tours Limited
  Washing Machines (Hire-Purchase Restrictions)
  Washing Machines (Hire-Purchase Restrictions)
  Imports (Development Areas)
  Imports (Development Areas)
  Olymtrips Limited
  Olymtrips Limited
  Pinnock Finance Company Ltd.
  Pinnock Finance Company Ltd.
SHIPPING
  Pearson Report
  Pearson Report
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  SOUTH-WEST ECONOMIC PLANNING COUNCIL (REPORT)
  SOUTH-WEST ECONOMIC PLANNING COUNCIL (REPORT)
  PRODUCTIVITY CONFERENCE
  PRODUCTIVITY CONFERENCE
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  MIDDLE EAST OIL SUPPLIES (CONSULTATIONS)
  MIDDLE EAST OIL SUPPLIES (CONSULTATIONS)
  SONIC BANGS
  SONIC BANGS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foodstuffs (Imports)
  Foodstuffs (Imports)
  Bread (Price Increase)
  Bread (Price Increase)
  Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
  Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee
  Horticulture Improvement Scheme
  Horticulture Improvement Scheme
  LEGAL DOCUMENTS (VALIDITY)
  LEGAL DOCUMENTS (VALIDITY)
  LATEY COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS)
  LATEY COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS)
  PRISONERS (TIME AWAITING TRIAL)
  PRISONERS (TIME AWAITING TRIAL)
  Independent School, Waltham Forest
  Independent School, Waltham Forest
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Schools (Expenditure)
  Students (Awards)
  Students (Awards)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Old People's Homes, Wales
  Old People's Homes, Wales
HOSPITALS
  Cotton Goods
  Cotton Goods
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Legal Aid (Criminal Proceedings)
  Legal Aid (Criminal Proceedings)
  Central Criminal Court (Trial Delays)
  Central Criminal Court (Trial Delays)
  Police Cars (Foreign Make)
  Police Cars (Foreign Make)
  Advisory Committee on Drug Depen- dence (Sub-Committee Members)
  Advisory Committee on Drug Depen- dence (Sub-Committee Members)
  Gibraltarians (Immigration Quota)
  Gibraltarians (Immigration Quota)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Government Training Centres, Lanarkshire
  Government Training Centres, Lanarkshire
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Vacancies (Hamilton, Larkhall and Lesmahagow)
  Vacancies (Hamilton, Larkhall and Lesmahagow)
  Remploy Factory, Barking (Disabled Persons)
  Remploy Factory, Barking (Disabled Persons)
TRANSPORT
  Victoria Line (Extension)
  Victoria Line (Extension)
ROADS
  A33 (Mr. and Mrs. Lane)
  A33 (Mr. and Mrs. Lane)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts
  Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts
WALES
  Historic Buildings (Grants)
  Historic Buildings (Grants)
  Council for Wales
  Council for Wales

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield

GAS COUNCIL STRUCTURES AND AMENITY
2.36 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the increasing anxiety in the country over the number of applications for planning permission to erect towers up to 150 feet high at short intervals along the lines of the gas mains now being laid by the Gas Council; and of the fears for the effect on amenity of the extension of the system of telemetric control by radio masts along the Gas Council's mains and to the network of gas mains operated by the Area Gas Boards throughout the country.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): Yes, my Lords; the Gas Council are considering adopting a nation-wide radio network for the telemetric control of their pipelines, and provision for aerials is being included when planning consent is sought for the control installations. These aerials would generally require only light, guyed masts which, so far as can be foreseen, should not often exceed 50 feet in height and aerial arrays similar to those for domestic television. Such a system would also require relay points, normally at about 20 to 30 mile intervals and involving masts of 150 feet or more in height, giving line of sight vision with the aerials at the control installations. This form of radio communication system has already been adopted or is being developed not only by the Area Gas Boards, but also by a number of other organisations.
682
Wherever possible, existing sites will be used, and this should be the case more often than not.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Lord for that extremely full and most important reply. Since the adoption of telemetric control of these gas mains is going to be widespread and could even mean, according to my quick calculations, that there will be several hundreds of these masts in different parts of the country—excluding the still higher masts on the coastline, which I do not think the noble Lord mentioned—may I ask him whether he would consider putting in the Library a draft plan showing, so far as he can, the effects for the whole of England and also giving us sketches of the design of some of the pylons which it is intended to adopt?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, certainly I will consider that suggestion. But I do not think it will be possible to do it soon, because there is no draft plan for the whole of the country. I think that I should put in proportion some of the things that the noble Lord has said. Every mast must have planning permission in the usual way. The coastline masts to control the wellheads for natural gas will be few in number, and will be sited only where the pipelines come ashore from the North Sea.
As to the total number of relay points throughout the country, the House need not fear that there will be several hundred masts. The design of the system has not been finally approved on the technical side, but it is envisaged that about 50 Gas Council relay masts will be involved, mostly sharing sites with existing installations. There will also be a number, at present uncertain, of relay masts for such of the 12 Area Gas Boards as may decide to adopt the system. The East Midlands Board wants seven, some of which could later also be used by the Gas Council in a joint installation. But this is not an indication either way of how many masts other Area Boards will want.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while not wishing to press the noble Lord to-day, may I ask him whether any special consideration is being given to National Parks, and the effect of these lines where they cross National Parks?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as I said, every mast is subject to planning permission; and in the National Parks there is a special procedure for obtaining planning permission in which the National Parks Authority has a hand.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's Answer, may I put one or two questions to him? Is he aware that the proposal for the erection of these masts has given a great deal of anxiety to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and indeed to the amenity societies generally, and that his reply to-day will not have calmed down that anxiety? He mentioned that some of these masts will be over 150 feet high. In view of the fact that there is a proliferation of pylons and masts all over the country, can he indicate what in fact will be the maximum height of these masts? He has indicated a figure of 150 feet for the loftier relay masts. Can he tell us how many hundreds of the 50-foot masts are envisaged? After all, this is a considerable height in a country district. Further, is my noble friend absolutely satisfied that this is the only method of securing this control? Is there not some other method of securing this which will not involve the pin-cushioning of the whole country with these monstrosities?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the maximum height of the large relay masts must depend on the lie of the land. The ratio of small masts to large masts must depend on what area can be commanded by the large masts. One might expect that ratio normally to be somewhere between 2 to 1—two small to one large—and 10 to 1. I forget the noble Lord's third point.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, my question was: is it quite clear that there is no other method of securing this control, except that of putting up these masts all over the country?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, there are of course other methods, particularly land lines or lines along the pipes. The trouble is that if you run a wire along the pipe and the pipe is damaged, the wire is also likely to be damaged at the precise moment when it is most needed.

THE MIDDLE EAST: DAMAGE TO BRITISH PROPERTY
2.43 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what damage has been sustained by British diplomatic and consular properties in North Africa and the Middle East since the recent outbreak of hostilities; what is the provisional assessment of the cost of repairing this damage, and whether they can make a statement.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the consular premises at Alexandria, Port Said and Aleppo were gutted by fire. There was major damage to the Embassy offices at Tunis, and to the commercial and Consular Offices and the British Council premises in Benghazi. There was minor damage at eleven other Diplomatic Service posts in the Middle East and North Africa. It has not yet been possible to carry out a detailed survey of some of the buildings affected, but the total cost of damage is likely to exceed £120,000, of which about £80,000 is in respect of property owned by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply. May I ask him whether any estimate has yet been made of the value of the personal possessions of British personnel, some of whom have lost a great deal? May I further ask him whether, in cases where their activities are greatly restricted and personal relationships have been impaired, Her Majesty's Government would consider granting temporary home leave to certain British Consular personnel, especially where their wives and families have been evacuated to this country?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the estimate of the cost in the loss of personal effects to Embassy staffs abroad is of the order of £8,500. So far as the second half of the supplementary question is concerned, I can assure my noble friend and your Lordships' House that the

685
welfare of the staffs of our Embassies is very much in our minds at present. Whatever we can do to help them we shall do, and we shall have a special concern, of course, for those who are separated from their families. It is fair to say that the maintenance of effective diplomatic relations must be an important factor in making decisions of the sort mentioned by my noble friend, and the remarkable record of Embassy staffs throughout these events suggest that they would be the first to realise this.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, have the Government made any protest to the countries concerned? If so, what has been the result of those protests, and have the Governments concerned said that they would be prepared to pay for the damage they have done to our consulates? Is the noble Lord aware that the Government are giving an impression that they are so anxious not to take sides as between Arab and Jew in the conflict in the Middle East that they do not seem to be paving proper attention to what are British interests and British property?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition should think that we have not in mind British interests in these affairs. I can assure him that they are foremost in our minds. It is true to say that we are anxious not to exacerbate matters in the Middle East, but anxious indeed to bring matters to some kind of lasting solution. It is fair to suggest that in such circumstances the Government perhaps have to be slightly more circumspect in their actions and remarks than private individuals are compelled to be. In regard to compensation protests, of course we have made representations to the Governments concerned, and not entirely without effect. 'The Government of Tunisia, for example, and the Ruler of Qatar have accepted responsibility for the damage caused in Tunis and Doha respectively. Indeed, the Government of Tunisia have already offered to replace some of the goods destroyed in the Embassy Offices. The premises in Benghazi are leased by Her Majesty's Government from the Government of Libya and it is with them that the responsibility for repairs lies. Damage to the buildings there is estimated at about £25,000, and in our representations to the Libyan
686
Government we have reserved our rights to claim compensation. We have taken similar action in the case of the United Arab Republic, Syria, Algeria and Kuwait. So it is unfair for the noble Lord to suggest that we have been idle in this respect.

RESERVE ASSETS AND THE PRICE OF GOLD
2.48 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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 whether Her Majesty's Government have any statement to make as to their attitude towards the provision of increased liquidity by the creation of new paper credits or by raising or freeing the price of gold, or both.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have for long been working for international agreement on a contingency plan to create a new form of reserve asset to supplement gold and reserve currencies as and when the need arises; and there is a fair prospect that agreement on the outline of such a plan will be reached by the time of the September meeting of the I.M.F. The Government are opposed to raising or freeing the price of gold.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government bear in mind, if it proves difficult to find a paper solution, that most of the world thinks that there is nothing so good as gold?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hesitate to differ from the noble Lord, but I think he will agree at least the vast majority of monetary Powers are opposed to an increase in the price of gold.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, while we all hope that something on the lines mentioned by the noble Lord in his answer may happen in September, could not the Government say a little more loudly and clearly to our colleagues in O.E.C.D. that the steps which have been taken since the Tokyo Agreement are hopelessly inadequate and that the shortsightedness of bankers and finance

687
Minister in France, Germany, Switzerland and other countrites is mainly responsible for the present economic slow-down in Western Europe?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a highly technical matter, as I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, would agree, and to speak loud and clear would not help us. What we must do is to negotiate in the first instance within the Council of Ten, and I repeat, as I said in my original Answer, we are very hopeful of achieving a solution to this very important but difficult problem.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not by noble friend agree that in any circumstances of expanding trade gold is most unlikely to be a suitable means for this purpose, and therefore an alternative means must be found?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the truth is that gold has proved its worth, but it is quite clear that with the expansion of world trade we must seek some commodity, some currency which is not tied to some metal, or some artificial means of assessing the assets. If we could find some drawing rights rather similar to what we have in the I.M.F., we hope this would provide us with the right solution.

EGYPT: TREATMENT OF SQUADRON LEADER HINDLE JAMES
2.51 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
?To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a protest has been made by them to the Egyptian Government concerning the treatment of Squadron-Leader (Retd.) Hindle James, who is seventy-four years of age and suffering from angina pectoris, following his arrest on June 6 and his subsequent treatment and interrogation by the Egyptian Police.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, Squadron-Leader Hindle James was arrested on June 6, having previously been warned by our Consul to leave Egypt in view of the danger of hostili
688
ties. The British Interests Section of the Canadian Embassy made repeated and vigorous protests to the Ministeries of Foreign Affairs and the Interior against his arrest and that of other British subjects. As a result, he was released and placed on board ship two days later.
The full details of the treatment accorded to Squadron-Leader Hindle James did not become available to the Foreign Office until later and, in the circumstances, we considered that a protest against his treatment under arrest and the refusal of the U.A.R. authorities to allow him to communicate with his doctor or with our Consul would not have been in Squadron-Leader Hindle James's own interest.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that this old, sick man was dragged off in his pyjamas and night clothes, though no charge was made against him; that a black bag was forced over his head; that he was incarcerated in a cell where he was brutally interrogated; that he was not allowed to communicate with his doctor or with the British Consul; that a further attack of angina pectoris, to which he was subject, ensued and he was left on a bloodstained mattress for the night; that next day he was further interrogated, then manacled to a young member of the British Embassy staff and deposited with many others in a large cell, which previously was used as a latrine, until after many hours they were put on board a German ship and taken to Athens? Do Her Majesty's Government still say, in view of those facts, that there is no need for the strongest protest by Her Majesty's Government in this country as well as by the Canadian Government, and no need for a demand for full compensation?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the answer is, Yes, Her Majesty's Government still do believe that a protest at this time would do no good, and might in fact do Squadron-Leader Hindle James considerable harm. Her Majesty's Government are aware of the facts adduced by the noble Marquess. They are deplorable. We are extremely sorry for Squadron-Leader Hindle James, who seems to have behaved with great courage throughout all these transactions. But

689
may I remind the noble Marquess that Squadron-Leader Hindle James has considerable property in Egypt. So far as we know he may wish to return there, and any further protest we make now might jeopardise his chances of doing so. This is the judgment we have made, and I think it would not be worth while, and would not achieve anything in the present circumstances, to protest further.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that a new problem is facing the world and the United Nations, in that some of the members of the United Nations behave in a half-civilised manner against individuals, and there seems to be no remedy either as a result of this Government's action or any other Government's action?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, there is a great deal of force in what my noble friend says. I assure the House and the noble Marquess that in the forefront of our minds in this case is the welfare, present and future, of the unfortunate individual concerned. If we believed that a protest at this time would do him any good, we should make it. Our judgment is that it might do him harm, and we have therefore decided that a further protest would not be appropriate.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, has the noble Lord any knowledge of other British subjects who were treated in a like manner?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we have reports of a number of things that went on in the United Arab Republic and in other countries in the Middle East during this unfortunate period. There is a great deal that I personally should like to say about it. I have a great deal of sympathy with the views reflected in what the noble Marquess and the noble Lord have said, but I ask your Lordships' House to believe that if we make protests at this moment, while they may involve a certain amount of moral catharsis and may make us feel a good deal better, if in doing so we damage the welfare of people who have since returned from the U.A.R., and of people who may still be there, I think the balance of advantage will be against us.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, have the Government any information about the young member of the British Embassy staff who, Squadron-Leader Hindle James says, was manacled to him during this period?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, we have had reports and information about that incident, and of course we have reports about the way in which other members of British Embassy staffs were treated during this period. I can only repeat, without wishing to go over the ground which I have already covered, that in this particular case the thing which stands out in my mind is the extraordinary courage with which the members of our Embassy staffs have behaved.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I only wish Her Majesty's Government had shown the same courage.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, have this information and the facts which have been given to this House been put before the United Nations, either privately or publicly?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the facts are available to the United Nations. I feel it is worth while saying once more that I feel deeply resentful of the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government have been lacking in courage in this affair. It needs no courage to make protests. It does need courage to remain silent when we know that the welfare of British people is at stake, and it is that welfare which we seek to support.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to convey to the House what numbers of British subjects have been placed under arrest in the United Arab Republic, how many of them have so far been released, and how many are still being detained by the U.A.R.?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not, of course, have that information by me at the moment—it is wide of the original Question asked by the noble Marquess. But if my noble friend would like to put down a Question I will try to get the information for him.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, though one can understand the reasons why the Minister and the

691
Government do not wish to make a formal protest, would it not be wise to make these facts known? Otherwise, the Government will, in a sense, align themselves with what has happened. There may be no harm in the facts being known, even if a protest is not made.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that after the Question asked this afternoon by the noble Marquess, many millions of people will know these facts.

RHODESIA
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on Rhodesia at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (CANVEY ISLAND APPROACHES ETC.) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I am asking the House to agree to the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, in order that I can move an Amendment to the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, that Standing Order 148 be considered in order to its being dispensed with to allow an Amendment to be proposed to the said Bill.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the following Amendment to the Bill: Clause 46, page 33, line 27 at end insert:
"or
(m) to the tipping or depositing of spoil or refuse by the Central Electricity Generating Board or the Eastern Electricity Board on operational land of those Boards."
The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt these two Electricity Boards—the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Eastern Electricity Board—from the provisions of Clause 46, which prohibit the depositing of refuse without the consent of the local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 46, page 33, line 27, at end insert—
("or
(m) to the tipping or depositing of spoil or refuse by the Central Electricity Generating Board or the Eastern Electricity Board on operational land of those Boards.")—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to, and certain others disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Amendments and Reason to be printed.

DEFENCE POLICY
3.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That this House regrets that the proposals in Command Paper 3357 gravely impair the capacity of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force to meet all the demands that may be made on them. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in our Defence debate some three months ago I deplored the fact that our defence policies were being distorted by the straitjacket of a quite arbitrary limit of defence expenditure. I predicted that, faced with the collapse of their economic policies and with thunder on his Left, Mr. Healey would once again take his knife to our Armed Forces. I suggested also that we might be graciously informed about his surgical intentions just before the Summer Recess. I regret that these surmises have proved only too close to the mark.
My Lords, we live in very unquiet times. We have all within the last two months or so come unpleasantly close to the brink in the Middle East. Much fire and much tinder still lie around that region. Africa, or large parts of it, is in convulsion; and in the Far East the running sore of Vietnam spreads. It may be that U Thant was exaggerating when he spoke recently of the proximity of a Third World War. Possibly he was. Yet few, I believe, would dissent from the

693
recent words of the Canadian Secretary of State, Mr. Paul Martin, when he said to the United Nations General Assembly:
"The incidence of violence in the world has already reached the limits of international tolerance".
Yet, my Lords, at this precise and perilous moment the British Government have chosen to announce proposals for crippling reductions in the ability of this country to defend itself and to help others to defend themselves. This White Paper may have the merit of brevity. It has few others. It foreshadows wounding cuts in the three Services—and I shall come to them in a moment—but it does nothing logically to relate them to our obligations and to our ability to discharge those obligations in Europe or elsewhere.
In Europe, the Government take the view that we must continue to make a real contribution to NATO. I agree. A further British retreat from Europe would be out of step with our general policy towards Europe, and it might well lead to a general dégringolade in NATO. Personally, I would not quarrel with the Government's desire to redeploy one brigade from the British Army of the Rhine back in this country, although unless it is to leave all its heavy equipment in Europe—and this means duplicating much of it—I have always wondered myself whether we could reposition it in time should the need to do so arise. But of course that redeployment remains conditional upon the agreement of our Allies, and all we learn about this from the White Paper now, three months after our proposal was first mooted by this most dynamic and persuasive of Governments, is that they "are confident" that our Allies will accept it. Never mind. We now recognise, or the Government do, that in Europe
"our contribution to the alliance will remain broadly on the same scale as at present."
So reductions in our military establishment cannot be related to our European commitments.
Presumably these reductions are related in some way to the military withdrawals we aim to make from the Middle East. This may have underlain our decision not to couple a defence agreement with the grant of independence to South Arabia—a shabby decision which in retrospect may prove to be one of the most dis
694
astrous taken by this disastrous Government. That wilful blunder has now been qualified by the package deal announced on June 19 last. Yet no one can conceivably predict, whatever their present hopes may be, that South Arabia will in fact achieve independence on January 9, as we hope, and how long thereafter it may require our external protection. We know, in any event, that the V-bombers will be based off Muscat for an indefinite period; and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, confirmed to your Lordships last week that the strong naval force, with an attack carrier, that we propose to base in South Arabian waters, could conceivably remain there after the first critical six months.
In any event, so far as the Middle East is concerned, I am not aware that we propose to renege on our commitments to CENTO. Nor does it appear to be the Government's intention to pull out of the Persian Gulf. In fact quite the contrary. We read that four R.A.F. squadrons are to move there—for how long?—and that there will be a small increase in the Army units stationed there. Indeed, our military dispositions in the Gulf are shrouded by this White Paper in a good deal of mystery. But, all in all, unless the noble Lord can correct me, it would hardly seem possible to justify any important rundown in our forces as a whole by the withdrawals to be anticipated from the Middle East.
But of course, the most ambivalent section of an ambivalent White Paper relates to Asia. We all recognise, I think, that we cannot seek to be a World Power in the good old Victorian way. We cannot, in the late Lord Rosebery's phrase,
"afford to be the knight errant of the world careering about to redress grievances and to protect the weak",
although at times our present Prime Minister, in his pursuit of immortality, seems to have neglected that sage advice. Yet most of us would agree that, in the words of the White Paper:
"We have a political and economic interest in the stability of the world outside Europe, which makes it desirable to retain a capacity for contributing to the maintenance of peace where we can usefully do so".
Nowhere does this apply with greater force than to South-East Asia—that vast region which is centred on Malaysia and Singapore, and which now includes,

695
by their own definition and volition, Australia and New Zealand.
I believe that in the next decades the peace of the world may well be more affected by developments in this region, in South-East Asia, than perhaps anywhere else. The dangers, of course, are only too manifest: revolutionary China, with its latent energies and its hydrogen bomb; new pressures, already becoming evident on the Indian borders, against Burma, and in Hong Kong. All this apart from Vietnam. But the promise of the region is bright. There is a great economic upsurge. Many of the independent non-Communist States have taken off (to use the jargon) economically, or are on the point of economic take-off. And the direct British stake in the area is very considerable, too. There are our economic interests. Apart from our invisible earnings in the region—and I am excluding New Zealand and Australia from this calculation—we receive from direct investment and from a surplus in our balance of payments with the region substantially more across the exchanges than our military presence in the region costs us. We have definite defence commitments. Above all, we have long and deep political and cultural roots in the area. Not least—and here I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would bear me out if he were here—we command much respect within the area. It is a very different situation from that with which we are confronted in large parts of the Middle East and of Africa.
I would not wish to overpaint this picture. The stability which a continuing British military presence can bring to South-East Asia may be marginal. Our military presence can in any event be only marginal compared with the resources which the United States can deploy. Yet, my Lords, on two occasions within the last two decades that marginal presence has decisively affected, and affected for the good, the destiny of the whole region—in the Malayan emergency and in Confrontation. And we should remember—and the Government should remember—that premature withdrawal of that marginal presence may encourage those within the United States who advocate an American withdrawal to Fortress America. The Government in one breath seem to recognise this. They assure us
696
that they will continue to honour our obligations under the SEATO Treaty. They tell us that they will continue to honour their obligations under the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement. We must assume that they will honour their obligations towards the various British dependencies in South-East Asia and the Far East, including Hong Kong. And I suppose we can take it for granted that if ever Australia and New Zealand were imperilled we should stand by them. But, in the same breath, they announce that they intend to run down our forces in the area and to withdraw totally from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia by the mid-1970s.
I do not quarrel with the intention to run down. Some run-down seems logical and, given the end of the confrontation, acceptable. But I do quarrel, and quarrel violently, with the apparent decision to quit Singapore and Malaysia. If we were under pressure to get out it would be an entirely different matter. But the Prime Minister of Singapore implored the Government not to make this announcement. Only last year the Australians were told by Mr. Healey—and I quote his words from The Times—that
"It would not make any military sense at all for us to leave Singapore unless we had to. From every point of view, I think it is in our interest to stay in that part of the world so long as we do so with the consent of the local people."
But that was last year; that was in Canberra; that was for Australian consumption. Presumably, a different slogan will be needed this year, in Scarborough, for the Labour Party Conference consumption.
Of course, there are the usual hedges which we have come to expect from this double-hedging Government. The precise timing of our total withdrawal is made dependent upon progress and stability in South East Asia and the Far East. How much better if, in the first place, our intention to withdraw had been clearly and exclusively linked to progress of this nature rather than hitched to an arbitrary date governed by the narrowest financial and political calculations!
Then again, at the end of the act, as one turns the page of Chapter III, we find the trick that conjuror Healey has kept up his sleeve all alone: that we may not, after all, totally withdraw. We

697
learn that, after all that was said, we may not totally withdraw; that we are proposing to keep
"a military capability for use, if required, in the area "
and that some naval and amphibious forces may be kept permanently in the Far East. That sounds fine; but the concept looks pretty, almost deliberately, vague. It sounded pretty vague to me the other day on television when Mr. Healey was talking about our forces "sailing about" off South East Asia. It sounds pretty vague when one realises that naval forces at the other side of the world need a base; and so does their land-based air cover. It sounds pretty vague when we are told that we are giving up Singapore and presumably Butterworth, too. It looks pretty vague when, after two or three years' examination and discussions we are told that we are still examining and discussing bases in Australia and in the Indian Ocean. I hope the noble Lord will be able to make all this vagueness just a little more convincing.
My Lords, I have been suggesting that the cuts which the Government propose to impose upon our forces cannot logically be justified by cuts in our commitments, in our military obligations. Save possibly in South Arabia, no real cut in any of our major obligations is foreseen. This can be logically explained only if one assumes—and one must assume—that once again the Government are preserving our commitments but weakening our ability to discharge them. That is perhaps a logical explanation; but it is no justification.
Of course, in all this the deliberate imprecision of the White Paper makes judgment difficult, no doubt deliberately. We are told that the manpower cuts
"will be gradually reflected in a lower number of ships, units and squadrons than we deploy to-day".
Fine! but although we can guess the number of units the depleted Army may possess in the mid-'70s, we cannot even guess the number of front-line squadrons and ships in commission which the depleted R.A.F. and R.N. will possess. And this from a Government who have always boasted that they would give us the defence facts. And this at a time when a cursory glance at the Congres
698
sional Record reveals the strength of the American armed forces.
In any event, we know that savage cuts are intended for the teeth units of the Army; and my noble friend Lord Thurlow, who speaks on the Army with far greater authority than I, will be elaborating this point. But by 1971 we shall have only some 52 infantry units instead of the 60 that we possess at present. By the mid-'70s, if the reduction continues on a broadly similar basis, as forecast in the White Paper, the 52 will have shrunk to a mere 44. Can the noble Lord confirm that this estimate is, broadly speaking, correct? Can he also tell us that he is confident that this Army, shorn of most of its teeth units, will be able to meet its then-commitments, both towards NATO and outside Europe?
These reductions may be related to the Government's preference for sophistication. I do not suggest that we should not be prepared to help our friends and allies with sophisticated elements like air support or early-warning systems and the rest; but I would ask the Government to remember that in many situations in which our aid could be invoked it is not necessarily the sophistication of the equipment which will turn the balance. This was not the decisive factor in the Malaysian emergency or with confrontation. The decisive factor in both cases was the deployment on the ground and in the jungle of adequate numbers of superbly-trained and fit Regular infantry. Does the noble Lord think that 44 infantry battalions—a mere 44—will give us the necessary backing, both overseas and in Europe? Or do these cuts imply as I fear they may, that we are edging further and further towards a "trip-wire strategy" and a wholly nuclear philosophy?
My Lords, as for the Air Force, the Government may feel that they are discharged from the task of proving, or disproving as the case may be, that a given number of front-line squadrons will enable us to meet our obligations in the mid-'70s. This they may feel, since they deny us knowledge of the numbers of frontline squadrons they have in mind. However, even if they continue to feel so, they still have to convince us that an Air Force stripped of over one-fifth of its manpower will be able fully to discharge its tasks in the future. Moreover,

699
that run-down Air Force will have to discharge not only its present tasks: to these will be added, when the last of the carriers go, support and maritime cover for the Royal Navy.
Noble Lords opposite have also to satisfy us about the equipment of that rundown Air Force. I recall that last May the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, told us that
"To a very great extent we have a settled programme of re-equipment for the Royal Air Force. But this does not denote that all we have to do is sit back and await delivery."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/5/67; col. 823.]
With the demise before birth of the Anglo-French Variable Geometry aircraft, described by the Secretary of State himself as the hard core, operationally and industrially, of our Air Force, the noble Lord's qualification has proved to be all too prophetic. The Government have still to tell us what they propose to do to enable the Royal Air Force to meet its future obligations now that its core has been so abruptly extracted.
The White Paper contains a brief but rosy brochure of the new types of vessels to be introduced into the Royal Navy, and it contains one rather surprising statement. The surprising statement is that, apart from the Polaris submarines, the "main striking power" of the Navy, after the carriers fade out, will be provided by the nuclear-powered Fleet submarines. What do the Government really mean by this, on the face of it, rather odd phrase? Do they mean that they have some new weapon under development, as we read, and can this weapon possibly be placed alongside the striking power provided by the modern attack carrier? The brochure is of course meaningless unless we know what numbers lie behind these proposed new vessels. Can the Government now tell us how many Fleet submarines they are proposing to build? What will be the size of the new cruiser force they talk about? Will the first of this new class be like the Type 82, the last of the class? How many escorts do they aim to commission by the mid-'70s? Unless the Government are prepared to let us have this information we have no possible criteria for judging whether the Navy they are planning for the mid-'70s will be in any wise adequate to meet our maritime obligations in that period.
Above all, my Lords, if we are to judge whether the Government are really serious about their intention to maintain some residual military capability in the Far East, we need to know much more than this very bare White Paper discloses about their intentions in this area. I should have thought there was a strong case for building up an effective task force with a balanced air and naval component. Provided we continue to keep bases within the region, this air component could just conceivably be deployed from the land. But if this is not the case, then the arguments for this task force being provided with its own air cover deployable at sea become to my mind overwhelming. And if we are looking into the '70s, and through the '70s into the '80s, the arguments for developing nuclear propulsion for some of the units in this task force are very strong. Yet of this, as of so much else, nothing is said in the White Paper.
When I read these brief paragraphs on the three Services I could not help reflecting how curiously they contrast with all that the Members of the present Government were saying only three brief years ago. They went to the country then claiming that in defence their emphasis would be on strengthening our conventional Regular Forces. Some people, unfortunately, took them at their word. What do we now see? We see a 20 per cent. cut across in the board in Service manpower. We see a 10 per cent. cut in the vital area of research and development. We see the Army reduced to a bare 44 teeth infantry units. We see a Navy which by the mid-'70s will have had its sharpest weapons extracted from it. We see a depleted Royal Air Force with its operational core torn out and with its front-line strength drastically reduced.
We see all this done under the guise, under the smokescreen, of a careful balancing of commitments and resources. In reality, my Lords, the truth is cruder. These are ruthless and arbitrary reductions, and they stem from the total failure of the Government to manage and extend the economy and a consequent desire to appease Left-Wing opinion. This is the old Socialist way of compensating for failure. When they are faced with a choice of sacrificial lambs, the axe, in their hands, comes squarely down on the necks of our defence and our Armed Forces. And I fear that this may not be

701
the end of the story. There is no guarantee, given the record of this Government, that we are now witnessing the final twist in this downward spiral. This is bad enough. But to cap it all, the Secretary of State has the sublime effrontery to claim, in his conclusion on page 12 of the White Paper, that:
"The Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, though reduced in size, will be capable of meeting all the demands that may be made on them."
This sweeping claim is followed by two sentences of pious platitudes which your Lordships can read. Taken together, these sentences mark a horrid conjuncture of the pulpit and the soapbox.
But, my Lords, what is the reality behind this claim? With the dubious exception of South Arabia, we are, as I understand from the White Paper, as a nation still pledged to discharge all our major existing military obligations whether in Europe or the Middle East or South East Asia or the Far East. We all know that a major crisis in one of these areas, let alone in two, could stretch our existing forces, let alone our reduced forces, and stretch them almost to breaking point. But no matter. The bland claim is nevertheless made that our Armed Forces in the 1970's will be capable of meeting all the demands placed upon them whatever those demands may prove to be. The Government may kid themselves that this claim is founded on their prescience, on some "nicely calculated less or more." My Lords, it is my belief that it is based on folly and foolish arrogance. It needs a touching faith in our present rulers to believe that they will be able to substantiate this claim. Nothing in their record over the last thousand or so days allows me, unfortunately, that faith. That is why I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House regrets that the proposals in Command Paper 3357 gravely impair the capacity of the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force to meet all the demands that may be made on them.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON) rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "House" and insert:
702
"approves the proposals in Command Paper 3357 and welcomes the realistic view taken therein of Britain's commitments and capabilities, the plans made for the re-equipment of the three Services, and the substantial financial savings which will be achieved."
The noble Lord said: my Lords, I rise to move the Amendment on the Order Paper but I should first like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I would not go so far as to say that he alternated between the pulpit and the soap-box, but I must say that it was a speech in striking contrast to the smug speeches we used to have from Leaders on the other side of the House when they were in Government. I thought it was a fair and typical speech, although not quite typical of the noble Earl, because he tends to be more constructive than he was to-day. I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if, for at least the greater part of my speech, I try to give information to the House and refrain from slanging the Opposition, because I have some information to give which I hope will fill some of the gaps in knowledge which arise inevitably from a fairly short White Paper.
I should like to try to set the decisions announced in the Supplementary Statement in perspective, both from the political and from the economic standpoints. I shall not, I promise the noble Earl, dodge the issues or the responsibilities of the Government, or the reasons why we have taken these decisions. The noble Earl was perfectly entitled to refer to the economic aspects. I cannot seriously believe that he thinks that economic aspects do not impose something of a straitjacket on a Government. Certainly the previous Government constantly reiterated' the need for economies and the difficulty. As numerous Defence Secretaries passed across the scene, each one kept pointing out the need to relate Government expenditure in defence to the national wealth. It is a pity that they did not heed their own words rather more. The economic aspects, and I admit this freely, relate to the pressing need to reduce overseas expenditure, a slower rate of growth than we had expected and hoped for in the British economy and the consequent necessity to keep Government expenditure as low as possible. Our public expenditure needs to come more into

703
balance with our resources, and it is inevitable that overseas spending, of which defence spending forms a major part, should contribute towards the necessary savings.
Our objective (and about this I hope we are all agreed, whatever the failures of past Governments may have been) is to build an unshakable economic base for Britain. We consider that this objective is in the interests of our allies as well as of ourselves. To be an effective partner to them and to play our part in the world, we need, above all, economic strength. I do not propose to go into this aspect of our policy at greater length as my noble friend the Leader of the House will deal more fully with it in his speech, but I am fully prepared to acknowledge that this is a crucial part of Government policy.
In the Statement on the Defence Estimates published in February, 1967, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear that further economies in the defence field might be necessary. After saying that we had always recognised that the Defence Review must be a continuing process, he stated,
"… in particular, the scale of our overseas expenditure on defence requires an unremitting watch. We are, therefore, continuing to study the scope that exists for reducing our foreign exchange expenditure throughout the world, always with a proper regard to the interests of our allies and our ability to meet our commitments".
It was also stated in the February White Paper that our aim was that Britain should not again have to undertake operations, on the scale of confrontation against Indonesia, outside Europe. The purpose of our diplomacy was, it was stated,
"to foster developments which will enable the local people to live at peace without the presence of external forces".
We had, therefore, already made it clear in February that we were considering whether there was scope for further reductions, provided that these were politically justifiable. I say "further reductions" because this Government had, of course, already, in the 1966 Defence White Paper, announced that we would leave the Aden base when South Arabia attained independence and had also announced
704
decisions relating to substantial cuts in our overseas deployments in other areas, notably Malta and Cyprus. We had shown, in fact, that in a rapidly changing world our role must be a changing one. We must continue to play our part—but not go beyond our resources in doing so.
Forces based overseas do not exist in a vacuum. They cannot be moved about like counters, regardless of the effect. By their very presence, they can, depending on the political situation in the area, have a very important stabilising effect. The hope of every British Government is that their forces posted overseas will never need to undertake operations. However, it may sometimes be that the very presence of these forces pre-empts the need for involvement in hostilities. Forces posted abroad also become tightly interwoven into the life of the country where they are based. In some cases they may be called upon to perform internal security duties and thus to contribute by their presence not only to the stability of the area as a whole, but also to the stability of the country they are in. Not only this, but they may also play a very important part in contributing to the economy of their host country. On the other hand, the converse is sometimes true. Troops abroad, far from being a basis of stability, can become a focus for hostility. Under such conditions, there can be a bill to us not only in terms of budgetary and foreign exchange costs but also in terms of British lives. There is also the point—an arguable one, but one that is very important—that the prospect of our forces being withdrawn may encourage local Governments to take the initiative in developing, together with like-minded nations in the area, the necessary indigenous strength which alone, in the long run can give true stability in the part of the world concerned.
It has therefore been an objective of our policy to work as swiftly as possible to develop local strengths, so that, before too long, countries with whom we have been closely associated can stand on their own feet. This is a policy which successive British Governments have followed, not least the previous Government, and I give them credit for this.
A further crucial general factor of a political and also, to some extent,

705
economic nature, which needs to be weighed very carefully, is the long-term effect on our political relationships with our friends and allies who are concerned, more or less directly, with the area where reductions of our forces are contemplated. An important consideration here is, of course, our specific obligations under treaties. If the effect of reductions is to provoke hostile reactions, we have to weigh this against the likely benefits—bearing in mind that hostile reactions can sometimes have awkward economic, as well as political consequences.
I hope that in this preamble I have shown that the Government have thought carefully along these lines. Against this background, I should like now to look briefly at the principal areas concerned. As the White Paper states, the security of Britain still depends above all on the prevention of war in Europe. We therefore regard it as essential to maintain both the military efficiency and the political solidarity of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. We also need to take fully into account the evolution of Government policy towards Europe. Once the Far Eastern reductions are in train, the focus of our military deployments will shift decisively to Europe the White Paper decisions are thus fully consistent with our European policies as they have evolved, although, as I shall show later, this does not mean that we are losing complete interest in other parts of the world.
I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me if in the interests of time I do not deal at length with the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern areas. The 1966 and 1967 White Papers indicated that we should be making substantial reductions to our forces there, and the latest White Paper says that there will be a small increase in the Persian Gulf garrison to meet our remaining obligations. It has been suggested that we ought to make an announcement of our intention to "pull out" of the Persian Gulf area. Those who have studied the complex problems of this part of the world will recognise that a sudden withdrawal would upset the delicate balance of political forces there and jeopardise the emergence of the various States into a viable and stable existence by themselves.
It was in the Far East that it seemed there was more scope for reductions. Here, we had to take special account of the general considerations I have mentioned earlier, particularly our longstanding obligations to our Commonwealth friends and to our SEATO allies in the area. We had, in addition, to take very careful account of the shifts in the political scene which had taken place since February, 1966, when we said, in the White Paper, that we thought it right that Britain should continue to maintain a military presence in the area. Even then, however, I should point out that we said,
"As soon as conditions permit, we shall make some reductions in the forces which we keep in the area".
The noble Earl has not quarrelled with that. Our obligations in the area are the result of a long, historical association with that part of the world, an association we wish to maintain. I think that the noble Earl put rather too much emphasis in his remarks on the economic and trading advantages of having troops in a particular area. So we made a thorough examination to satisfy ourselves that we could come to the help of our friends and allies in the area if we decided to reduce and finally to withdraw our troops from that area.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I should correct the noble Lord, because he has misunderstood me. I merely pointed out that in that area we are not in net deficit as a result of our military presence there. I was not claiming that the military presence contributed to our trading position, other than to contribute to the general stability of the area.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry if I misinterpreted the noble Earl. I certainly do not quarrel with what he has just said. None the less, there is a general tendency that our trading operations may cease in areas from which we remove our troops. But I am not accusing the noble Earl of that. The very thorough examination which I have mentioned showed that we should continue to be able to meet our obligations, despite the reductions we had in mind, though we should need to take a fresh look at the means that we would use to fulfil our obligations in a particular case.

707
A factor which enabled us to come to this conclusion was that by the time our forces are substantially reduced in the area our reinforcement capability will be very appreciably improved. I do not think that it is sufficiently recognised even now that the advent of the very longrange transport aircraft has put an entirely new complexion on the question of whether it makes better sense to keep troops on the ground far from home, or whether it is not preferable (it certainly makes better economic sense) to keep them, or some of them, at a high state of alert in their own country. Your Lordships will recall that the White Paper refers to the strengthening of the Strategic Reserve by a further infantry brigade from early in 1968. The Strategic Reserve will be enlarged by this additional brigade. I know that there are difficult arguments arising on acclimatisation and so on, and I merely state this argument straight as it is: that there is this greatly increased capacity for the new transport aircraft.
We concluded, therefore, that we could reduce our forces and still continue to be able to meet our obligations to our friends and Allies. The question remained whether gradual reductions of the kind envisaged made sense, in view of the political position in South-East Asia at the time. Here the ending of the confrontation against Indonesia was the crucial factor which encouraged us to think that considerable reductions could take place without upsetting the political balance of the area. Moreover, it seemed possible that our departure might contribute to the growth of cooperation among the countries in the area—this is not just an argument for debating purposes; it is a serious argument—and, therefore, we did not think that the political position in South-East Asia need in itself, at least, weigh against such a decision on our part. There was also the question of the impact of reductions on the economies of Singapore and Malaysia. Here there were considerable problems. We have, however, been in close consultation with the local Governments (and we shall be continuing these discussions) about measures to mitigate the effect of our withdrawals upon the local economies. These measures will include the grant of financial and other aid.
708
A factor of the utmost importance in our consideration of the manner and speed at which we could reduce our forces in South-East Asia was, of course, the views of our friends and Allies concerned with the area. We have consulted those Governments chiefly affected closely at each stage, and this includes not only our SEATO Allies, but also our NATO and CENTO Allies. Some of our Allies most closely concerned with the area made it clear that our proposals went further than they would wish. The Singapore and Malaysian Governments are, of course, the ones most closely affected by our decision. During our discussions, in which our Prime Minister and the Prime Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore played a leading part, as well as during the earlier consultations carried out by the Defence Secretary in the area, the two Governments concerned have responded to our proposals with characteristic robustness and realism. I should like to quote from the Straits Times of last Friday, which states that:
"Reaction in Malaysia and Singapore to the British Defence Statement has been realistic, sober and confident".
We have also been in consultation with the Australians and New Zealanders, with whom we are linked through bonds of friendship which have been tested and tried over a very long period. If the noble Earl said that he supposed we should continue to support them in any emergency, let me assure him that there is no question of supposing. This has been stated clearly and firmly by Her Majesty's Government; and no one would wish it otherwise. But these Governments are naturally concerned about the general security of South-East Asia. While some of our proposals (I am trying to be quite fair to your Lordships in what I say) were unwelcome to them, they showed great understanding of our need to effect economies, particularly as we made it clear to them that we firmly intended to maintain a continuing interest in the stability of the area. The Prime Minister has also discussed the matter personally with President Johnson, who has recently been quoted as saying that he hopes that Great Britain will continue to maintain an interest in the area. As I have already made clear, we do intend this.
I should now like to show how the Defence Review decisions fit into the

709
background I have described. The White Paper states
"We must continue to make a substantial contribution to NATO'S forces in order to play our part in the defence of Europe …"
I will not read the rest of it to your Lordships, because you will be familiar with it. But it will be seen that we thus retain our NATO capabilities. As announced earlier this year, we propose that a Brigade of the B.A.O.R. and a squadron of the R.A.F. will be redeployed from Germany early in 1968. Perhaps I should inform the noble Earl that quite a lot of the heavier equipment will be left in Germany, and this brigade will continue to come under the command (I believe it is) of No. 1 Corps; at any rate, it will certainly be under NATO Command: it will remain committed to NATO, and will not be lost to NATO strength. Therefore, I would emphasise that we continue to maintain the basis of the security of Europe.
In the Middle East and the Mediterranean our forces were already being substantially reduced. But since we retain a certain number of commitments which depend on the presence of British forces, we cannot for the time being plan on further reductions in those areas.
The reductions envisaged in the Far East are that our forces in Singapore and Malaysia will be gradually reduced so that by 1970–71 they will be at approximately half their present numbers—that is, 40,000 instead of 80,000, including local employees. We plan to withdraw altogether from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia in the mid-'seventies. I cannot state now what the date will be, because no actual date has been fixed. There is a good deal of flexibility in our plans. We have deliberately not tied ourselves to any absolutely precise programme. We have made it clear that the exact timing of our eventual withdrawal will depend on the progress made in achieving a new basis for stability in South-East Asia, and in resolving other problems in the Far East. We intend that Britain should play a continuing part in the area commensurate with our resources. As an earnest of our intentions, we plan to maintain a military capability for use, if required, in the Far East. Where this capability will be based, and its size, are matters that have not yet been decided—and I think quite properly, be
710
cause we are talking of far in the future. Nevertheless, we are intending to retain a capability. A deployment of this kind will in our view be in conformity with the likely development—and I ask noble Lords to consider this seriously—of political relationships in the area in the second half of the next decade.
My Lords, I hope that I have dealt fairly and, as I believe, objectively with the Government's general case. I apologise if my speech is longer than I should have wished, but I should like now to give more information about the particular Services, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. My noble friend Lord Chalfont will be dealing with arrangements with regard to the Army, but I am particularly anxious to say something about the Royal Navy, and to give a picture from which I hope noble Lords who are interested—and I think particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill—will appreciate the really serious consideration that has been given in the determination to create a Royal Navy which will be able to fulfil the role that we seek for it, and that it will have firm roles in the future, markedly stronger and clearer roles than those set out in the 1957 Defence White Paper, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, will remember with horror.
The first role is to deploy Britain's contribution, by means of the Polaris submarine force, to the stategic nuclear deterrent of the West. Progress with the Polaris programme has been maintained, and two of the four submarines have been launched. The first, the "Resolution", is now undergoing her sea trials, and will become fully operational next year. In passing, I should like to mention that there have been suggestions that our Polaris force is already out of date because of the development of anti-ballistic missile systems. We have, of course, been watching this matter very closely, but we are quite satisfied that the Polaris A3 missiles which we shall be getting will continue to provide an effective contribution to an interdependent Allied deterrent force.
The second role will be to play a leading part in the Western Maritime Alliance. NATO must be prepared to deter aggression at sea, as well as on land and in the air; and the concept of

711
"shield" forces at sea is exactly analogous to that of "shield" forces on land. We are traditionally a maritime Power, and it is entirely appropriate that we should contribute strong naval forces in the Western Atlantic. The efficiency and cohesion of the European NATO naval forces owes much to the initiative and leadership given by the Royal Navy. We are determined to go on playing our part in maintaining the effectiveness of these forces. Thirdly, we plan to rely on the unobtrusive and flexible exercise of maritime power, in which the Royal Marine Commandos in the Amphibious Force will play an important and continuing part; and this is where they make a contribution to peacekeeping operations outside Europe.
May I say something on future equipment plans? I believe that the roles I have set out are solid ones, but we have to equip the Navy for them. The White Paper outlines our plans for a new class of cruisers which will in the later 1970s take over from the aircraft carriers and the "Tiger" class ships the tasks of Fleet command, aircraft direction and control, and the operation of the Seaking antisubmarine helicopters; a new class of destroyers which will enable us to build up, more rapidly than we could afford to do with the more expensive type 82s, the Navy's medium-range anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence based on the Sea Dart System; and a new class of frigates to follow the Leanders. There is a lot more I could say, and it may be that we shall in the next Session have an opportunity to go into some more detailed discussion on the equipment of the kind we used to have in the past.
Finally, the White Paper makes it clear that the capital ship of the future—and I am sorry if the noble Earl does not like this, because I understand it is very acceptable to the Royal Navy—when the last aircraft carrier phases out, is to be the nuclear-powered Fleet submarine, with its very great capability against both submarines and surface ships. We now have six of these submarines, either in service or on order; and a seventh will be ordered later this year. The seventh and later submarines will be very much improved versions of the "Valiant" class, with which the noble Earl is familiar, and they will have a higher speed, will dive deeper, and be very much quieter
712
in operation. We are also studying—and I think this goes some way to answer the noble Earl—new submarine-launched anti-surface ship weapons in order to develop still further the potential of our Fleet submarines. It is too early to say what form these will take. Among the possibilities, however, are an air-flight missile of the type which the U.S. Navy have already developed for use against submarines, and fast-running torpedoes.
May I say something, very briefly, about the aircraft carriers and the Fleet Air Arm? We are going ahead with the modernisation of our two largest carriers, the "Ark Royal" and the "Eagle", and both will be equipped with Phantom aircraft. We are phasing out the oldest ship, the "Victorious" and the smallest, the "Hermes", over the next few years; but we regard carriers as playing an important role at present, particularly in assisting us when we are disengaging from overseas commitments. We will make the best use of the ships while we have them. But the further study of our defence policy in the 1970s has again confirmed the view of the Government of the correctness of our decision, against the background of our greatly reduced overseas commitments, not to build a new generation of carriers.
Following this decision, one of the most important considerations affecting the shape of the Fleet was the form of the light tactical strike capability to be introduced into our ships. Last year a number of systems were considered, from ship-launched missiles, such as the Norwegian Penguin, the surface-to-surface guided weapons and so on, to air-to-surface missiles launched from helicopters, or fixed-wing VTOL aircraft. In deciding which we had to go for, we had to consider not only the capability but also the relative cost, in order to ensure that we got the best and most effective solution, and this meant considering the vehicle to carry these weapons. Those studies pointed strongly in the direction of an air-launched weapon which would give greater flexibility than a surface-to-surface guided weapon and could be combined with an appropriate reconnaissance capability. Careful consideration was given to a naval version of the Harrier, but this would have cost a great deal and would have meant that a much smaller force of ships and forces could be deployed. The other alternative

713
was to take advantage of the fact that all our ships of frigate size, or larger, would carry helicopters for anti-submarine work, and that these aircraft could be given a dual capability. The Harrier solution would have given a greater capability. It would have cost very much more.
Bearing in mind our reduced commitments, and the fact that there will be the long-range surface strike capability of the R.A.F., and the formidable anti-surface ship, as well as anti-submarine capability of the Fleet submarines on which we are to spend substantial sums, it was decided that the best answer to the problem of defence and offence against missile-firing craft and fast patrol boats was to equip the helicopter. There is a wide choice of weapons. I will not go into the consideration which has been given, and is now being given, to the possibility of equipping the Seaking, the large helicopter, with the Martel weapon, as well as a number of other ones with which your Lordships will be familiar. We are also planning to develop the Fleet anti-submarine capability in the 1970s.
Again, there will be increased numbers of Fleet submarines, and there will be the two new anti-submarine helicopters. One is the Seaking, which is one of the few items, if I may say so, considered during the Defence Review which went through without any argument at all, because its advantages seemed to be so very great. These will be deployed in the larger ships. There will be also the other, smaller helicopters. The new helicopters will carry a new and much improved air-dropped anti-submarine torpedo, the Mark 31. We believe that the new shape which we are planning for the Navy in the post-carrier era—based on the Fleet submarines and the new classes of cruiser, small destroyer and frigate, which I have mentioned—will form a sound and lasting basis for the future development of the Fleet; and there is this very interesting new development of the dual role for the helicopter, with its greatly increased anti-submarine capacity and its ability to strike at targets beyond horizon range.
Although the Fleet of the future will be smaller, I believe that the tasks which the Navy will carry out and the new ships, which will all carry missiles and helicopters, will present the same challenge
714
and demand the same high standards as to-day's.
Perhaps, since time is getting on, I may say comparatively little about the Royal Air Force, because we have debated its aircraft programme at very great length. Perhaps it is enough to point out that new aircraft are beginning to come in. Over twenty Hercules are already in the country. Phantoms come in next year; and the F.111s, P.1127s and Nimrods in 1969. These, of course, will see the disappearance of old friends. If perhaps the noble Earl is hesitant about the word "Nimrod"—the mighty hunter—it is in fact the successor to the Shackleton, which I fear is still likely to remain on the scene for quite a while. I am particularly gratified with the name "Nimrod"—the mightly hunter—because, by a coincidence which may or may not have been known to Coastal Command, one of my father's ships was called the "Nimrod". This will, of course, be the maritime Comet.
The main decision now remaining is the question of an aircraft to replace the Anglo-French Variable Geometry aircraft. I thought the noble Earl was very fair when he spoke, in that he did not seek to attack the Government on a policy which I know had his wholehearted support, and it was with great regret that we heard of the French Government's decision to cancel the AFVG. I do not propose to discuss it in detail, beyond saying that I fully accept, and am satisfied, that the decision as communicated to us was based purely on financial reasons. I should like to say something about the next step. We are carrying out a project study. Perhaps I should point out that although the need for the AFVG is very great it is not very urgent. It was not due to come in until the late 1970s. The problem that confronted this Government when we first came into office was to meet the short-term need, and this we think we have done with the aircraft which we have ordered, plus the Jaguar and the helicopter programme. But the need still to be fulfilled is the replacement of the V-bombers in the conventional role in the mid-1970s.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? We have heard this phrase more than once now; it was my impression that

715
the Anglo-French Variable Geometry aircraft was going to do more than replace the V-bombers in their conventional mode.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it it always exceedingly difficult, as new aircraft come in, to match them against another aircraft of the spectrum. It could have been argued that the F.111 replaced the Canberra. In practice, of course, the Jaguar will have a performance which in many ways will exceed that of the Canberra. Perhaps I may leave it like this: that it was intended to meet the long-term needs for conventional strike and was intended to replace the V-bombers, and particularly the Vulcans, which are fulfilling this role at the moment.
EARL JELLICOE: Not reconnaissance?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes; certainly reconnaissance. I could go on at some length on this. I think the noble Earl knows the answers fairly well. If he wishes, I will expatiate at greater length, but I think perhaps I had better press on.
The cancellation of the AFVG has been a setback, and we much regret it. But I should like to make one thing clear. There have been some disparaging remarks about the Government's contingency plans, and suggestions that we had not done very much thinking on this. This attitude arises, I think, from a lack of awareness of the nature of a project study. A project study is the next stage after the feasibility study in the process of building up towards full-scale development and production of a major new project. We had already been through the feasibility study stage with the French, and had the Anglo-French Variable Geometry continued we should have been embarking upon a project study. Consequently, in authorising B.A.C. now to carry out a project study of a United Kingdom Variable Geometry aircraft to a modified specification, we are in fact fully maintaining the impetus and natural sequence of the project at the same time as we explore, in collaboration, other possibilities and review, as it is obviously sensible and prudent to do, the size and nature of the requirement. The project study itself will involve work by a sizeable design staff element preparing a fairly detailed evaluation of the
716
engineering and other characteristics of the aircraft so as to permit speedy and accurate translation into the cutting of development hardware.
I am sorry to have taken up the time of the House, but I wanted to give as much information as I can. I must now turn briefly to the Amendment tabled by my noble friend in reply to the rather odd Motion on the Order Paper. The Motion is not quite a Vote of Censure. It is critical; it wounds. But it is not perhaps intended to be mortal, and luckily it could not be mortal in this House. It has been claimed more than once in another place that the defence plans which the present Government inherited were basically sound, and it has been suggested that on assuming office we misguidedly exaggerated the problems with which we were faced in order to claim credit for an achievement which would otherwise have passed unnoticed.
We remember the miserable collection of White Papers we had at the time of the Tory Government (I see the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, in his place—he was one of the many able Secretaries of State who passed all too briefly, as I have already mentioned, across the scene), and looking at the Tory plans again I am inclined to believe that we erred, if we erred at all, in the direction of under-statement. It is true that the Defence Budget for 1964–65 was, by Tory standards, a comparatively modest affair, only about £70 million or £80 million larger, at constant prices, than the current Estimates. But in the field of defence planning (and I am sure the noble Viscount will accept this) it is extraordinarily difficult to alter course quickly. Mr. Sandys attempted to do so and we had to alter back again very quickly.
It is what you are committing yourself to, rather than what you are actually spending, which really determines where you are going. And the previous Administration—and this must be emphasised—were set on a course which would have led to a vast increase in the Defence Budget over the following five years. Even this programme contained gaps which would most certainly have had to be filled as time went by. When I took over as Minister of Defence for the Royal Air Force I was extremely aware of the anxiety, about the delays, with regard to

717
both the P.1154 and the HS.681, and there is little doubt that whatever Government had been in power they would have had to order an interim aircraft. We have to-day over 20 Hercules aircraft already in this country, whereas on the basis of the development plan as it was seen early in 1965 the first flight of the HS.681 prototype was not scheduled to take place until September of this year. All 66 Hercules aircraft on order will have been delivered by the end of next summer.
Failure and indecision, as well as the smugness to which I have already referred, marked all the defence planning efforts of the Party opposite, and of course they left us, as they know—good, I thought we should get the noble Viscount up.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me if I interrupt him? I do not want to interfere with his peroration but I hope he will take some account of the fact that defence planning is a matter for the Chiefs of Staff and the technical advisers of the Government, so presumably he is criticising them as well.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lord, I think that is a somewhat improper remark, but of course it is an absolute travesty of the facts. If the noble Viscount did not himself take responsibility when he was Secretary of State for Defence, that explains a great deal; and if his colleagues took the same view that would explain—I see he nods his head. Perhaps his colleagues did not take the same view as him, and if that is so—
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, I do not want to pursue this point now, because I shall make my own speech in due course, and I will deal then with what the noble Lord has said. But he must pay some little serious attention to what I said. Of course Ministers take full responsibility; and I did, as no doubt he does. But I think one must be a little careful when making wild allegations about defence planning in the past: that there is no continuity and therefore, presumably, no resting on technical advice. He would be a very unwise Minister who did that.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know what the speech of the noble
718
Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was about if it was not a criticism of defence planning. I think perhaps the noble Viscount would do well to wait till he makes his speech.
The Defence Review fell into three phases. The first and most urgent task was to put some order into the aircraft procurement programme, which was threatening to consume so large a part of the defence budget. This has already been set out and fully explained, and has led to large savings and an improvement in the effectiveness of the R.A.F. This involved heavy costs in foreign exchange, but by negotiation we have been able, as the Government announced in May of last year, to cover all the dollar costs, not only of the aircraft we have ordered, but of the ones the noble Earl ordered, the naval Phantom aircraft and Polaris submarines to which the previous Administration committed itself, either by dollar receipts arising from U.S. forces spending in this country, or by receipts under the $725 million F111 offset arrangement.
The second main phase overlapped with the first. It concerned the aircraft carriers, one of the hardest decisions we had to take, because it was thought by some, sincerely, but in my view wrongly, as striking a lethal blow at a great Service. We decided, as is now well known, not to prolong the life of our carrier force beyond the mid-1970s by ordering CVA.01. No long-term plans for the carrier force had been worked out systematically by the previous Administration. They had neither the courage to take the steps necessary nor to discontinue our capability. They dithered; they talked about the carrier from 1960 on. Even then they never mentioned that if we were to have a viable carrier force we had to have not one but several CVAs in the future at enormous cost. We have had to reach conclusions, and we did so only after the most thorough examination of the value of the planned carrier force and the need to preserve these capabilities or perform them more economically by other means, given the sort of operations we judged it was within the capacity of this country to undertake during the 1970s. I commend this to the Opposition—though I doubt whether they will

719
accept it—as a rational approach to defence planning. It starts by considering the political and economic realities and works out the military problems in the light of these realities. The net saving which arose from this major decision was £500 million over the ten years from 1965, a very large sum, bearing in mind the fact that during the whole of this period the carrier force would still be in existence and that bigger savings still are in store.
The third stage of my right honourable friend's task, which has occupied the past twelve months, was to reduce the defence budget in 1970–71 to about £1,900 million at 1964 prices; that is, about £500 million less than the programme we inherited—and goodness knows! how much that £500 million would have been when the escalation set in in those long-delayed aircraft—and £200 million less than the cost of the programme as it stood in mid-1966. In achieving this further cut, we had also to make the largest possible savings in overseas stationing costs, though these had already been cut by a quarter as compared with the previous Administration's programme.
To achieve further savings of this size obviously entailed making some cuts in overseas commitments. My right honourable friend has explained in the White Paper how the cuts in our forces overseas will be made. The policy we have developed on defence has not only marked out a course which will progressively reduce the foreign exchange burden to a size well within what we can afford, but has enabled us to make substantial savings in the short term despite criticisms opposite of each and every one of the plans devised. No coherent alternative solution has been offered by the noble Earl or any other spokesman opposite, either here or in another place, by which our stationing costs overseas could be reduced. Of course I except, perhaps, some of the ex-cathedrâ pronouncements by their own defence spokesman which seem to have been designed to embarrass the Opposition rather than the Government.
Criticism has been made in particular of our decisions with regard to the Far East. I should like to quote from some-
720
thing that was said not so long ago which I believe sums up reasonably accurately the policy of the Government in regard to the Far East. After talking about the need to create regional agreements and a viable political environment in the area, these are the words that were uttered:
"It seems to me that on this basis it might well be possible to recast the whole of Britain's defence commitments in the Far East. We should still contribute our share to the protection and guarantee of our allies in that area, and a new era of self-reliance for the Asian nations would develop. We should still retain a military capability in the Far East: the ability to reinforce with air power and an amphibious force capable of showing a British presence in that part of the world, and useful not only for the support of the Asian SEATO but for international disorders and keeping the peace, and showing the flag in those areas of the Pacific for which we still have responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 834–5, 2/5/67.]
That, I think, reasonably represents the views of Her Majesty's Government. The only thing is that on this occasion they were said only two months ago, not by conjuror Healey but by conjuror Carrington. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out all words after ("House") and insert ("approves the proposals in Command Paper 3357 and welcomes the realistic view taken therein of Britain's commitments and capabilities, the plans made for the re-equipment of the three Services, and the substantial financial savings which will be achieved.")—(Lord Shackleton.)

RHODESIA: LORD ALPORT'S VISIT
4.17 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Lord Alport's visit to Rhodesia. I will, if I may, make use of my right honourable friend's own words, and now I am quoting the Prime Minister:
"I undertook to inform the House of the noble Lord, Lord Alport's impressions following his visit to Rhodesia. Lord Alport has made a very full oral report to my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary and myself of his findings and recommendations. He has reported

721
that (and I quote the words he has himself suggested),' after weighing the evidence obtained by him during his three weeks' visit to Rhodesia, during which he had an opportunity of meeting and discussing with a very large number of people the problems inherent in the achievement by negotiation of a solution honourable to both Britain and Rhodesia and which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared in due course to recommend to Parliament for its acceptance, he (Lord Alport) has concluded that, while in his opinion there can be no certainty at this stage regarding the eventual outcome of such a negotiation, the prospects of achieving success are likely to become less rather than greater with the lapsing of time. Lord Alport considers that it would be advisable in the interests of British policy, as in those of all races in Rhodesia, that Her Majesty's Government should take the initiative in setting on foot the preliminaries to a negotiation for a settlement.' That concludes the quotation from Lord Alport's views.
"I should like to express the thanks of the Government for the extremely thorough way in which Lord Alport has undertaken his task. He saw over a thousand Rhodesians, representing all races and every shade of opinion on the political future of Rhodesia. The House will be aware that he was refused permission to see certain detainees he asked to see, though he did have the opportunity of talks with other representatives of African Nationalist opinion.
"While he met a number of people, including influential members of the Rhodesia Front, who are opposed to any settlement which does not amount to a complete surrender by the British Government of the principles we have sought to uphold, he is convinced that a majority of the Europeans, and indeed many of the Africans he met, are anxious for a negotiated settlement with Britain.
"I must, however, make clear to the House that, despite Lord Alport's very thorough discussion with leading members of the régime, I cannot regard his report as providing conclusive evidence that—to quote the phrase I used when I announced his mission—
722
'Mr. Smith, with the authority of his Rhodesia Front colleagues, is prepared to enter into meaningful discussions—that is to say discussions leading to a solution which Parliament could accept'.
Equally the noble Lord was not in a position to bring back any guarantee that, if any meaningful agreement were to emerge, Mr. Smith would not once again, as after 'Tiger', be over-ruled by the extremist members of his régime.
"Lord Alport, in his meetings with Mr. Smith, felt himself precluded, in my view rightly, by the terms of his mission from entering into any discussions which might be regarded as a negotiation. Lord Alport tells me, however, that Mr. Smith indicated to him that he had all along said and believed that a Constitution based on the 'Tiger' proposals—which were themselves based on the 1961 Constitution—was acceptable. But he told Lord Alport there were some aspects of the 'Tiger' Constitution which he and his colleagues would like to see changed there were some details which had been arrived at quickly, under pressure of the time-table, and these needed looking at again. Since the 'Tiger' talks, he said, one or two other points had occurred to him which he believed were reasonable and would improve the Constitution.
"Lord Alport has now recommended that, without commitment, we should proceed to clarify what these points are. The Government are therefore authorising the Governor, to whose steadfastness and courage once again I would pay full tribute, to undertake this task.
"I must make clear that, in taking this limited step, Her Majesty's Government fully reserve their position on NIBMAR, and on the return to legality and the kind of broad-based Government of national unity which would be required for any major step forward. No doubt Mr. Smith, for his part, will continue during this process to assert what he calls his independence.
"Our partners in the Commonwealth have been informed of this decision. We shall continue to keep in close touch with the whole Commonwealth and it is intended that the Commonwealth Secretary during the Recess should have discussions with leaders of

723
African Commonwealth countries about all aspects of the Rhodesian problem."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement. But I feel sure that the whole House will wish to pay a sincere tribute to Lord Alport.
4.22 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for repeating that Statement. When it was announced that my noble friend Lord Alport was going out to Rhodesia, I took the opportunity of wishing him every success in his task; and I, too, should like to join with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in thanking him for the hard work that he put in during the three weeks or so that he was away, and for the report that he has made.
I think that this Statement shows that there is a chink of light in the Rhodesian situation. Certainly it is much better that there should be exploratory conversations of this sort rather than that there should be no contact between the two parties, and I think everyone on this side of the House would like to welcome that, so far as it goes. I take it—indeed, I think this was said in the Statement—that both sides will reserve their own positions while this contact goes on. I do not press the noble Earl, because I do not wish to embarrass the Government in any way, but supposing it were found that there was a possibility of further negotiations, I wonder whether the noble Earl could say what he envisages, and what time-scale he envisages for such further talks?
4.24 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues and myself, may I join in thanking the noble Earl for repeating this Statement? We should also like to convey to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, our thanks for his services. It so happened that I was in Salisbury at the same time as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and I can confirm from my own observation that there were a great many people who wanted to see him, and he went out of his way to see as many people as possible.
Apart from the detailed points which are to be clarified by the Governor (in
724
this I wish him well) would the noble Earl agree that there are real doubts in the minds of many people as to whether the leaders of the Rhodesian Front have any genuine intention of removing racial discrimination and moving towards African majority rule? At the same time, there are doubts in the minds of a number of white Rhodesians as to the willingness of the British Government and British people to understand their particular problems. What have the Government in mind to try to resolve these mutual doubts, since I believe that these constitute the major obstacle to a return to legality by mutual agreement?
4.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, it is quite true that the positions on both sides are reserved. He raised a hypothetical question which could become immensely important, but he was kind enough to say he would not press it. I would only say to Lord Wade that those who saw the way the noble Lord, Lord Alport, comported himself in his visit are full of admiration, as indeed one would expect. I do not think I will speculate about the motives or attitudes of the leaders of the Rhodesian Front. We must all try to be optimistic rather than pessimistic, without entertaining false hopes.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Carrington, I hope that we may understand from this Statement that the door to a settlement is, even now, not completely closed. That, at any rate, is something. But there is one thing I feel I must say. I have read in the papers during the last few days the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government will be willing to give Rhodesia a last chance. Pray, do not let us "kid" ourselves with such a travesty of the facts. The truth is—and I say it in no offensive sense—that if Rhodesia agrees to re-enter into negotiations, it is Rhodesia who will be giving us a last chance. I only hope that the Prime Minister will recognise that he no longer, if he ever did, controls this situation. I believe—I say this with all deference—that his duty to this country surely is to get the best terms he can.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that whatever the noble

725
Marquess says in this House always deserves an answer, but I never thought the day would come when he would actually say that Rhodesia was giving us a last chance. When we think that the whole world is lined up against Rhodesia—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Well, I am entitled to my opinion, and I say that when the whole world is lined up against Rhodesia as long as she pursues this unconstitutional course, I am afraid the prospect to me looks very different.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, when the Prime Minister said that the Government reserve their position on certain matters, including no independence without majority rule, did he imply that the Government are maintaining the principles for which they have stood and to which they are committed to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the Government are maintaining all their principles.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while my noble friend has stated that the positions on both sides are reserved, may I take it from this Statement that the amount of good will on both sides is unreserved?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, certainly the amount of good will on our side towards the Rhodesian people is unreserved. That is clear. To say that it is unreserved towards the Rhodesian régime would pose me a problem in semantics that I will not pursue this afternoon. How much good will there is towards this country in the Rhodesian régime is again something upon which I would not speculate.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Rhodesian régime has the good will of Rhodesians; and that although, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, we must be glad at a chink of light, it seems to me from what the noble Earl said, and the attitude of mind that he adopts to it, that there is little prospect that anything will happen from these negotiations?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it would be hard to say that the régime has the good will of the great majority of the 4 million Rhodesians.
4.30 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I gathered from the Prime Minister's statement that the purpose of these negotiations is to reach a settlement honourable to both sides. That being so, it seems to me that the Government must now admit that even the Rhodesian r¹gime has some right on its side. And if we really are genuine in our desire for a settlement honourable to both sides, would it not be very deirable for us to cease attacking Mr. Smith's Government, to cease referring to the past, but rather to look to the future, and even to give the other side in the negotiation the courtesy of calling them by their right name—in other words, by referring to "the Government of Rhodesia", rather than to "the régime"? If the noble Lord could do that, and if the Prime Minister could do that, I feel that it would have an immense effect in securing a settlement honourable to both sides.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, as I said of the noble Marquess, anything that comes from the noble Lord comes from a man of outstanding sincerity, but this is an illegal r¹gime, and I do not see why one should ignore this fact in commenting upon it. I hope that I did not say anything, and I hope that there is nothing in the Statement, which is intended to be personally offensive about these gentlemen. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has asked me whether I agree that they have some right. Well, I agree that all human beings have much that is good in them, but what they stand for, so far as our Government are concerned, has no right in it.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that many of the remarks and statements coming from that side of the House are going to be most unhelpful in getting a fair and proper settlement for all Rhodesians.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I should think that might be quite possible.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, in view of the report from Rhodesia which was published in the Sunday Times last week showing quite clearly that the r¹gime is moving inexorably towards apartheid and separate development, would not my noble friend agree that, in the face of that sort of intransigence, the prospect

727
of meaningful negotiations is very small indeed?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think that would be going too far. I could not agree that there would be much point in embarking on these exploratory conversations if one took quite such a pessimistic view as that.

DEFENCE POLICY
4.33 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I need hardly say that, in principle, the Liberal Party welcome the White Paper which we are discussing this afternoon. Our consistent policy, as is known, has been that we should gradually evacuate our various bases in the Indian Ocean area—what is generally known as "East of Suez"—although we have always hoped that it might be possible, in agreement with the Americans and the Australians, to think out some scheme for a reasonable British contribution to the general defence of Australia and South-East Asia, preferably, as we always suggested, with communications going the other way round; that is to say, "West-about". If this involved some small continuing British presence, by agreement with the locals, in Singapore, we should certainly have no objection to that; and no doubt this may be possible, even though the Government have now taken in principle the decision to clear out of this base altogether in the mid-'seventies.
I do not think what I have said is inconsistent with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said just now. But what we were never able to see was the purpose of hanging on, not only to Aden, which is now to be evacuated in January, but also, indefinitely, to our other bases in Arabia, and, above all, to the various island staging posts on atolls in the Indian Ocean itself. It now looks, however, as if our general point of view was in process of being accepted by the Government; and, if so, we sincerely congratulate them on their conversion. Barely two years ago they were declaring that such a policy was a recipe for chaos.
It must be evident that, if this policy is really accepted, we shall need only some relatively small air force in the area,
728
presumably based on Australia and also, perhaps, on Singapore. Therefore, we have always rather doubted the need (and perhaps the Government may correct me when they come to reply) for such heavy dollar investment in, for instance, the F.111s with their long range and, we always assumed, their nuclear capabilities. If we do not want such machines in number they should, it seems to us, be related chiefly to our European commitments. To mention another point in connection with the Air Force, I imagine that it was perhaps some basic failure between ourselves and the French to agree on the actual role of the Anglo-French swing-wing aircraft which resulted in the failure of the talks with France. On the face of it, it was entirely financial, but there may on the French side have been some failure to agree on what the actual role should be.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am told—and I have been into this matter very carefully—that there was complete agreement on the specifications and that the French were anxious to go on with it. I ask the noble Lord to accept that assurance and to realise that it was the financial argument.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, in that case I accept it, and my suspicions are unjustified. But, more generally, it has always appeared to us that when we gradually phase out our military role East of Suez in regard to bases, and concentrate chiefly on the defence of Europe and the Atlantic, we ought to be able to reduce our Defence Budget even below the famous figure of £2,000 million at 1964 prices, with a consequent benefit not only in the balance of payments but in the maintenance of a high standard of social services in this country.
As regards the Gulf, which is not specifically mentioned in the White Paper, nobody wants to embarrass the Government at a difficult and dangerous moment, when the oil supplies of this country are clearly threatened. Even if oil were flowing freely from the Middle East, the fact that it has now, and probably will have for some time I fear to go round by the Cape will undoubtedly add a great burden to our over-charged balance of payments. Short of reaching some agreement with Egypt, there seems very little that we can do about this at present; and this,

729
at any rate, is not a problem which arises strictly out of the White Paper. But so far as our presence in Bahrein and at other points on the Persian Guilt is concerned, perhaps we might from these Benches say this. In the very first sentence of the White Paper it is laid down that the aim of our policy outside Europe is
"to foster developments which will enable the local peoples to live at peace without the presence of external forces, and thus to allow our forces to withdraw from their stations in the Middle East and Far East".
I think that was a quotation from an earlier White Paper, and reproduced in this one.
In the Far East, apart from Hong Kong, we are, so it seems, to withdraw definitely in the middle 'seventies. In the Middle East there is no time limit set, but apparently it is still our object to withdraw from that area as soon as there is a prospect of the "local peoples"—as the phrase goes—"living at peace"—as the phrase also goes—when we do go. One thing is certain, as I understand it. We are not, in the opinion of the Foreign Secretary, in the Persian Gulf simply to protect our oil interests. It seems rather to be our sole object to maintain stability in the area and to create a situation in which the various small States concerned can stand on their own feet. This, of course, is a good objective as such. We have no quarrel with it.
These small States, so the argument runs, need our help and we therefore propose to keep small forces there, at any rate for the time being to to fulfil our obligations. If we were to clear out at once—and I think the phrase "at once" is significant—we can only expect that claims of a territorial nature will come to the surface and will thus give rise to disputes which would prejudice the stability of the whole Gulf area. That is the argument, as I understand it.
It is also claimed that we have certain unbreakable commitments in the shape of treaty obligations to one or more of the States concerned. I have myself previously analysed these obligations in your Lordships' House and I need hardly do so again, except to say that in my own opinion, at any rate, they are not in themselves commitments which are very binding, still less of an absolutely mandatory character, if one day we came to
730
the conclusion that conditions were such that as a general interest we could safely withdraw from the Persian Gulf.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whether he has changed his mind, because in 1965 he wished to withdraw entirely from that area in 1966?
LORD GLADWYN: No, my Lords. I did not say that. I said that we should contemplate spending less money in the area. It is quite true that at that moment I put forward a figure which was unrealistic, but that was largely due to the fact that at that time there were no figures available as to what we were actually spending. But the general point I was trying to make was that we should do well to make at once a token reduction of expenditure in the area, so as to give the impression that it was our intention to clear out in accordance with a long-term plan.
The Conservative attitude, as laid down by Sir Alec Douglas-Home in another place, seems to be that for an indefinite period our continuing military presence in the Gulf is desirable for the purpose of slowly building up some kind of balance to the Arab revolutionary forces, headed by President Nasser, and that we ought consciously to favour our friends as against our adversaries. That is his theory. This is criticised by the Government as dividing the whole area into what they call "goodies" and "baddies" and even, as I think has been suggested by the Foreign Secretary, as being simpleminded. So it does not look as if the Government accepted the idea that our remaining forces should be used in any way for the purposes recommended by the Tory Party. That, I think, is a statement of fact.
But if not, and if we are still to maintain these forces, we may legitimately wonder whether it is likely that we shall eventually succeed in our apparent purpose of getting the small States in the Persian Gulf area to stand in their own feet. Many of them, I believe, are far too small to qualify for membership of the United Nations, and therefore the only hope, in the long run, would seem to be to encourage them by one means or another to join together, or to join one of their larger neighbours. In the present heavily charged atmosphere, which has,

731
after all, resulted in some kind of Arab unity, if only for the purpose of denying oil to the presumptive friends of Israel, it is perhaps rather unlikely that we shall make much progress towards our declared end. But by all means let us try, and I have no doubt that the Government are now trying. And it must be becoming increasingly obvious to the small States concerned that it is only in unity that they can ever find salvation. At any rate, let us sincerely hope that they are coming to that conclusion by themselves.
More generally, I very much doubt whether our long-term military presence in the Gulf can be anything but counterproductive. It has not prevented a stoppage of oil from the area, which we may hope is only temporary, and it can be used, I am afraid, by the revolutionaries (I rather think this was a point made earlier in the debate) as an argument to prove that we are in the area merely for imperialistic purposes. Moreover, are we really going to stay there until there is absolute certainty that there will be no struggle for power after our departure? We are leaving Aden, although we know—or we strongly suspect—that such a struggle for power will take place in South Arabia when we go.
It is not at all certain, however, whether a struggle for power in the Gulf area would in itself necessarily stop the flow of oil. The main point is that the Arabs who have not got oil want somehow or other to share in the benefits which oil confers, and all Arabs want to change the present terms of trade in their favour if they possibly can. These are factors which are not affected by our military presence. Still, as I say, we entirely understand the Government's hesitation at the moment about making any definite announcement about the future of the Persian Gulf area, and we would certainly not press them to do so until the situation is a little clearer than it is at the present time.
On the details of the White Paper, we should like simply to ask a very few questions, to which I am sure the Government will reply as satisfactorily as possible. It is not altogether clear from the White Paper what exactly is going to be the role of the new type of guided missile destroyer, T.82. I think the noble
732
Lord made some remarks about it, but I was not quite certain what they were, and we should rather like to know exactly what this T.82, which is to be built at the rather large cost of £20 million, is likely to do in the event of hostilities in the North Atlantic area or elsewhere. Presumably, it is going to be employed in the Atlantic area to protect communications, but we should welcome rather more information about this if we can get it.
As regards surface manpower, the cuts seem to us to be in about the right proportion, and we must hope—certainly, we on these Benches hope—that they herald future phased reductions. We think it possible, however, that the Ministry of Defence have not recognised the importance of the type of recruit needed for the small Army, Navy and Air Force and its relation to re-enlistment. It looks as if we are facing a situation rather similar to that which existed just after the Korean war, although admittedly on a much smaller scale. But the Korean war was fought largely by National Servicemen. Any men who are declared redundant in the future will be long-term professional soldiers, and of course it will be harder to fit them into civilian society. Nevertheless, there seems, on the face of it, to be little point in keeping up large forces in Britain if they are destined to be used elsewhere, and a drop of, shall we say, 30,000 to 40,000 in total armed strength phased over several years would therefore seem to be necessary.
I think the last point is of importance. An army's manpower is not dictated by the level of recruiting. One must presumably take into account levels of re-engagement, and it will be necessary to change the attractions of service from that which is now said in our propaganda, of "daring overseas service and employment", and to put emphasis on technical training and a secure career more likely to attract people.
This would mean even more emphasis, of course, on long-term service. So far, the present nine-year engagement term, which, I think, was introduced in 1957, has kept up well, and I believe that 50 per cent. of these well-trained and experienced men have signed on again. The worst moment in the future will, however, be in 1970 and 1971, when 26,000 and 28,000 men end their terms. This is because 1961 and 1962 were good years for

733
nine-year recruiting, and 1964 and 1965 were good years for six-year engagements. This year, only 14,000 are due to leave, but over 7,000 of these have re-signed. Next year, the total will be up to 21,000. This is particularly important, surely, because there will be a tendency for these experienced men to shun re-engagement if they feel that their paths for promotion are blocked or that they will be in some insecure position in years to come. Initial recruiting should not be affected over-much, but surely the right type of recruit must be attracted.
The officer corps will also, I think, have to be looked into a little more fully. Earlier this year there were reports of up to 400 officers being allowed on paid leave as a result of redundancy. That, I believe, comes from The Times of April 12. The Minister admitted on July 5 that there were 80 officers on leave. What he did not say was that there were middle-rank officers who are still performing what on the face of it seem to be rather needless jobs. Every effort must be made to weed out redundant men and to afford new promotion prospects for junior officers. Can there not therefore be—I throw out this suggestion—two tiers of officer service: in the first place, junior serving officers staying up to the age of 35 to 40 and then re-entering civilian life after adequate retraining; and, secondly, as it were, the cream of the first tier going on to higher promotion with security prospects over the age of 40? At the moment, there is the tendency for men over the age of 45 to be reluctant to leave for fear of being too late to get any worthwhile job. At 35 or 40 it is not too late.
Finally, my Lords, I might point out that no details seem to be given of arrangements for the housing of returning troops. Could not we have a special White Paper on this rather important subject? And might it not perhaps also be coupled with a statement on training grounds? I merely throw out these suggestions in case they may help. I think I have said enough to show that, on the whole, as I said at the beginning, we are definitely in favour of this White Paper which now, as we think, at last seems to have brought the Government out of our World Power past into our European and Atlantic present. If, therefore, a Division is called, it is evident that our
734
intention will be to vote with the Government.
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—and I know he did not mean it seriously—said that I was one of the Defence Ministers who had flitted briefly (I think that was his phrase) over the scene. I think I served nearly as long as the present Minister has served, who I believe beats me by a short head at the moment. I just want to say something which I have said to your Lordships before, but I feel it very sincerely. I shall never want to work with a more dedicated, more able and more brilliant set of men than the Government's then advisers; and I say quite frankly that I am a little nettled sometimes when I feel that there is an element of criticism of these men in the things we sometimes say in this House and elsewhere. I am very glad that the noble Lord and I are clearly in agreement that there is no element of criticism here. Why I raise this point is because I have now to say some pretty hard things about Government policy myself, and I wanted to start by making it quite plain that in what I say there is no element of criticism of the Government's military advisers.
My Lords, if we are to take a proper look at defence policy we have to go back at least five years, and probably seven years, for that is the cycle—probably the minimum cycle—of defence planning. I have to start, therefore, by looking back some five years, when I had the duty of presenting to Parliament a Defence White Paper which looked forward to the second half of the 1960s. That rested—and it is right that I should say so—on a vast amount of study and re-thinking by the Foreign Office, the Chiefs of Staff and the Ministry of Defence, because it was a look into the future. As it said at the time, it was a five-year look, and then a forward look into the early 1970s. The concept of a new mobile strategy represented a wide consensus of defence thinking at the time, and it followed consultations with the Australian Minister of Defence and those in New Zealand, America and many European countries. So I think it is fair to say that it was at least then based on a consensus of defence view.

735
In a note which I sent to Mr. Macmillan at the time I said:
"In this new mobile strategy lies, I am certain, the hope for the future of containing defence expenditure within reasonable bounds and yet maintaining our world-wide responsibilities".
In the Defence White Paper of 1962 the Government approved—and it was entirely their decision and their responsibility—what was designed to be a viable strategy for the second half of the 1960s; in other words, the period which we are now in. That was a strategy that was also supported, after my time as Minister, by the Defence White Papers of 1963 and 1964; and it was a strategy which had, after all, been tested in actual practice—the practice of real operations through the Kuwait operation—and found to be well suited to its purpose.
The view of the Conservative Government was that defence policy was one of the most important tasks facing any Government, and our aim was, I think, well set out in the 1964 White Paper—the last Paper for which the Conservative Government was responsible—which said on page 6 that our responsibility was
"to make our contribution to the defence of the Free World and the prevention of war in accordance with the arrangements we have with individual countries and under collective security treaties".
I have to say it, my Lords: it is with a feeling of near tragedy, so far as I am concerned, that one witnesses the destruction of this broad and widely supported concept in the current Statement of Defence Policy. It is true, I believe, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said, that there is little or no attempt in this White Paper to justify by reasoned argument the steps proposed; and I think that any White Paper, issued on anybody's authority, which says that forces will be capable of meeting all the demands that may be made upon them is giving a most disastrous hostage to fortune. I think it is a quite unjustifiable statement, and one to which the Government should not have lent their authority, particularly at this time.
Looking back, I may also say that it is somewhat ironic that the one element of Conservative defence policy firmly continued by the present Government, at extremely high cost, is the maintenance
736
of the British nuclear deterrent—the main element of defence policy which the Labour Party in Opposition was firmly and unanimously committed to cancel.
Well, there it is. Yet this is important to our discussions because the framework of the defence policy laid down in the White Papers of 1962, 1963 and 1964 was designed, and purposely designed, to be flexible enough to meet the needs of Britain's world role, in cost and in strategy, in the latter half of the 1960s. It could well have done so provided only that those needs were interpreted as requiring priority for a defence policy that would pay the proper insurance premium for peace. Clearly, past policy has had to be destroyed because this priority is now rejected by the Government. Yet the present policy, they must agree, eventually involves the rejection of many overseas obligations. The White Paper is singularly unclear on all of this; but, taken to its logical conclusion—and we have the right to look at the logical conclusion—it must mean the rejection of many of our overseas obligations as they now stand.
The Government, in their defence, say that this is forced upon them by the necessity to reduce expenditure. But I must say that it was foreseen in 1962 that these obligations would be costly to fulfil, and it is therefore worth stating how, with the best advice, we then planned a defence policy in the latter years of the Conservative Government to maintain our world responsibilities and to carry them through the 1960s and early 1970s at a cost which is, on the basis that I have outlined, an acceptable proportion of the gross national product.
First, to look at Britain's continuing responsibilities East of Suez. It was clear in 1962 that strategy had to become more mobile and more flexible in order to fulfil our commitments; and a great deal of thought was therefore given to giving priority to air mobility, a strategy finally rejected because of the difficulty—then foreseen and now more abundantly apparent—of getting over-flying rights, something about which the present White Paper and the noble Lord have said nothing. Yet air mobility is of little use unless one is sure of over-flying rights at a critical moment. There was also the difficulty of operating aircraft from

737
land bases in the face of political opposition from the local inhabitants. Yet it seems to me that if the Government have now any real plans for operations East of Suez they appear to have returned to the policy of air mobility—a policy carefully examined and rejected, for the reasons I have outlined.
It was after much debate, and after much discussion of the reason for the limitations of air mobility, that, under a system of unified command with unified three-Service commanders in the Far East, the Middle East and in Britain, the task force system was brought into being. The main components of this force were the Fleet carrier, which it was then planned to develop in the role of a floating airfield rather than that of a capital ship—incidentally, at a much reduced cost—the commando carrier, of which we have heard nothing to-day; the assault ship, which really has only recently been added to the Fleet; and the accompanying Fleet Train.
In talking about this concept I am not talking about something which was not tried in actual operation—if not, thank goodness!, in war, at least of near-war. For, as I have said, the success of the Kuwait operation proved the complete viability of this concept. If one wants to turn to a later aspect, that of confrontation, again this concept of mobile and highly trained sea-backed forces showed their viability success in this operation also. So I think it was correctly foreseen that on this maritime basis, political or economic changes in the fortress bases East of Suez could be accepted without weakening our position in favour of smaller commitments on shore which could be more mobile, less politically embarrassing and also less costly.
One has to ask oneself why this strategy has been abandoned. Largely, I think, because it was planned to back it with weapons and resources (incidentally, provided mainly by British industry) which no longer exist. Ill-considered and politically biased cuts in the equipment of British forces has made any task force concept now or in the future almost unworkable. There was the cancellation of the TSR.2 and the endless vacillation over its replacement. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord in any negotiations
738
with the French. I had hoped they would have succeeded, as I have said before, as a second best; but, none the less, we have the right to say that there is no sign of any kind of replacement. Really, after accusing us for so many years of vacillation over plans for replacement, this seems to be a classic example of the then Opposition outdoing the then Government when they themselves, in turn, became Government. There was the cancellation of the 1154, the most advanced aircraft project in the world, which is not satisfactorily replaced by the 1127; there was the refusal to consider any kind of carrier replacement programme. Certainly in my day none of us thought that to build another generation of capital ships in terms of carriers would be justified. But I find it difficult to see why the Government have rejected what we then called the floating airfield concept.
I must say, in these terms, that if the Government really think that a squadron, or squadrons, of helicopters, with whatever stand-off weapons they may be armed, are a proper substitute for frontline aircraft, are not hopelessly vulnerable and unlikely to frighten anybody, other than those who have to man them, then they ask us to believe a great deal. So the strategy has gone, because to-day the weapons which supported it have gone; or are on their way out.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. It is not meant to be an unfriendly interruption. I hope he will not criticise the helicopter concept too much. Perhaps I mentioned it too briefly. The main reliance on strike is on R.A.F. aircraft; but the helicopter gives the Navy—and I think it is important—a short-range defence and attack capability: so I hope that we shall not start "knocking" that particular weapon. I accept the noble Lord's point.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, I am trying to stick to the facts. I can understand if the noble Lord cannot be specific at this stage. In Vietnam we have all seen the use of the helicopter brought to a high art. But I maintain my view that the helicopter is not a substitute for the joint R.A.F./Fleet Air Arm aircraft which was described in the White Papers I am talking about and which could have provided modern, up-to-date cover for

739
stand-off operations of a nature that, frankly, I do not think that helicopters, however armed, can possibly do.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again. Which joint R.A.F./Naval aircraft has the noble Viscount in mind? He knows that his own Government cancelled the 1154 for Naval purposes.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, I am talking about a concept which is now probably satisfactorily filled by the Phantom (if it had anything to fly off), of immediate close support given by carrier-based aircraft to any kind of stand-off or any kind of assault force. I must say (I do not want to delay the House; but the noble Lord raised this point) that I hope the Government are not believing that it is possible to fly out highly sophisticated, modern aircraft to an unprepared base and expect them to be operational except in terms of weeks, or possibly of months. I am sure the noble Lord knows, and I am sure his advisers have told him, that the modern, sophisticated aircraft needs a most complicated ground rig and a most complicated electronic environment on the ground before it can be made operational. All I am saying is that the concept of mobility required a floating airfield; and if you supplant it with a fixed airfield—and particularly one by grace and favour of the local population—then you are pursuing a policy which, in the event, will not work.
But there it is. I am not trying to say that there are not two views about this subject. All I am saying is that I think the present Government's view is both wrong and disastrous, though of course they have the right to hold it if they think it is right. But I am saying that the cancellations they have made are now bearing heavily on current defence policy and limiting our freedom of action. The Government have destroyed the long-term possibility of a viable East-of-Suez policy at a not unreasonable cost as it was planned by the Government and its military advisers in 1962–64. I think it is only fair for me to say this because the noble Lord himself criticised us for not bringing any constructive alternative into this argument. I am seeking to say that we had thought of a constructive alternative;
740
and had we remained in Government, we intended to carry it out.
I turn now, my Lords, to broader considerations of global defence policy. A great deal of thought (and here I touch on a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn) was given to the correct future balance of British forces East and West of Suez. We were in no doubt that Britain must remain a strong supporter of the NATO Alliance. We recognised, however, and I think rightly, that the stronger the Alliance, the more likely it is to be subverted on its flanks; and clearly, the most dangerous flank was that enormous sector of ocean and land mass stretching from Suez eastward to Australia. In those days we laboured under the not unreasonable belief that defence policy was about war, and so we planned to be strong where we thought that war was most likely. I do not think we were proved wrong in our assumption that in the second half of the 1960s this likelihood was stronger East of Suez rather than West of Suez.
Also, my Lords, I must say another thing—and in this I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, because we all have to do these jobs. I thought the noble Lord skated very nimbly, if I may venture to say so, on a lot of thin ice when he dealt with the view of our allies on what the Government are now proposing. Therefore I think it is quite fair for me to say what were the views of our allies when I was responsible. It is now long enough ago, I think, not to embarrass anybody. We were in no doubt in those days about the views of the American Chiefs of Staff and of our Australian and New Zealand Allies. They felt that the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, Malaysia and Indonesia were Britain's inescapable responsibilities and her most important contribution to the defence of peace. I think, my Lords, that it was their view in those days that if some agonising choice had to be made, it might be better to give a higher priority to Britain's presence East of Suez than to maintaining maximum level strategic forces in Europe.
I wonder whether their view has changed to-day and I wonder how popular the present White Paper is in the Pentagon or in Canberra, because—and we must say this again—the Government

741
have committed themselves to a complete reversal of policy. After all, withdrawal from Singapore and Malaysia has been announced. And this is another matter which makes me feel very sad. I think that the Government have learned nothing from their experience in Aden, of which I know the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has very recent experience. I believe the early announcement of an eventual withdrawal from there at almost any cost has destroyed any hope of an orderly transition. And to announce the withdrawal from Singapore ten years before the Government say that it is going to take place seems again another hostage that the Government may regret as time goes on.
If the savings to be made are thought to be all-important, and are thought to be worth almost anything, I think it is right for us to ask at what price do the present Government assess continuing close relationships with Australia and New Zealand? At what price do they assess keeping our bargains with the United States. At what price do they assess keeping Indonesia free from Communist domination? Surely, in the long term, these things are more important than a quick and temporary political advantage in expenditure here at home. There is also the cost of the damage done to the future of the British aircraft industry which is still one of this country's best exporting industries. There is the unknown question of how much our trade will suffer in the Persian Gulf, in Indonesia and Malaysia, and indeed in Australia and New Zealand, if they see Britain—in their eyes, at least—giving up one obligation after another and opting out of her responsibilities. It is difficult to put a price on breaking faith over long-term obligations and responsibilities and set that against temporary short-term gains.
Nor, I believe, have the Government opted for the right balance of policy between East and West, because it is along the long frontier that runs between the Communist and non-Communist world that the real danger lies to-day; not in the NATO sector where, on the whole, the West is strong and well-defended. It is in this vastly vulnerable sector—Arabia, the North of India, the Pacific, the Indian Ocean—the very area where we have now announced to the world that we are no longer prepared to fulfil long-term defence
742
commitments. As we have said, it is ten years away—so why have the White Paper?
I feel that what we are really witnessing is another chapter in the sad decline of Britain from "Great" to "Little". Those who are pleased with this kind of decision, my Lords—and I know that there are many—are, I believe, those who mistakenly believe that Britain can be prosperous and free as a kind of offshore island of the Continent of Europe. Before the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, "has a go" at me, may I say that I strongly support the entry of Britain into Europe (the noble Lord knows that I always have done), not as a supplicant but rather as a strong ally which will go in seeking to increase Europe's ties with the rest of the world. I do not think this country has ever yet been presented with entry into Europe as implying the ending of our responsibilities East of Suez and our close ties with two of the most senior members of the Commonwealth, Australia and New Zealand. Yet I think it only fair to say at this stage—and I hope that the Government will deny it if they can—that this is where the current Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1967 is seeking to lead us. I do not believe that we strengthen NATO by withdrawing from East of Suez responsibilities which only Britain can fulfil.
If one is thought to be very old-fashioned and "square" in talking to-day about fulfilling one's overseas commitments, let me end by considering a more cynical approach to this problem. My Lords, let us ask ourselves what are the chances of supporting 55 million people in these overcrowded islands, with the highest standard of living in the world, on the basis of a "Little Britain", shorn of most of her world responsibilities, petitioning to be a junior partner in the European Club. This attitude does not get our nation anywhere. Half the trouble in Aden has arisen because we said we would go at any cost. I wonder whether the French withdrawal from the variable-geometry project is because they felt that Britain certainly would not "go it alone" and might not, in the end, even "go it" with France.
If we act like a second-class ally, we must not complain if we are treated as being of little significance in Europe of in the world. I think it right to associate

743
that with this discussion on defence, because defence takes such a large share of our Budget. It is because it has such wide implications on British industry, on our export trade and on our whole position in the world, that this new policy must be examined in relation to where we are going as a nation. On this count I believe that the Government's present proposals are leading us to disaster, and I therefore hope that the House will reject Cmnd. 3357 as being unlikely to secure Britain's future in a dangerous and divided world.
5.17 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I find it a great pleasure, on personal grounds, to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, because he and I were educated at the same school; although I am sorry to say that I was very much senior to him in years and he therefore has the advantage of being much younger than I am. I am afraid that I cannot follow the noble Viscount in what I thought was a very gloomy and pessimistic analysis of the White Paper. I felt he was accusing the Government of embarking on a policy of unilateral disarmament, and surely that is a gross exaggeration. It is true that we are effecting a number of reductions—75,000 men over the next eight years—and limiting our expenditure to a sum not exceeding £2,000 million a year. But I do not think we can examine these proposals without looking at the background of events.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to Lord Rosebery, and quoted him as saying that this country could not be a "knight errant" careering round the world indefinitely. I think we would agree with that. Many of us thought that the need for a knight errant, whether in the form of a nation or a group of nations, had passed when we founded, first the League of Nations and later the United Nations; but I am bound to say that when I read accounts of the use of toxic gas on women and children in Northern Yemen I feel that there is a need for some kind of international knight errant. I should like to see the United Nations, if it be practical, appoint an international ombudsman, because to-day no voice is being raised at Government level in protest against these atrocities.
744
Although it was before my time, my reading of history brings back to my mind the thunderings of Mr. Gladstone when the Armenian atrocities took place eighty or ninety years ago. I should like someone at the United Nations to embark upon similar thunderings, which would reach all parts of the world, against the terrible atrocities that are taking place in the Yemen.
Then we have the fact that for nearly four weeks two of our nationals, two pilots who served in the R.A.F., have been detained in Algeria. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I have had something to do with the defence of this country, and it touches me on the raw when I have to accept the detention of two ex-officers, with no explanations given. It reminds me of the saying of Palmerston—"Civis Britannicus sum: I am a British citizen". He would have followed it up by sending a cruiser or a gunboat to the place in question. But, as Mr. Harold Macmillan once said, the world has been swept by the winds of change, and these things are no longer possible. The only bright spot in relation to the two ex-R.A.F. pilots is the fact that the International Red Cross has been able to send succour to both these captives, and I am bound to say that they have had the fullest co-operation from the Algerian Red Cross.
To-day the debate is taking place on a White Paper, the essence of which is that between now and the mid-1970s our military forces will be reduced by 75,000 men, and our annual expenditure on the Services will not exceed £2,000 million. I do not know whether the Motion on the Order Paper is a criticism or a censure, or a bit of both. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is going to take his supporters into the Lobby to vote. If he does, that is tantamount to a vote of censure on the Government. The Motion is that this White Paper constitutes a grave weakening of the capacity of our Armed Forces to carry out any demands that may be made or them hereafter.
I must say that the Opposition are most inconsistent. Only a few days ago, on July 9, the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Edward Heath, made a speech widely reported in the newspapers in which he called for cuts in direct taxes and in public expenditure. I would not

745
oppose a cut in income tax, but if we are going to have cuts in taxation and public expenditure, how are we going to relate that to maintaining an expenditure on armaments of £2,100 million? If we cannot have cuts in income tax, maybe the Opposition would be content with cuts in the social services.
LORD THURLOW: In the Civil Service.
LORD ROWLEY: I am suspicious of these suggestions about cuts in the Civil Service. I remember the Election at which the Leader of the Conservative Party promised a reduction of £700 million in Government expenditure, but if the record is looked up we find that, far from cutting down public expenditure, perhaps through necessity the Conservative Government had to increase public expenditure during their term. It seems to me most inconsistent to criticise the White Paper on the ground that it is putting in jeopardy the effectiveness of the Armed Forces, and at the same time to demand cuts in taxation and public expenditure.
I think we have to look at the background which is the basis of our defence Services. I am old enough to remember, like other noble Lords, when the British Fleet was the most powerful in the world. That was in 1914. Then we had an Army which, though relatively small in size, was regarded as one of the finest fighting forces in the world. We had an Indian Army, largely officered by British officers, which was regarded as highly efficient. In the Second World War we had 3½ million in the British Army, apart from the Air Force and the Navy; we had 1¼ million in the Indian Army, and 450,000 men recruited in Africa, who made a formidable contribution to the eventual defeat of Hitler. But those reservoirs of manpower have gone. We have given freedom and independence to more than 600 million people since 1945 and those reservoirs have dried up. It is not a bit of good us trying to compete with the super-Powers or to regard ourselves as a super-Power like Russia or the United States, because we do not possess the manpower which would enable us to do so.
To take the economic side, in 1914 we had £4,500 million in overseas investments. In order to finance the war effort
746
we had to hypothecate the whole of those investments. The other day, Senator Mansfield, the leader of the majority Democratic party in the United States Senate, accused this country of shirking its responsibilities. That was not worthy of him, and I hope that on reflection he will withdraw that remark.
There have been two world wars in the lifetime of all of us here and, apart from Commonwealth countries like Canada, New Zealand and so on, this country is the only country in the world which went through these two wars, totalling ten years from the first day to the last, and made such sacrifices that to-day we still have to face up to their effect upon our economic strength. My criticism of noble Lords opposite is that they are not prepared to face up to the facts of life. If they did, they would realise that it would be difficult for any Government, Labour or Conservative, to try to compete with the other great Powers.
I do not disagree with my noble friend—I think I may call him my noble friend, as we went to the same school—who preceded me in his reference to aircraft carriers. I am not happy about the policy of the Government with regard to aircraft carriers. But then I am brought right up against the economic side of it, and the enormous cost. I only wish that we could ignore the cost, because I believe that events in Aden in the next year or two may well show the value of aircraft carriers. But I would say this to the noble Lord. He talked as though we were going to be engaged in wars on our own. That is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and it was not the policy of the Government to which he belonged. We believe in a system of collective security, and the White Paper of 1966 said that it was inconceivable that our country could ever enter into a major war except with allies: and we know that the most powerful of those allies would be the United States of America.
Referring to the White Paper, and what my noble friend who spoke first from the Government side said—and I do not think any noble Lord would disagree—our first responsibility to our people is to preserve peace in Europe. Therefore, we maintain our strong support of NATO, and whether we shall be criticised for reducing

747
by this or that number of brigades is entirely another matter. But I would go further than to rely upon NATO. I look forward to the day when we shall have a system of security for the whole of Europe, when there will be no NATO and no Warsaw Pact. But I am not so idealistic as to believe that this is likely to happen in the next year or two, because we have seen what has happened in the Middle East. The Soviet Union have taken a line completely opposite to the one that we and our American and other Western Allies take. We believe in keeping out of it; but the Soviet Union at this moment, as we know, have a powerful squadron of warships anchored in Egyptian waters. None the less, so far as Europe is concerned, while I strongly welcome the reference in the White Paper to the fact that we believe that our first concern is to maintain the peace of Europe, I think that a stable peace in the future will come only when we can secure a system of security extending over the whole of Europe.
The noble Viscount who spoke before me was most critical of our policy East of Suez. I think he was a little unfair when he referred to the result of the policy of the Government, because (I may be wrong, and if so I hope he will correct me) I thought he said that it was almost misleading the people to suggest that we should be able to play a full part in helping our friends in the Far East if the occasion ever arose.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but what I said (perhaps I did not make it clear, and I am glad of the opportunity to do so) was that our present position, which now appears to be to rely on air mobility until final withdrawal—which, after all, has been announced—was one which I certainly did not share, and one that the Government of the day when I was responsible did not share either. But that is what you might call the interim position until we finally withdraw. When we withdraw, we have gone.
LORD ROWLEY: Surely the noble Viscount is not doing justice to what the White Paper says. If I may quote from the White Paper, it says on page 5:
"Meanwhile, our plans must be firm enough to ensure that we have the forces we need to
748
match our remaining commitments in the Far East and elsewhere, and flexible enough to enable us to respond to changes in local circumstances. However we may think that events will turn out, we cannot assume that, once we have left Singapore and Malaysia, we shall never again have to use our forces in the Far East, since we shall have dependencies and other obligations there for the foreseeable future. We are therefore planning to maintain a military capability for use, if required, in the area, even when we no longer have forces permanently based there.
Later the White Paper says:
"We are continuing to examine the possibility of using facilities in Australia and of making a new staging airfield in the British Indian Ocean Territory."
I agree that if you pin your faith on aircraft carriers there is perhaps no need to consider having an airfield in the Indian Ocean. But accepting the decision of the Government that we are to dispense with aircraft carriers by the mid-'seventies, I should have thought that there was sound sense in this reference to the position East of Suez from the mid-'seventies. We all know that aircraft to-day have longer ranges than they had twenty years ago, and we know of the possibilities of refuelling in the air. Therefore, I believe that these are not merely meaningless words, and that, as the noble Lord who spoke first for the Government made quite clear, in no circumstances would this country fail to go to the assistance of Australia, New Zealand or any other Commonwealth country, so long as the Commonwealth exists, in the event of their being the victims of aggression.
Finally, may I say that I am glad that the Government are not working on a blueprint. They admit that the situation may change. We may have a world authority with power to enforce the peace; on the other hand, we may not have a world authority with such power. We may have a deterioration in the Far East. We may have Australia, New Zealand or Malaysia threatened by forces from outside. As I understand it, the Government are retaining freedom of action so that they can build up forces to go to the assistance of those countries in such circumstances. Therefore, I, for one, in the general position in which our country finds itself, both from the point of view of manpower and of economic stability, warmly welcome the White Paper.
5.38 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, because he is so interesting to listen to. But I hope he will forgive me if I profoundly disagree with him. This latest White Paper is very short: it contains very little reasoning but, in my view, some irrevocable decisions. I will therefore give your Lordships my reasons for supporting the Motion moved by the noble Earl, under three heads: first of all, foreign policy and defence policy; secondly, the consequential events of those policies; and, lastly, the method of cutting and reduction. In parenthesis, may I say that I shall not to-day touch on the question of British prestige, which I mentioned in my last speech on defence, and whether or not we should debate our position in the world before we come to defence. I will leave that alone to-day; and I will leave alone, also, the question of Hong Kong, which will no doubt be dealt with by later speakers.
To come to the foreign and defence policies, it was, I think, a great relief to most of us to read in the Defence Review last year that defence must be the servant of foreign policy, and not the other way round. That White Paper went on to say:
"Above all, the Government can and must decide in broad terms what sort of role Britain should play in the world in ten years' time, and what part its military forces should play in supporting that role."
That was all very good. But when we come to the present White Paper we find that things are rather different. It is not long ago—two years ago, in February, 1965—that our defence roles were put down as two: first, to guarantee the nation's security; and, secondly, to contribute towards peace and stability in the world as a whole. That was very good, and we supported that Paper. In this latest White Paper, however, there is very little mention of foreign policy, and the two defence conclusions are exactly the opposite of what I have just quoted. The first is that our contribution to the defence of Europe
"will become even more important".
Secondly, after referring to the statement in the Defence Review about local peoples in overseas territories living at peace without the presence of external forces—with which we all agree—the White Paper continues:
750
'and thus to allow our forces to withdraw from their stations in the Middle East and Far East".
The first of those two defence conclusions, which are in the present White Paper, is, to say the least, very questionable; because there are other European countries which cannot contribute to stability outside Europe, which I will come to a little later. As to the second, it is quite all right to say, as the Paper does say, that our aim is for local people to live at peace without external forces. But it is, in my opinion, absolutely fatal to begin to set dates. The moment you do that you get into trouble. It did not need a crystal ball for most of us to see the conclusions of our fatal declaration of February 22 last year, about withdrawing, and setting a date for withdrawal, from Aden. The very next day, as has been said many times in your Lordships' House, Nasser withdrew his promise to remove 50,000 men. Furthermore, on top of that, he was given, in my opinion, a free run to begin organising the Arabs for pressure against Israel. It was an absolutely free run, because he knew that there would be nobody present, no dominant Power in the area, which there has always been in the Middle East. He knew that local conflicts could be fought with comparative impunity, because the two super-nuclear Powers could not afford the risk of joining in. In my view, the situation will continue in the same way, for exactly the same reason, for some time to come.
In Asia, although the confrontation has ended—and the latest Defence Paper makes great play of that—the Vietnam War has not. It is a much bigger war. Who can say confidently that British support will not be again required in that area within the next ten years? The result of this priority, of these two defence conclusions in the present Paper, is a black and white solution; that is, Europe is given complete priority, and the British withdraw almost all their forces East of Suez. That is the result of giving complete priority to Europe. It is very seldom, in my opinion, that exclusive judgments of that kind are in fact right. Certainly they have not been right for the last hundred years.
I now come to the consequences of this confusion of policy. Before I deal with

751
events, I should like to remind your Lordships, if I may, about the United Nations. Great play was made about the United Nations in all our White Papers. It is not so long ago, in February, 1965, that we read this statement:
"The Government accepted the United Nations' inability to exercise responsibility for maintaining world peace",
and the document then went on with various plans. In the latest Defence Review we read this comment:
"Recent history underlines the importance to Britain of strengthening the United Nations as the instrument of keeping the peace".
Those two remarks are exactly contradictory. The truth, of course, is quite different. The truth is that the United Nations cannot keep world peace. It can only, I suggest, arrange and supervise a cease-fire. It cannot keep the peace, and it cannot settle peace terms; it cannot prevent war. All it can do is to arrange a cease-fire. That is better than nothing, but it is not maintaining peace.
Again, mention of allies has been made by previous speakers and in the White Paper. Relying on allies is nothing new for us British, as we know. In fact, we have seldom done otherwise. I think we have fought only one war in the last hundred years or so without allies—the war in South Africa. So last year's Defence Review was quite right when it said that we should conduct no major operations overseas without allies. That was absolutely right. But to go on then to say that we will honour our obligations, honour our treaties, with various countries, like Malaysia and the Persian Gulf (I should call it the Arabian Gulf), and Libya, and then to withdraw most of the forces which are in fact going to defend those countries, is highly inconsistent. In fact, only one thing is certain: that we cannot forecast events, and certainly not for ten years ahead. It is quite impossible.
The Defence Review was wrong within a year when it said that the greatest danger to peace was in the Far East. We all got very frightened about six weeks ago about what was happening in the Middle East. The defeat of Indonesian confrontation and the coming independence of South Arabia are the two main planks for economy in this Paper. But to my mind they are not
752
proof of future peace. They have been seized on by this Government as planks for economy, for saving and for cuts. And again they may be proved wrong within a year.
Now a word on the question of timing. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, speak about newly independent countries in Asia standing on their own feet. Of course, we realise that they must stand on their own feet. By "standing on their own feet", I think we mean that they should be capable of defending themselves. That is quite a long way ahead, as we know very well. What would the Asia power situation be like, for example, if the United States were not there, with a great big fleet and a great big army? Britain, in the last ten or fifteen years, has twice rectified the situation in the Far East, as has already been mentioned: in the Indonesian confrontation, and in the Malayan emergency. Everything is quiet now, except perhaps for riots in Hong Kong.
In the Middle East, I suggest, we have actually contributed to instability. Here is the latest Defence Paper saying that we ought to contribute to stability, when in fact we have been doing exactly the opposite; and the reasons given are financial—in order to save money. Incidentally, we ought to remember, I suggest, that the South Arabian Federation Army has already mutinied, and in my opinion will be quite incapable, if attacked, of defending the frontier, even with the air support we shall provide.
That brings me to the last part of this Paper, which is the method of cutting. I agree heartily with the Defence Estimates Paper of 1965, which said:
"We must maintain a capacity for providing military assistance in many parts of the world".
My point is that we have now decided to do exactly the opposite—because I do not believe in this idea about sending out troops from Salisbury Plain. Are we going to be capable of providing military assistance in many parts of the world? The Chiefs of Staff and the Minister of Defence have very difficult problems in front of them, not least the fact that weapons have to be planned and estimated for ten years ahead; and that is, I believe, the underlying reason for trying to forecast the world situation ten

753
years ahead—something which it is not easy to do. Allowing for all their difficulties, and especially that one—it is not for us in this House, perhaps, to try to do their professional job for them—I think they could well have three points in mind arising from experience of the last few years overseas.
To my mind, there are three big points. First, as was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the top requirement is infantry. We need a balanced Army, with a few tanks and artillery and engineers, all supporting the infantry—the man in the jungle or the man in the street. And it is more or less the same with the Navy and the Royal Air Force. They are in fact supporting the company commander on the job. I am not saying that this is the case every time; in lighting a sophisticated enemy the situation is a little different, but we do not do that very often; and, in any case, we are now going to do it with allies. Usually we tight an unsophisticated enemy to rectify a local situation; and in such a situation infantry are the top requirement.
My next thought is that our bases—Aden and Singapore, which have been the subject of much discussion—have grown much too big. The setting up by the noble Viscount of Supreme Commanders with task forces was absolutely right in principle, but in practice it has proved extremely expensive. I know this because I had the honour to command one. I counted up one day, and there were 2,000 men—and that is quite a lot of chaps—hammering typewriters. I am not saying that you should transfer them to the infantry—you cannot do that—but in fact it is an expensive operation. I maintain that we could have much smaller bases overseas if we concentrated on infantry and did not have enormous reserves of artillery, ammunition, tanks, air support, and all the rest of it.
Lastly, and much the most important, is the visible presence of small forces. The White Paper says that this is an effective deterrent, and then it goes on to say that for reasons of economy our British strategic reserve will be put back in this country, and we have heard how much more quickly they can get to the scene of action than they could previously. That is perfectly true. But quite apart from whether they are acclimatised or not, which is a technical question,
754
and the matter of casualties which one can bear, the fact remains that a company of infantry on the spot at the beginning of the trouble is worth a brigade a week later, and a lot more a month later. The idea of having the strategic reserve back at home in this country is extremely dangerous, in my opinion, because the sending of it abroad becomes subject to debate in Whitehall, if not in Westminster, and if you are not careful you find yourself debating it in the United Nations. This happened many times in the Aden period when it was a question of bombing this or that fort. The result is that nothing ever happens, and in my opinion it is far better to have small bases overseas.
The exact opposite to this is the painful argument that we went through about, for example, the TSR.2—until the Royal Air Force priced themselves out of the market—and, later on, the aircraft carriers at £70 million a time, which suffered the same fate. If you put your faith in light arms and equipment and make cuts in the heavy arms, then the whole of the Defence White Paper takes on a different light.
Lastly, may I come to the point that nowadays defence is global and not continental. In my view it is quite wrong to look at the defence of Europe as a separate section of the world. The defence of Europe, as we have heard from many speakers, depends on stability outside Europe, and stability outside Europe depends on two Powers which are capable of deploying forces in those areas at the present time. One is the United States of America and the other is ourselves—Britain. Indeed I ought to have said "three Powers" because the Anzacs are there as well, and if the Australians and New Zealanders could begin to take our place in the Far East in a big way, as they have done in a small way over the past 10 to 15 years, it would be a great help. Europe happens to be our traditional role, where we have great experience and many friends still, whom we ought to protect.
One thing is quite certain about this last supplementary Defence White Paper. I think it says on page 9 that this is the last of the cuts. That is a most encouraging remark. But, one thing is quite certain; namely, that the over-stretch

755
of the forces will be worse than it has ever been because the commitments are most unlikely to listen to our debates here, or to the plans of the people in Whitehall. Those commitments will go on, whether we like it or not, and our forces will be smaller and less able to deal with them. I therefore deplore these dated cuts. Career prospects are mentioned in the White Paper. The Government may be right in saying that the Forces will still offer a good career, but I cannot help wondering whether that is in fact right. In my view it is extremely dangerous to reduce the Forces as planned. If we go on like this, we may have very little left to defend.
5.57 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in a speech which, if I may say so, was so comprehensive and so complete that there is little left for me to say. I never thought, all those many years ago when I had the honour to serve under the noble Earl's father, then in command of the Grand Fleet, that it would fall to my lot—in fact, my duty—to support his son in resisting Government plans which can only result in a mini-Fleet with a mini-Army and a mini-Air Force. These are plans which, in my view, if they are persisted in can end only by reducing this great country of ours to the level of a mini-State, despised and distrusted by our friends and our allies and our partners in the Commonwealth, and an object of contempt by our foes, who are all too numerous in these dangerous times—and we can be sure that they have already noted the contents of this disastrous White Paper.
Whatever views one may hold about the prevailing fashion of the mini-skirt, I am confident that no one in his senses can regard it as a suitable fashion for Britannia. Her figure is hardly suitable—like, I might say, that of so many ladies who follow the fashion to-day. However that may be, we are going to have a mini-Navy, a mini-Army and a mini-Air Force. Perhaps we are going to have a mini-Britannia. But the one thing we are sure to keep is a maxi-Civil Service. This Government have not the political courage to face their responsibilities in
756
this matter of defence, to tell the people what is really needed, to explain clearly and unequivocally the inherent dangers in all parts of the world to-day. But the Government must realise that they cannot fool all the people all the time. The day of reckoning will come, and I have sufficient faith in our people to believe that it will come sooner rather than later. I pray that my faith is justified, because if not, we shall be faced with dire catastrophe. A member of the Government Party, speaking in public, has described the Government's policy, or lack of policy, as
"the most dangerous and irresponsible piece of Government folly perpetrated since Ramsay MacDonald's days".
I do not know about Ramsay Macdonald's days, but I agree with what the honourable gentleman said. But the date, I think, should be June, 1666, 300 years ago, when the Dutch were in the Medway.
I find nothing in the White Paper or its predecessors produced by this Government to give one any confidence that, either individually or collectively, the Government have any real understanding of, or, what is more important, the will to understand, the dangerous state of the world to-day and for many years to come and what is really needed for our defence. Noble Lords have already spoken in support of Lord Jellicoe's Motion, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and others are to follow, and they have dealt and will deal so adequately with the White Paper that it is unnecessary for me to detain your Lordships very long with the few remaining remarks I wish to make.
First, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for giving us a little more information about in particular naval plans. He said, with truth, that he thought I should be very interested, and indeed I am, and I am grateful to him. In days gone by when our positions were reversed I used to try to support the noble Lord's pleas for a little more for Coastal Command. It was not unsuccessful. At any rate, the Commander-in-Chief, Coastal Command, thought so and invited me to dinner. Nevertheless, there are one or two points on naval matters to which I must refer.

757
The first one is on page 7, where we are told:
"From the middle 1970s, the main striking power of the Navy, apart from the Polaris submarines, will be provided by the growing force of Fleet submarines."
I think this statement requires further explanation, because I can find little or nothing in the White Paper to substantiate it. These magnificent submersibles, sometimes referred to as hunter-killers, are armed and equipped to play a leading, in fact dominant, part in the antisubmarine role, and they will certainly give much needed support and protection to our worldwide shipping. They will certainly find plenty of targets, especially if our potential enemies field all the submarines they are reported to have. I think that these Fleet submarines are admirably suited for this important though specialist role, with their highly developed sonar gear—I wish we could go back to the English word "Asdic" instead of "Sonar"—and acoustic torpedoes.
The Polaris submarines have been developed for a totally different purpose. These four vessels—there ought to be five—are designed and equipped to act as a deterrent. If they have to fire even one of their weapons they have surely failed in their objective. Therefore I think that to apply the term "the Navy's main striking force" to the Fleet submarines and the Polaris submarines is really to delude oneself and delude the country.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I think he must have misread the White Paper. It says:
"The main striking force of the Navy, apart from the Polaris submarines …".
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I know perfectly well that is what the White Paper says, but when it says, "apart from the Polaris submarines" surely that includes the Polaris submarines in the strike force. My understanding of English may be different from the noble Lord's, but that is how I read it. My view about its being wrong to include these submarines in the Navy's main striking force is unaltered by the fact that I read in the newspapers over the weekend (not under Mr. Chapman Pincher's signature this time, but that of somebody
758
else) of a new weapon that has been or is being developed, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made some reference to this. From my reading, this is a guided missile which the Fleet submarines will be able to fire through their torpedo tubes and which will be guided on to its target by a helicopter. It was suggested in the newspaper account which I read that this new development will make the Fleet submarines the "battle cruisers of the 1970s". I do not think this is a conception I feel prepared to agree to. I, in my time, have been aboard submarines with 12-inch guns, and another one carrying a seaplane, and my own submarine, the last one I served in, had two 4-inch guns. I am therefore all in favour of giving the Fleet submarines as many suitable offensive weapons as they can carry or are likely to use, but I do not think this particular development, if the newspaper account is true, sounds very promising.
In paragraph 3 of Chapter IV we come to almost the only unequivocal statement in this otherwise deplorable White Paper. Here is stated:
"Air power will be as indispensable to the Fleet of tomorrow as it is today."
With this we can all wholeheartedly agree. But what I find absolutely impossible to accept is the immediately following sentence, which says:
"After the last carriers go, the Royal Navy, like the Army, will rely on Royal Air Force land-based aircraft to support it."
That statement might be believed in Cloud-cuckoo-land, despite the fact that all experience in many parts of the world, in many different types of operation, shows that this simply does not work and cannot work. All rational thinking and study, both in this country and in the United States of America, shows that it is not a feasible proposition. As I am on this subject, I should like to ask what has happened to the Templar Johns Committee, which was going to give us a Report on the proper use or best use of air power.
At any rate, having made this bland statement, the White Paper entirely ignores all the practical implications of this mistaken policy, some of which have already been mentioned by noble Lords who have already spoken—I will not go into detail: lack of aerodromes, lack of

759
maintenance facilities, difficulties of over-flying rights et cetera. Last but not least, it is by no means clear from the White Paper what aircraft are going to be used to supply this close support role to the Army and the Navy. I realised a long time ago that this Government had no understanding of the realities of maritime air power. How could they?
I received an account of the Secretary of State's visit to an aircraft carrier in the Far East. This ship had just returned to Singapore after 70 days continuously at sea in the Mozambique channel, in aid of that deplorable operation the Beira blockade. During the time the ship was on station, in fact from the moment of her arrival until her departure, her aircraft were airborne day and night, ranging miles around, reconnoitring the ocean to see whether there were any oilers or other shipping about. However, the Secretary of State visited the wardroom of this ship when she returned to Singapore—he happened to be on a visit there—and endeavoured to explain to the assembled officers the reasons that lay behind the then recently announced decision to fade out the aircraft carriers. In support of his arguments he pointed out that the R.A.F. Lightnings had arrived in Zambia and were operating from N'dola air field before the "Eagle" and her aircraft were on station. This of course was simply not true, and within the limits of courtesy and hospitality the assembled officers let him know that. If the Secretary of State for Defence is so ignorant about current operations, how can the country expect a rational defence policy from the Government?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, is he aware that we have never had Lightnings in Zambia?
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, that does not alter my argument that there were four or five R.A.F. aircraft in N'dola. What type they were does not alter the argument. At any rate, a young friend of mine, a schoolboy, who visited the airfield about that time told me that they succeeded in burning up the tarmac pretty well with their jet engines.
I do not propose to comment in detail on the proposals for new construction in
760
the White Paper which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, explained to us, of cruisers, frigates and destroyers. There is really insufficient information in the White Paper about them, and until we know more, either by courtesy of Her Majesty's Government or of Mr. Chapman Pincher, we must refrain from detailed comment. But I should like to say two things about this new construction. One is that I think that particularly the small ships should be of rugged, simple construction, and not over sophisticated in equipment. I think this is most important, because they need ample endurance and must be easily maintained. The larger ships, or some of them, should have nuclear power.
Here I must ask Her Majesty's Government whether the £30 million cut in research and development means that development work on nuclear power for surface ships will cease or be curtailed. To my mind, this development, which I mentioned last time I spoke on defence, is literally of major importance. While I welcome the statement that all or most of these new ships will be provided with helicopters, nevertheless, even if everything that floats carries a helicopter, it will still not give the Navy the air support that it really needs.
My noble friends, far more qualified than I, will deal with Army matters, and I will confine myself to reminding your Lordships that in the end it is the Army which has to go in for what one might briefly describe as "the final kill". While we have men like Colonel Mitchell and his gallant Jocks of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, we can rely on them to do the job; but they must have proper training, equipment and acclimatisation if they are to be given a fair chance in what must always be exceedingly difficult conditions.
The White Paper concludes, in Chapter VI, paragraph 3, by stating that the three Services
"though reduced in size, will be capable of meeting all the demands that may be made on them".
I think that this is a wild statement, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that our forces will be stretched as they never have been stretched for years and years past. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever, to quote the Government's

761
White Paper, that we can rely on our men to show the enterprise, courage and endurance which their duties call for. They have always shown these qualities. But we have no right to ask them for these great efforts unless we supply them with the proper ships and proper aircraft, weapons and training. It is in these matters that I think Her Majesty's Government have signally failed to convince me, or anyone I know, that they are doing this. For these reasons, when the time comes I shall support my noble friend's Motion in the Division Lobby.
6.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, the last time I spoke in a Defence debate your Lordships were kind to me. I cannot expect that tonight; nor shall I be as polite as I was last time. I find it increasingly difficult to get to your Lordships' House, working full-time. When I do come, your Lordships are either making homosexuality less punishable in this world, making abortion cheaper; in the next month making divorce easier, and in the month after that, I suppose, authorising hashish to be issued to primary schools.
As so recent a soldier, I can only tell your Lordships that I am beginning to feel as they do, fed up with the system of Parliament. This worries me, because it is wrong that people should think this way. This ought to be one of the most important debates of the year, second only to unemployment and the economic situation, which I realise must be of first priority. But is it really important? Whatever we say here, what effect does it have on a decree to be issued or, perhaps I should say, on a Government decision? Will it have any effect? I fear not, in neither House of Parliament. And I am afraid that I am beginning to feel the resentment which I know many people outside both Houses feel. I hasten to say straight away that I was a cavalryman. I therefore never accepted an order other than as a basis for a discussion, and I hope that your Lordships will not accept this Defence White Paper other than on the same basis.
Let me hasten to add that I understand that in a period of crisis such as we are in—and it is a crisis that we ought to be talking about; the world crisis, the British economic crisis—the forces must
762
play their part; they must be squeezed and they must take a cut. I think it was right to make the cuts up to 1971, and to announce them quite clearly in a reasonable way. But I should have liked to see a little more courtesy shown to the regiments which have been cut, and I hope that my noble friend, in the true sense of the word, Lord Chalfont, will put that right when he speaks. So many famous regiments have just gone without a word of praise. The same thing happened when it was announced that the Royal Malta Artillery were to go. Not a word of thanks was given to them in the White Paper. Let us hope that it is put right in a speech.
At the same time, I back fully Mr. Sambule, the High Commissioner for Zambia, and I am surprised that he was criticised by the Government. We are now a toothless bulldog by deliberate intent; and although these cuts are right, let us not hide the effect that they have had. We had Questions before this debate on why had not protests been made here, and why had not protests been made there? Do we worry about deaths on the Berlin Wall, or gas in the Yemen? I am afraid that the majority of us do not worry. If we did, the protests would be of no use. It is no good having forces unless the will in the country exists to use them. This is one good reason why the forces have been cut because, I believe, the will is no longer there to use them.
So many people think that because we have a higher standard of living in the world therefore people will behave better and that fighting will not take place. I fear that until we can change man, fighting will go on, and the best we can hope for is that nuclear war will not take place. But that fighting will go on, I am sure. When our standard of living and education went up, when everybody's height in this country had gone up two inches from the increase in social services and good government many people thought that crime would go down. It has gone up. This, I fear, is the same in the use of force, and it is no good hiding the fact. I am not just an old general saying that we should go to war tomorrow. We must face the fact that force is a projection of foreign policy, and only in its use, and the determination and the will to use it, can it be of

763
any use at all. We may as well get rid of the whole lot until that will and determination is there.
I fear also that the timing on Aden was bad and that some deaths will have occurred because of the timing—it is no good trying to hide that fact. I can assure your Lordships that I am deliberately standing plumb in the middle; I do not want to make any Party points. I am speaking only as an individual and saying what I honestly believe to be true. There is going to be slaughter when we leave there, and the idea that ships and aircraft by themselves will stop an invasion of that territory after we have gone does not, I fear, bear the slightest examination. There is going to be no invasion by sea or by air from other countries who want to go into Aden. Any invasion there will be by night by individuals coming over the border from the Yemen. They cannot be stopped by ships or aircraft, and we ought to accept that fact now.
The idea also that having pulled out of Aden (I think probably rightly, as our soldiers are getting fed up) we should then put the mark of death on the Sheikh of Bahrein and sheiks of other places in the Persian Gulf where we are going to keep soldiers, seems to me very unfair to them. They have the mark of death once we have pulled out of Aden. I think it would be worth while reconsidering whether we should not perhaps keep a mobile amphibious force in that island next to Gozo. What I am worrying about are the long-term effects beyond 1971—this signal warning to every enemy and to every friend of ours around the world that this is going to happen or may happen. The fact that it has been said so clearly, even down to the possible number of people who are to leave the forces at the second phase, is what really worries me.
Then may I mention Singapore? We have had a lot of loose talk about bases, but Singapore is the last true base left. It should be kept, if we are to keep an interest there. I do not know what "an interest" taken in a friendly country means unless it means being prepared to support them in fighting. I am interested in pretty girls, but being happily married I do not do anything about, and certainly my interest does not help those girls. And I cannot see that being "interested"
764
in Australia, Malaya or Singapore helps them. The idea that land-based aircraft can come in with a force and that the Prime Minister of the country who has asked us in is standing on the airfield with the British High Commissioner next door, is too childish to contemplate.
We should be asked to come in, but our forces will be here. Even one brigade would stop these things, if we left it in Singapore. There would be a Cabinet meeting to decide whether the trouble was going to escalate into a world situation. During the Cabinet meeting the Prime Minister of that country would probably be murdered by a Communist uprising in the place itself, and then we should fly in to find all the airfields sealed off, with lorries driven across them. We must keep some amphibious capability to support operations of that kind. But although we may be asked for that aid, the particular group in that country which asked for it may no longer be in power when it is sent. I would go further and say this. According to this Paper, it has taken three years of gestation to produce, not a toothless lion, for teeth can be replaced (and by the grace of the Duke of Norfolk we have at least a false set of reserve forces to replace those teeth); but a eunuch, and there is not much you can do about putting that straight afterwards. That is what worries me.
I have taken up a good deal of your Lordships' time. I have said bluntly what I honestly think. Let us debate this subject seriously. I beg the Government to take note of what has been said. I have no hesitation in criticising the Chiefs of Staff, having so recently been under their command and having liked them very much. They are desperately overworked, desperately tired. The whole of the staff of the Ministry of Defence are desperately overtired. This gestation has not been easy. Lastly, I must say a word about the officers and soldiers who are now serving. One of the reasons given in the White Paper for keeping everybody in suspense for another ten years is the stability of those serving. What stability is left? Who can be certain of the position in ten years' time? The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rather questioned a remark that this would not be the last of the cuts. It is not. There is another lot to come, and there is a

765
question-mark after that. That is what worries me. As an Independent, I must, and I will, support the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
6.25 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, a number of noble Lords to-day have pointed out that it is difficult to visualise a worse time for military reductions or announcements such as these. British representatives, as well as her citizens, are being kicked around; in some quarters we are reviled and falsely accused; diplomacy seems ineffective, and the United Nations on which the Government endlessly tell us they pin their entire confidence, trust and hopes, continues to become a sounding board for lies, slander, ignorance and prejudice. Because of this we believe that further decline in British influence and in her share of responsibility for keeping the peace of the world will, in the end, cost us much more than the Government are planning to save to-day, though we do not dispute that some savings are possible.
On May 11, as has been mentioned, U Thant said that the Third World War had begun. However, the war is now a war for men's minds. Britain, which during the last world war was listened to by lovers of freedom all over the world, whether under the heel of the oppressor or struggling against him, is now totally incapable of putting the truth across in the face of the ranting lies of our opponents. If we were still capable of even getting a fair hearing we might be able to reduce our forces and remove our physical presence without the risk of serious results. But this, for some reason, certainly not a technical one, we do not seem any longer able to do.
The Government have assured us that we will never fight again without allies. Why are they so confident that we shall have any allies, if our vital interests are threatened, not necessarily in a major war? Have the Government shown the United States how warmly we support her in keeping the peace in the Far East? Have they indicated to Australia and New Zealand how concerned we are about threats to their security and livelihood? Have they convinced the countries of the Middle and Far East that we are determined and capable of honouring our promises? Have they improved
766
the confidence on the Continent of our acceptance of our obligations to NATO by withdrawing one-fifth of our contribution?
The Government seem so confident that there will never be another war that last year they abolished the Reserve Army. From now on we can obtain only a small number of individual reinforcements from Regular reservists and volunteers—unlike the French, who put 200,000 trained soldiers into the reserves every year and, incidentally, describe all money spent on defence in France as being "returned to the economy". There is a good deal of truth in that. Much of the money does come back into the economy, though I admit that the money which is spent abroad does not. The White Paper admits that
"the security of Britain depends above all on the prevention of war in Europe,"
and elsewhere the visible presence of even small forces may be a good deterrent. Elsewhere it is the British Armed Forces, and in the forefront the Army; and, as my noble friend Lord Bourne has said, the famous infantry regiments which have by their example—by their quick and effective measures, their fair dealings and the remarkable way in which they adapt themselves to prevailing conditions—brought and maintained peace and security in so many areas of the world.
It is on some of the effects on the Army of this White Paper that I wish to dwell to-day, in the knowledge that alone among our allies we have no reserve units; that our allies are suspicious of our good faith; that many nations wish us ill; and that the United Nations do not in the least look like fulfilling the hopes which the Free World has of them. Let us at least consider the paragraph in the Observer leader two days ago, which mentioned an increasingly present reality, which is that the main threat to world peace, and so to our security, now lies outside Europe and not inside it. Our commitments will change and it is impossible to judge what forces will be required from time to time. Nor, if these and further cuts are made, will there ever be time to increase their size, if needed, and to give them the necessary training for the immediate job. In the present state of the world, surely our Army must

767
have the military capability which a nation of our size and character should possess, including the ability to expand quickly if needed. We must play our part in the world. If we want to be a member of a club pledged to give mutual support, we must pay our subscription and not try to get away with the reduced subscription of a country member.
Let us look at some of the detailed proposals. An Army of 44 infantry battalions, not counting the Guards and the three parachute battalions, as is proposed—and the Government do not tell us how they arrive at that figure—gives us about one battalion per million people in this country. With such a small reserve, is this really enough for a nation with our responsibilities? As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, it is the infantry who in the end are required in a major conflict, and are often, in peace time, the only arm required. I am sure we need cadres that can meet expansion, and I believe that the units due to be disbanded or amalgamated, now or in the future, should be retained in cadre form. So far as the Army is concerned, this White Paper does not make military sense. If it had been produced as the answer to an examination paper for the Staff College, the candidate would fail.
I should not be against the return of the Brigade from Europe, if I did not know very well that it takes five months to convert to the requirements of a fully mechanised formation facing the nuclear threat in B.A.O.R. That is the time the battalion going to B.A.O.R., after several years in England or abroad, takes to be thoroughly trained, technically and tactically, to operate with armoured personnel carriers and tanks. Our NATO allies know this, so they will not be very impressed with the statement that the Brigade to be withdrawn from NATO will be earmarked for the Rhine Army—unless, of course, it is trained on the Continent regularly; and I do not think that is envisaged. But, of course, if that Brigade could be rotated, with the same people—the long-service personnel—going back year after year, there would at least be a hard core of officers, N.C.O.s and drivers, and I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that that idea might be considered.
768
Do not let us have any illusions that we can do formation training with the modern armoured mechanised brigades in this country. It is not possible. There are no more training areas available, and the existing areas are not big enough. The Highlands of Scotland are no good—we have tried them already. The good people of Dartmoor make enough fuss when a few Territorials on their feet execute a few simple 1914-type exercises. No, my Lords. Even if the Government think it is possible to train a mechanised brigade, ready to shoot it across the Channel into action, our NATO allies know that it is not; and they will not believe it for a moment.
The same principles apply to other parts of the world. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has said, if we undertake to return to the areas which we propose to vacate, we must station troops somewhere, trained and acclimatised for the purpose. I am glad that this matter is under consideration, but looking at the map I wonder where they can go. Perhaps we should make our undertakings for assistance conditional upon the provision of training facilities. I do not believe that we need the very large headquarters and base at Singapore, but I do believe that both there and in the Middle East we need small bases to provide landing facilities by air and sea, and perhaps to look after some heavy equipment. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley said about that. I need say no more.
But I cannot see our commitments safeguarded by Marine Commandos sailing round and round in circles in oceans, any more than by flying out units, perhaps from Scotland in the middle of winter, to take part in operations in fierce tropical temperatures. That is one reason why we are so emphatically opposed to the end of the garrison in Malta, where we were warmly welcomed and where some kind of acclimatisation was possible.
The Army must provide a worthwhile career. Small as it is, I am certain that it is the best in the world in quality. But this is due to the high standard which it demands and its appeal to the best type of young men, men who prefer a fuller life in frequent and differing foreign stations than that offered by the office or factory—adventure, possibly

769
dangers, rather than the, to them, dreary security of the Welfare State. Who will want to join an Army which serves only in England or Germany? If their life as Servicemen is dreary, they will not come. Standards will be relaxed, and qualities of initiative and leadership will decline. I should like to know what the Government intend to do about this aspect. There is nothing constructive in the White Paper about it.
The White Paper refers to examining facilities in Australia, and this point has been mentioned by several noble Lords. Will the Minister inform the House what discussions have been held with the Australian Government? Whatever arrangements are made for training facilities outside Europe—and they are desirable, and have been highly successful—it is essential that we retain substantial garrisons in Europe where we can train alongside our allies, demonstrate to them the quality of our equipment and get to know each other better, as well as derive great benefit from their much better training facilities.
Who will want a regiment which might disappear? Perhaps I may quote my noble friend Lord Harding of Petherton, who was to speak to-day but has withdrawn his name. He said, "If I had a group of factories, and I offered a man a well-paid job but told him that the factory might close in a short time, I should not expect to get him". That is rather what is happening when we try to recruit to-day for regiments which may disappear. I greatly regret that once again we see the passing of great regiments, and a threat to others which have fought for us in every war and campaign. The Cameronians, the old Covenanters, are unique, and perhaps for that reason no amalgamation is possible. But we shall not forget them, for they produced more Generals and Brigadiers in the last war than any other regiment in the British Army—not least among them Sir Richard O'Connor.
I should like to mention the Durham Light Infantry, having spent 18 years of my boyhood in that county, and having had the privilege of several Territorial battalions serving under my command a few years ago; but my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is a member of that regiment, is here and he will do it
770
far better than I can. There are peculiar anomalies in the wording of Annex II, and I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify these. Why is one battalion singled out as a subject for reduction when it is to be amalgamated? Surely two battalions are affected. I shall not say more on this now, because my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery is going to raise this matter in detail; but it looks to me like a deceptive trick to make it look as if only one battalion is affected, and not two—and, of course, an infantry regiment to-day consists of only one regular battalion. Had the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, been here he would certainly have referred to the disappearance of the Welch Regiment. The Welch and the Irish Brigades are reduced to two regiments each, which is not a viable formation for cross-posting and organisational matters. Of course, we know about the new divisional organisation, but it is going to take a very long time for the Welsh soldier to accept his acquaintances over the marches as brothers; and the same applies to the Irish and the Lancastrians. This sort of reorganisation does not make for a happy and contented Army.
I regret the decision to reduce the Brigade of Gurkhas to 10,000, and I regret even more the threat of other cuts to come. Any further reduction in the number of the Gurkhas, and it would not be worth while maintaining them at all administratively. The only people who seem to escape unscathed in this White Paper are those in the vast bureaucratic machine of the Ministry of Defence, with its army of civil servants many times larger than was required before the war, when our forces were spread in very much larger numbers all around the Empire.
Just a word on equipment, my Lords. The present equipment in service in the Army is first-class. As it takes at least seven years to produce a piece of equipment, as I well know, from the acceptance of the idea until it is in the hands of the troops, the present Government have had no part in this, except that they have not cancelled anything. Of course, the Conservative Government bore all the cost of research and development of the equipment which is now being issued, and it will be several years before we see anything which has been approved by the present Government. But we now

771
read that the vital research programme is to be cut by £30 million—a frightening decision which will put us out of any position to sell our inventions to our friends for foreign currency, as well as reduce our own defensive capability in the years to come. We shall be out of the race for ever, dependent on buying, probably for dollars, what we need when we should hope to sell. Surely this is a very short-sighted policy.
My Lords, we are sure that the Government are shirking their responsibilities. They are ignoring the essential requirements of their Armed Forces, and closing their eyes to the dangers of the future by so emasculating them that it would take years—years which would never be available—to bring them up to the standards required in this country if they were needed. Mr. Ernest Bevin said in 1942:
"So long as I have any power at all I will never be a party to treating the Army in the future as it has been treated in the past. They broke up in peace time the very foundation of the Army's structure, and expected to build it up during war time with the enemy at the gates".
Apparently the Government's only hope is to put their trust in others to defend us. Like the foolish virgins, they think they can attend the marriage feast without oil in their lamps, depending on the wise virgins to provide it—and perhaps the 40,000 civil servants will have used up all the oil.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he expand a little upon the monstrous size of the staffs in relation to the Armed Forces of the Crown?
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, this is really for the Government to do. I must say that there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, says; and I said in my speech that I considered that the staffs of the bases (and, in case I did not, I should have said headquarters, too) are too big. But the trouble is that in these days there is an awful lot of paper. It all starts at the top, in Whitehall, and it goes down and gets magnified. Everybody puts in returns to everybody else; and so twice as many people are needed to do it. I see from the White Paper that the appointment of Brigade Major is to be upgraded to Lieutenant Colonel, in order to provide for another Lieutenant
772
Colonel and to improve the prospects of promotion. I hope this will not mean that there will then be two more majors and four more captains—except from the point of view of career structure, perhaps, when it would be a good thing. But I suggest that the noble Lord asks the Minister to explain to him the size of the staffs.
6.45 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I possibly can, consistent with answering some of the points that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in a thoughtful and well-reasoned speech, asked one specific question which I should like to answer before going on to the main part of what I have to say. He asked about the functions and use of the Type 82 destroyer which is to be introduced into the Navy. If I refer him to the original Defence White Paper of February of this year, page 35, he will see there set out in full the general functions of the new guided-missile destroyer, although I think it would be wrong for me to go too deeply into operational concepts.
There have been one or two constructive and realistic speeches in your Lordships' House this afternoon, but I think that in some cases it is possible to say that the almost irresistible impulse to make political noises and to search for the rapier thrust and the wounding wise-crack has led some noble Lords—and not all of them opposite—into some notable exaggerations. As so often happens in this kind of stage duel, I am afraid that some noble Lords have managed to get their swords between their legs, with the not surprising result that they have stumbled into some notably undignified, and sometimes vulnerable positions. For example, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, accused this Government of preserving commitments but weakening our ability to discharge them. He spoke also of "an Army shorn of its teeth"—a metaphor of somewhat dubious ancestry, but the meaning is all to clear. The noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, spoke of "a Government which plans to back strategy with equipment which no longer exists". He spoke also of vacillation over equipment and procurement programmes. The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, spoke of a vast bureaucratic Ministry of Defence.

773
Listening to all this, one might be forgiven for thinking that we had quite suddenly fallen into an era of martial decay; that throughout the 1950s, the crucial years after the war, and the early 1960s, the Services were providently supplied with the men and equipment to do the many jobs they were asked to do. We might be forgiven for thinking that through those years commitments and resources were carefully calculated; that never were the Armed Forces under any sort of strain; and that the staffs of bases and headquarters and the Ministry of Defence were slim, athletic and sinewy. Criticisms of this Government, if we follow them to their logical end, seem to me to conjure up the picture of a Conservative Government for those 13 years confidently in control of all its military fortunes—masterful, efficient and sure-footed.
What were the facts, my Lords? The facts were these. Equipment, in many cases, as I know too well, was broken down and out-of-date. Infantry battalions were often ludicrously under strength. Units were shuttled from crisis to crisis like a stage army, under the precarious manipulation of a bewildering succession of Defence Ministers. Strategic concepts and tactical doctrines were in a state of hopeless confusion. Perhaps the most extraordinary suggestion which has been made this afternoon is that this Government have (to use the current jargon) lowered the nuclear threshold and made this country dependent upon a nuclear strategy. The breath-taking irrelevance of this appears in its full majesty only when we recall that it was the Party opposite which, in the middle of the 1950s, produced that unforgettable—unfortunately unforgettable—Defence White Paper which radically reduced the strength of the Armed Forces and rested British strategy proudly on the possession of that well-known myth, the independent nuclear deterrent; and, furthermore, it was to be a nuclear deterrent based on yet another well-known myth, Blue Streak—and we all know what happened to that.
I could go on with this catalogue for some time. I could recall what happened in Kuwait when, because of a total lack of political foresight, the desert was full of broken-down tanks and peopled by
774
unacclimatised troops thrown into action unexpectedly in the middle of a desert summer. I could recall experiences in Borneo of jungle patrolling with weapons almost too heavy to carry and with radio sets which looked like something out of Savoy Hill or 2 L.O. I could talk of the Reserve Army of 1960 clothed in the battledress of 1940, with coloured flags representing machine guns and broken-down trucks representing tanks. As for the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, that this Government have vacillated over equipment policy—
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, the noble Lord had better get the facts right. He has not got many right so far, if I may say so. But this is important. I was referring specifically to the replacement for the TSR2 requirement and to nothing else. If he will give an answer to that I should be much obliged.
LORD CHALFONT: I will rest on what appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The noble Viscount spoke of vacillation over defence equipment. He used those words. I should like to point out that the noble Viscount also recalled, in reply to a light-hearted gibe from this side, that he had been in office for some considerable time. He was indeed; he was in office from 1959 to 1962 and perhaps he remembers as vividly as I—and perhaps even the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, remembers—the Spectre Rocket engine cancelled in October, 1960, the Blue Steel Mark II, cancelled in December, 1959, the Bloodhound Mark III, the Blue Streak, the P.T.428, and Blue Water. I am sorry to have to inflict this esoteric list of names on your Lordships, but they are merely some of the seven or eight major equipment projects initiated by the Conservative Government and then, between the years 1959 and 1962, cancelled at a total cost to this country of over £120 million. It is no good noble Lords holding up their hands in horror. I did not want to produce this catalogue; but I believe that those who live or have lived in the somewhat fragile structure of a Conservative defence policy should think twice before they aim their missiles—
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on, will he have the courtesy to read the OFFICIAL REPORT before he quotes it? He will find that what I said is correct. And

775
will he then answer my question? Can he answer my question on the replacement of TSR2 and the variable geometry aircraft?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, it would be quite wrong for me at this stage to make public the sort of plans for which the noble Viscount asks. The Government have their own defence, equipment and procurement projects. These are in train. There will be a replacement for all these aircraft consonant with the commitments that the Armed Forces will be required to carry out. I think this is an important factor which the noble Viscount should bear in mind.
But let us stop—I did not start it—throwing things at each other. We have a fairly good supply of ammunition on this side if noble Lords want to go on. I think it is time that we took a look at some of the facts. I should like to look at some of the facts about the Army. Your Lordships will have seen from the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy which we are now debating that the Government intend to reduce the active strength of the forces by about 37,000 by April, 1971, and that we foresee a total drop of about 75.000 by the time we have finally withdrawn from Malaysia and Singapore in the mid-1970s. The reductions in the later years will, as the White Paper says, be broadly the same for each Service as for the years between now and 1971.
So far as the Army is concerned—and I should like to concentrate now on the first phase of these reductions—this means that the Army will lose about 15,000 by April, 1971. Obviously, a reduction of this magnitude cannot possibly be out into effect without changing the structure of the Army. It will, in fact, as your Lordships already know, involve a reduction of about 17 major units; that is to say, units of infantry battalion or equivalent strength. I know that many noble Lords have, like me, been associated with a regiment that will be affected by the cuts. No one here, I imagine, will need to be reminded that we are about to see the end, in a physical sense, of regiments with a long history of distinguished service to this country.
776
Of course, the decision as to which regiments should go was a painful decision to take; but I think we ought to be clear that none of these decisions was taken in any light or ill-considered way. Nor were they taken, as some people have implied, simply by politicians or civil servants. It is, quite rightly, not the custom in Parliament to go into detail about the advice which Ministers are given before the Government take a major decision, but I think it permissible to underline the fact that advice was taken from soldiers, sailors and airmen about the way in which these reductions were to be put into effect, although the Government take full responsibility for the decisions that were eventually taken. For example, in deciding how to reduce the strength of the infantry by eight battalions the Colonels of regiments were consulted and, in some cases, were able to recommend amalgamations so that regimental identities were not completely lost.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, made the point that in some cases there seemed to be, at least in his mind, some confusion between disbandment and amalgamation. I think if he looks at the list of infantry brigades and at the list of battalions that are to go, he will find that in each case the battalion named to go is the battalion of the junior regiment of the brigade still surviving from the last amalgamation. In some cases, in order to prevent the regiment from disappearing entirely from the Army List, the Colonels were able to agree that there should be instead of disbandment, amalgamation. To take one example. The junior regiment of the Welsh Brigade is the Welch Regiment. One solution would have been to disband it entirely. Instead, the same effect is produced by amalgamating it with the South Wales Borderers. I think this is quite simple. There is no sleight of hand behind it, I can assure the noble Lord.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? I may be dense about this; but it reads:
"The Brigade will reduce by one battalion which is to be the 1st Battalion The Welch Regiment."
Should it not read:
"The Brigade will be reduced by one battalion. On the recommendation of the Council of Colonels The Welch Regiment will amalgamate with The South Wales Borderers to form a new Regiment."?
LORD CHALFONT: I think it is really unprofitable to follow this too far. Perhaps I might try to make it a little clearer. The regiment chosen to be disbanded in the brigade I mentioned was the Welch Regiment because it is the junior of the three remaining regiments. But it was agreed between the Colonels of the Welch Regiment and the South Wales Borderers—and this applies also to other Brigades—that instead of disbanding the Welch Regiment it should be amalgamated with the South Wales Borderers to provide the same effect. If there is some error of punctuation in the White Paper I am afraid I have missed it. But it seems to me to be clear in principle.
LORD THURLOW: But the South Wales Borderers are affected just as much as the Welch Regiment. They are both amalgamating; therefore they are both to disappear and you get a new regiment. Why say The Welch Regiment is to be disbanded and then that it is an amalgamation of the two?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, perhaps there is a little too much condensation and elision in the White Paper. What I was trying to describe was the sequence of events. A regiment was chosen to disband but, in order to save its identity to some extent, it was agreed that it should amalgamate instead of disappearing altogether. I think I ought to make the point, indeed it is made quite clearly in the White Paper, that in some cases where this sort of agreement could not be arrived at, complete disbandment, unfortunately, will be necessary, and regiments will disappear altogether.
My Lords, I had hoped to say something about the question of redundancy among officers and men which would result from these cuts in the Army, but I am anxious not to detain your Lordships for too long, and I will content myself by saying that, generally speaking, I think it very important to stress that we are now at the beginning of a process of manpower reorganisation which will extend well into the 1970s; and obviously the full working-out of the policy announced in the recent White Paper will take time. But the main aim must be to organise the run-down and the consequent redundancies in the Services so as at least to maintain, and in some cases even to
778
improve, the career prospects for those who stay in the Armed Forces.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will the run-down include a run-down in the staffs?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it is clear in the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1967, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has read, that the run-down in defence staffs has to come after the run-down in the other parts of the Services, because it is the staff of the Ministry of Defence who organise the run-down. It is not possible, therefore, immediately to cut them. Of course, there will be cuts in staffs at headquarters and bases consistent with the efficient running of those headquarters, but I ask the noble Lord to believe that this is not some kind of empire-building; it is simply that in order to carry out this sort of organisation quite large staffs are necessary and they will have to remain until the process is fairly well advanced.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, get them out as soon as you can.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as I was saying, even when we take into account the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, we shall have to try to keep what is sometimes called in the Services the "career pyramid"; that is to say, Services that are properly balanced by rank, seniority and age, and by specialisation. We intend to do this by working out very carefully the shape and size of the forces at which we are aiming in the long-run, and then we shall invite applications for redundancy terms from officers and men in those categories whose size will be reduced in the new structure. This is a complicated affair, and it will take some time to work out. But I ask your Lordships to believe—and I am certainly convinced of this—that the aim is to make sure that the new Armed Forces that arise from this reorganisation will have a career structure and career prospects at least as good as they have had in the past and, we hope, in many cases better.
My Lords, it has been suggested, as it so often is suggested when any reorganisation or redeployment of the Armed Forces is contemplated, that these reductions will damage morale inside the Services, and will furthermore discourage men

779
and women from joining the Armed Forces. It has been asked, rather plaintively, in your Lordships' House this afternoon, why should young men join a Service in which it is said that they may be redundant in a few years' time? Let us take this question of recruiting, the requirement for recruits in the reduced Army, and get it into some sort of perspective. If we take soldiers in the Army as an example, the reduction of about 10,000 in the strength of the Army means a reduction of only about 1,000 in the annual recruiting requirement. This is because a balance has to be maintained by rank and age, as I said earlier. The Army of to-day requires about 21,000 recruits a year. When it is reduced by 15000, as it will be by April, 1971, it will still require 19,000 recruits a year so this argument, one part of the argument, that substantially reduced forces hardly need any recruits at all in order to keep them going, is totally false.
So far as careers are concerned, I have said that we intend to provide prospects for promotion, both for officers and soldiers, at least as good as they have enjoyed before in peace time. As for the other question of morale inside the Forces, I must confess I find that morale in the Armed Forces is often affected much more by the sort of ill-considered comment which is made outside than by anything that happens inside. Of course it would be foolish to suppose—and I am not suggesting it for one moment—that the morale, the spirit, of an officer or man whose career is likely to be affected by continuing reviews of defence will not be impaired to some extent. It is for this reason that we have tried to plan as far ahead as possible; and we have also made special efforts to ensure that everybody in the Armed Forces knows about the Governments' policy and how it is likely to affect him personally. As we said in the earlier Statement on Defence Estimates, in February of this year:
"The Government is concerned to settle the size and shape of the Forces for the next decade in a way that will provide the maximum possible stability for men and women who are making their career in the Services."
My Lords, it is in my view unhelpful, and even perhaps irresponsible, to talk as though this reorganisation of the Armed Forces has resulted in some terrible and irrevocable damage to the spirit
780
and the morale of our soldiers, sailors and airmen. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth. Anyone who takes the trouble to read about or, even better, has had the chance to visit, our troops in Aden or Hong Kong, or the British Army of the Rhine—or indeed any station in which they are called on to carry out their difficult and dangerous work—will know that morale in the Armed Forces has in fact never been higher.
Of course, so far as the Army is concerned, anyway, the deployment pattern will alter with the reduction of our forces outside Europe. Of course there will be problems of accommodation for the forces that come home. Of course there will be people who will feel that life has dealt with them hardly and unfairly. But, my Lords, in my own limited experience I have found that one of the chief factors that places the greatest strain on the morale of officers and men in the Armed Forces is not the problem of reorganisation, or even reduction in the size of the Army. It is the business of being asked, day after day, week after week, month after month, to carry out difficult, and sometimes very dangerous, and sometimes very boring, tasks with too few men and too little equipment. It is the battalion commander who has to hold a battalion position with 400 men instead of 600; it is the company commander who has to send out patrols night after night when his platoon is at half strength; it is the section commander laying a jungle ambush with four or five men instead of eight or ten; it is the soldier himself doing guard, sentry and patrol duty night after night and day after day without rest. These, my Lords, are the people whose morale is damaged and who become tired and dispirited and exhausted. This is what has been wrong with the Army for too long. Is has been asked for much too long to do too much with too little.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in his interesting intervention, was worried that there was no mention of foreign policy in the new White Paper. I might point out, of course, that, as the Paper says, it is a Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy and not a new analysis of the situation; and so there was no need to go over old ground. But I can assure the noble Lord that we certainly still regard defence policy as the handmaiden of foreign policy, even though we have not said it again in those terms. The

781
noble Lord, Lord Bourne, spoke at one stage in his speech, if I understood him correctly, of having forces on the spot which could act, as he said, without debate in the United Nations. I believe those were his words. I think that there are the elements of a very dangerous concept in this.
The main element of any intelligent strategic doctrine in the nuclear age must be constant and refined political control over military operations. I think that there is an element in what the noble Lord has said of departure from that conception. He also said that the forces would be withdrawn, but the commitments would not go away. This is just what assessments of foreign policy are about. We must ensure that in the long term, by the very direction of our foreign policy, we do not accept commitments that we cannot afford to meet in terms of economic and political strength. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. If defence policy is to be the handmaiden of foreign policy, then it is possible to ensure that the commitments go away. That is what foreign policy is about, and that is why we tailor our defence forces to meet the requirements of foreign policy.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, I did not make this theory up myself; I took it from the White Paper. The White Paper says that our policy should reach a stage where local people can live without the presence of external forces. I absolutely agree with that, and I thought I said so in my speech. What I disagree with is the next phrase,
"… and thus to allow our forces to withdraw …"
I think that that is a non sequitur and and therefore a contradiction. We could discuss this for a long time, but I am standing on my feet to make the point that I got this out of the White Paper and did not invent it. To withdraw forces, and thus make it impossible to meet commitments, is not the right way. The right way is to forecast a foreign policy, if we can, and we cannot do that twenty years ahead.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, no Government would dream of withdrawing forces so that they cannot meet commitments. I feel that the noble Lord has misread the White Paper. There is
782
no possible element in the Government's policy of withdrawing forces from a territory in order to reduce commitments. We believe that foreign policy must be directed in such a way that we must be able to fulfil all our commitments.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I really must read from page 4 of the White Paper, which says, quoting the statement on Defence Estimates:
"'to foster developments which will enable the local peoples to live at peace without the presence of external forces',"
and goes on to say in the very same sentence:
"and thus to allow our forces to withdraw from their stations in the Middle East and Far East."
That is the point I am taking up.
LORD CHALFONT: Yes, my Lords, I see the point of the noble Lord, but I feel that even though he may have read this passage correctly, he has understood it incorrectly.
LORD BOURNE: I am delighted to hear that.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the logic of the statement is this. A foreign policy is directed in this instance to ensuring that the people of a certain area can look after themselves and defend themselves. If that foreign policy is successful, it will enable us to withdraw troops from the area. This seems to be quite logical, and I am sorry if the noble Lord finds it difficult to follow.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, I do not find it difficult, but I find that there is a very big gap indeed, and I maintain that that gap is still there.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I hope that we shall not follow this too far, but the gap is not there. Many people have missed this point. This Defence Review is aimed at a certain shape and size of defence forces ten years from now, and we are also directing our foreign policy towards the same goal. We hope that, if we are intelligent and God is with us, they will meet. It may be that one day in the future, as my noble friend Lord Rowley has said in his typically compassionate and understanding speech, the world will come to its senses and there

783
will be no more work for soldiers to do at all.
We have said very little to-day about disarmament, which is the other side of the coin of military policy. The noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, who I am sorry to see is no longer in his seat, made the statement—I hope that I have it right this time, but I will confirm it with the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow—that defence policy is about war. Perhaps that is what has been wrong for so long. In our view defence policy, as an element of foreign policy, is about peace. Perhaps if we all realise that, the problems of what we have to do in the next 10 or 15 years may become a little simpler.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I must say that if the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that the world is going to come to its senses, that really is insane. The world is getting madder and madder every day.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, that is becoming increasingly obvious. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. We do not base our policy on the assumption that the world will come to its senses. We hope that it will, and in the meantime we must make the best of a bad job. Until we can achieve disarmament and the world comes to its senses, we, like others in the world, must be able to defend ourselves and our interests. In this the Armed Forces have always had an important and honourable part to play. One of the aims of this Defence Review is to produce a relatively small, but highly trained and magnificently equipped army, and to confront it only with tasks which its strength and equipment are adequate to meet.
There is bound to be regret that in the process of doing this many individual officers and men will have to go. There will be also a deep and real sadness that many famous regimental names will disappear from the Army List. No one can regard this with equanimity. I, for one—and I am sure that I reflect the sentiment of many noble Lords—would like to salute them as they go, but I am confident that when all these changes are completed, in 15, 20, 50 years' time the British Army will still be the same magnificent fighting force that it is today.
7.18 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I think that I should start my remarks with an apology for the fact that I came rather late into this debate. As a result, I was unable to hear the opening speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and heard only the last part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—the last 40 minutes. I hope that the noble Lord will not take too much offence at that mild bit of rudery from an unimportant Cross-Bencher.
I do not often speak about Defence because, rightly or wrongly, I hold the view that ancient and retired Generals—I do not speak of Admirals or of Air Marshals, or even of Field Marshals—should be chary about criticising things that have received the endorsement, or at least the acquiescence, of the much younger men who are holding the top military appointments to-day. But there are two things—and only two—that I want to say about this Defence Paper. Both are political in context rather than military: not Party political, because I am not personally interested in that, but political nevertheless.
The first of them concerns the general scope of the reductions that are proposed. These reductions are drastic, and particularly drastic in the case of the Army. In one sense there is nothing very astounding about that. For as long as I can remember, and much further back than that—certainly as far back as the Battle of Waterloo—our political leaders have always been tempted, immediately the threat of war has lifted, to cut down the Armed Forces and thereby find money for more popular purposes. They have always been tempted to do it, and they have generally yielded to the temptation. I do not suppose that if we had a Conservative Government in power at the moment, instead of a Labour Government, the scope of the reductions would necessarily be very different. But I should hope that the reasons given, and the frankness with which the case was displayed to us, would be rather better than it is in this Defence White Paper.
On reads in the Defence White Paper, paragraph 3 of chapter VI:
"The Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, though reduced in size, will be capable of meeting all the demands that may be made on them."

785
I am not surprised that those words are taken up in the Resolution which has been proposed by the Opposition, because I can find nothing in the White Paper to justify such an optimistic forecast. What I do find in the White Paper, in the preceding chapter, chapter V, is a re-statement of the commitment which the Government made for themselves, that they would reduce expenditure on defence to £2,000 million, at 1964 price levels, by 1969–70. That commitment they are certainly carrying out; indeed, they are going beyond it. But how are they doing it? They are doing it by pruning the troops to suit the expenditure, and by pruning and watering down the commitments and risks to suit the troops.
I fully accept that in the present state of our economy and finance any defence policy must be a compromise. I can agree with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, when he warned us that our expenses must be cut and expenditure on our defence forces reduced. Certainly there has to be a compromise between what we should have and what we want, and what we can afford. But it seems to me that in this Defence White Paper economy has gone a great deal too far; and it may prove to be bad economy. Yesterday in another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer said (these are not his exact words, but I think they are fairly close) something to the effect that this White Paper shows for the first time that British economic policy, British foreign policy and British defence policy are brought into harmony. That may be so. But I maintain that the sum has been worked out the wrong way. You should not start with the money, and then the troops, and end up with the responsibilities; you should, in my view, take it the other way round.
I know very well (and the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, has said this already) that nothing which is said by us, and especially by the Cross-Benchers, in this House will persuade the Government to reduce the cuts which they are proposing to make in the Armed Forces. But I should like to put in two pleas to the Government. I hope they will pay some attention to what has been said by several noble Lords during this debate—by the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, the noble Viscount, Lord
786
Monckton of Brenchley, and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne: that it is not wise to tie commitments round your head for years ahead, and to forecast with apparent accuracy the amount of money you are going to spend on defence after 1971; and it is certainly unwise to forecast the date that you are going to evacuate certain parts of the world which you hold at present. I hope that they will think about this again.
The other matter about which I should like to put in a plea is that the Government should get out of their minds—no; that is not the right expression, because it is not in their minds; but they are trying to put it in our minds—that troops held in the United Kingdom are just as good as troops held on the spot. Of course they know they are not; and noble Lords here know full well that they are not. This is particularly so, I suggest, with regard to the troops in Germany. The troops under NATO in Germany represent a very thin covering force, and they will be required if trouble comes, not in the first few months, not in the first few weeks, not in the first few days, but in the first few hours; and the fact that they are in the United Kingdom renders them, in my opinion, almost useless.
Lastly, on this my first point, the subject that we are debating to-day will, I think, be debated in another place the day after to-morrow. Maybe then—and if not then, a few weeks later on the Yorkshire coast—the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister will be told that their White Paper does not go far enough; that the cuts should go far deeper, and that it is necessary to save more money. Well, in a few days time we shall be celebrating the centenary of the birth of Stanley Baldwin, and I should like respectfully to remind the Government that friends of Stanley Baldwin said to him some thirty-odd years ago exactly the same things: "You will lose support in the House. You will lose the next General Election." But when the catastrophic results of their advice came home to roost, not one of those men lifted a little finger to defend Stanley Baldwin. That is a lesson for all our Prime Ministers.
I now come to my second point. It concerns (it is a pity the noble Lord,

787
Lord Boothby, has gone) the colossal size of the headquarters of the Ministry of Defence. The only reference to this is in paragraph 13 of chapter IV of the White Paper, part of which has already been read to us by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. It says:
"We hope that reductions will also result from the further evolution of defence organisation."
I can assure the Government that they will not—not, at least, unless the Secretary of State for Defence takes a firm grip on a problem which so far he has studiously avoided. The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, said that they are very busy in the Ministry of Defence. I can accept that; I believe that they are very busy. But what they are busy about is not organising the run-down; it is not the planning and the executive operations that are mentioned in the White Paper. What they are busy with is writing letters to each other, consulting each other, and attending interminable committees to reach compromises between themselves.
At the risk of damaging some friendships that I value very much, I feel bound to say quite frankly what is my view on this matter. It is that the time has come to say that we need one Chief of Staff. The Chiefs of Staff Committee, as such, should go. The individual Services need their own heads, just as in the old War Office the various arms of the Service had their heads, directors and administrative branches. That is all quite simple to arrange. But the great principle is that the Chiefs of Staff Committee should go. I have an ugly suspicion that Ministers, of both Parties, do not like this idea. They prefer to have four men to advise them, rather than one. They prefer to have four men whom they can set off one against the other; and they rather dislike the idea of there being one man, who will present one defence point of view, and who will, if his advice is consistently rejected, put in his resignation, which can be very tiresome.
I have no justification for entertaining that suspicion about Mr. Healey, and I am certainly not making this remark in a personal spirit. But I hope that he will get hold of this matter, because it is only he who can do it; it will not happen of itself. The Chiefs of the in
788
dividual Services are good men. They are not trying to hang on to their jobs. But they have been put in jobs to represent their Service; and they do represent it, and they defend it, and they are likely to go on doing so. I do not propose to give my views any further as to how this job should be done. The Canadians have set an example. I believe it is very fashionable to criticise the Canadian organisation. All I can say about it is that it is a great deal better than our own. And it is the Secretary of State for Defence who must grasp this problem.
I do not altogether approve of noble Lords in this Chamber reading out to us long quotations from the newspapers, but I propose to end my speech with a short quotation from an article that appeared recently, by the military correspondent of The Times newspaper. The reason I quote this is that I hope it will show your Lordships that what I have said just now is not merely the opinion of one old fuddy-duddy, but also an opinion held by a highly intelligent young man who has made it his business, and indeed his livelihood, to study precisely these questions. This is what he says:
"Really meaningful economies in the central Establishment may not be practicable, however, unless and until a much higher organisation of Service integration exists than operates to-day. Mr. Healey has consistently postponed or neglected efforts to induce this great integration."
7.33 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, it is not so long ago that there was a debate in this House on the Government's plans for the Reserve Forces. The Government met with no support in any part of the House, and, after reflection, they came back with some modifications. Today I hope again that, since they have not yet met with any great measure of support in this House, they will follow the same course, and think again at least in part about the plans they have put before us.
I am going to be brief and confine my remarks to one subject: the organisation of the infantry and the value of the regimental system and county connection to the Army as a whole. At the start, I should like to say clearly that I believe, and I am sure all noble Lords believe, that the interests of the Army are much bigger than those of any regiment or

789
group of regiments. The majority of our regiments have long been recruited on a county basis, and very deep feelings of understanding, loyalty and affection have grown up, and through the country this has done much to engender among our people a feeling of responsibility for our Army.
A regiment's bond with its county is something much stronger than any feeling it can ever have for a formation or for the Ministry of Defence. It is something too which has contributed indirectly to the strength of all arms in our Army; further, in the reverse sense, because the counties have played a very big part in return in helping with recruiting, not just for their own infantry regiments but for all arms, it has helped with our recruiting effort.
If I may quote briefly from the White Paper, the latest of the three, the one with the brightest of red covers, the Government say:
"Our plans … will bring greater economy and efficiency and, at the same time, preserve the best features of the Infantry regimental system."
Yet it would seem that their first step is to break this county bond in a very large number of cases, and not just in the case of the few regiments listed to disband. I should like to hear more before the evening is out of what we may expect in few years' time, because I think it is fair to deduce from this White Paper that in the not too distant future further regiments will be asked to disband.
I should like to illustrate what I mean from the example of the Light Infantry Brigade. One regiment mentioned by name is to disband; but, in a sense, all will go in the changes, if the new battalions are to be called, as I think is likely to happen, Numbers 1, 2 and 3. I should like to ask here whether this is what the Government mean by preserving the best features of the regimental; system. It seems to me that it is more, accurately described in one of our newspapers as "hacking away at a proud tradition".
We must accept that some areas are naturally much better recruiting areas than others. If you remove from any such area the focus provided by a Regular infantry battalion—something which modern, emasculated Territorial battalions, if they still exist, cannot alone
790
provide—recruiting for the whole Army is likely to suffer. To refer again to the Light Infantry Brigade, the regiment selected to disband is the junior one in the Army List, and there can be no bitterness on this score. But, looked at from the Army point of view, it seems a form of madness to remove the focus from one of the best recruiting areas in the country.
I know that it is not fashionable to-day to talk about large numbers of men in uniform ever being wanted again for war. But, surely, it must be unwise in this world to be too certain of anything, least of all in the field of defence; and whether to-day's thinking is of larger or smaller numbers, we surely still want to draw to the maximum from the areas which have demonstrated that the men in those areas make good and willing soldiers.
Since the Durham Light Infantry—my own Regiment—is to disband, I hope it is not inappropriate for me to pay a very brief tribute here in Parliament. In the First World War there were 43 active battalions recruited in the County of Durham—something similar to the number of infantry battalions in the Army that we are discussing to-day. We were beaten only by Northumberland, our sister county—the future of whose county regiment is also uncertain—who raised 52 battalions. So from these two counties in the North-East of England we raised an infantry force roughly double the size of the total infantry force we are considering here to-day. Again in the Second World War, by May, 1940, there were 8 Durham Light Infantry battalions overseas. If the Government's plan goes forward, there can never again be a Regular Durham Light Infantry Battalion overseas, because there will not be one to go. The name will not appear in the Army List among Regular infantry battalions.
The last thing that anyone in my position—or in the position of other noble Lords whose regiments may be on this list—would want to suggest is that his own regiment should remain and another take its place in the list of those whose fate it is to disappear. But I think the Government have good reason to look again at their whole plan, and particularly where it affects regiments raised from recruiting areas of outstanding

791
value. And I suggest that they should let us know—I repeat this again—more of the scope and scale of the next round of reorganisation and disappearing acts which there is reason to believe will soon be presented to us. In this review they should not overlook the fact that there are still regiments retaining a second battalion.
My Lords, those of your Lordships who have been infantry soldiers will forgive me, and understand my feelings, when I quote two sentences from the Foreword to the history of my Regiment in the late war, written by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who I am sorry is not here to-day. What he says applies equally to many other regiments, but I want to quote it, not only from the regimental point of view, but because it is relevant to the Government's proposals in their White Paper. He refers to:
"the fighting men of this county who excel in the hard-fought battle and always 'stick it out to the end'; they have gained their objectives and held their positions even when all their officers have been killed and conditions were almost unendurable."
Now, when we find ourselves in an awkward place and we look to see what troops are on cur right and left flanks, which is a natural thing to do, it is more comforting to feel that we have an infantry regiment of high reputation on one, or other, or both flanks, than that we should know (to quote from the White Paper) that the
"supporting services are being made more efficient by advanced management techniques and the wider use of computers."
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, my last sentence is again a quotation from the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. At the end of his Foreword he says:
"I hope this story will be read by thousands in the North of England, and they must not fail to tell the story to their children".
My Lords, they will tell the story to their children; and if, when they do so, they feel tears rising to their eyes, as I feel tears rising to mine now, they will have no reason to be ashamed.
7.42 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, as we have just heard from my noble friend
792
Lord Inglewood, this is a painful debate for most noble Lords on both sides of the House. I think we must except the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who seems to be impervious. But it is pain inflicted—and self-inflicted—by the Government supported by noble Lords opposite. Because this country as a whole is to be the sufferer we cannot spare them, whatever sympathy we may feel for individuals, and however sorry some of them may feel, I suspect, for themselves.
One of the ironies of the White Paper is quoted in its true context in the Resolution that we support on these Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, caller it an "odd Resolution". One definition in the Oxford Dictionary of the word "odd" is "singular in merit". I assume that the noble Lord was taking that meaning. Unhappily there are other ironies to choose from, other passages of the Government's own authorship which can be taken down and used in evidence against them.
In the opening words of the Conclusion, on page 12, we are told that the Government
"have been working continuously for almost three years on a major review of defence, revising Britain's overseas policy, formulating the role of military power to support it, and planning the forces required to carry out this role."
What in fact they are doing, at the end of these famous three years, is reducing the hope of a British overseas policy, draining away the military power which would be needed to implement such a policy, and dismissing many thousands of the officers and men who would otherwise be required. The Government, which earlier promised to sophisticate the Armed Forces have now promised to emasculate them. "This Statement", so they say, "marks the end of that process". What a process! Since the major Defence Review was first announced, Defence Ministers have suspended a kind of Sponge of Damocles over the Armed Forces, and over the country which those forces were pledged and prepared to defend. On Tuesday last, a week ago, the Government let fall that sponge. What is bound to embitter us is that this surrender in the ring is being made on behalf of a doughty, experienced and resilient champion by a bunch

793
of jumpy seconds. What has made them so jumpy during the past 17 months?
In the Government's first Defence White Paper, published in February, 1965, it was stressed that substantial forces must be maintained because the United Kingdom had a major interest in the stability of the world outside Europe, in its economic prosperity and its peaceful development—purposes shared with our allies. We supported them in that view. We should be supporting them to-day if they had possessed the courage to stick to that. The British contribution in this sphere—so said the White Paper—was paramount in many areas East of Suez, including obligations to Commonwealth and other allies and facilities at Aden and Singapore. It would be politically irresponsible and uneconomically wasteful if our bases were abandoned while they were still needed to promote peace in the areas concerned. My Lords, most of that is direct quoting from the White Paper, and I do not think that where I have paraphrased I have departed from the sense or the intention of the words used. But what has become of that sense and intention?
Over the course of the next few years (in some cases the next few months) we are to deplete our manpower by one-fifth, and we are to give up our powerful bases upon which we have depended, and still depend, for implementing policy. What is to take their place, unless the Prime Minister has abandoned his once advertised world role? From where, in particular, will our Air Force operate, over the distances which may be involved? I have spoken, during this week, to men of experience and knowledge in this field. They are bewildered and unable to find the smallest encouragement from these pages, and we look for some encouragement from the noble Earl at the end of this debate.
There are signs, but no more than signs, in these 16 pages, of a philosophy of island bases. I had hopes that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, might tell us something more about them. Mr. Healey referred to them as bases in a television interview last Tuesday night. But how are these bases to be developed to fit this philosophy? We have a right to ask. Up to the present, Parliament has only heard of their being required as staging posts. Is there, in fact, an intention
794
to develop them into bases as successors to Aden and Singapore, or was the Secretary of State playing semantics, a game of which I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, speak disapprovingly on many occasions?
I would have listened respectfully had the noble Lord told us that bases less elaborate than Aden and Singapore could serve a purpose in times of crisis, if a lame stock of bombs, ammunition and spares were kept there. I find it hard to see how sophisticated aircraft, requiring sophisticated maintenance, could operate from up-graded "staging posts", but if he had said so I should have been appropriately impressed; and should the noble Earl say so later, I shall be appropriately impressed. With a skeleton staff they would undoubtedly be vulnerable to pre-emptive attack, in a way that our present bases are not. But it would at least help to know that the Government have some such development in mind, and to know what islands they have in mind.
In particular the island of Socotra lends itself, I understand, to new strategic positioning, but there is no clear sign that the Government think of turning it to account. We are due to remain in Masirah for less than 12 months. Looking at the map, seeing the great distances over which our aircraft may have to operate, the mind is baffled to see how they can be expected to do so without our present bases. We are to have 50 F.111s. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has frequently expressed his satisfaction and confidence in this aircraft: a satisfaction and confidence not always matched in the country of its manufacture. But bombed-up, how adequate is the range even of this aircraft, taking into account that it will almost certainly have to fly all the way to its target and all the way back? We shall he very fortunate indeed if "shuttle" facilities are available between our scarcer and scarcer footholds—or wheel-holds, as I suppose they might be called.
I believe it is reckoned that out of any particular force of aircraft, 60 per cent. will be serviceable, 20 per cent. will be in process of major overhaul, and another 20 per cent. will be grounded for routine maintenance. All this means that without any warning we shall have only 30 of our F.111s ready for action, and

795
even with some warning we shall have only 40. Does the noble Lord still consider the numbers are adequate without reducing our commitments to our allies, of which reduction there is in fact no mention in the White Paper? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred to reduced commitments in his speech, and I was most interested, but many of us have read through and studied the White Paper to find what those reductions in commitments may be. We have looked to find and we have searched in vain. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, touched tantalisingly on this matter two or three times. He said the forces would have weapons consonant with the commitments they would have to undertake. He still did not tell us what those commitments might be. In a rather endearing phrase he said they would "go away".
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: They would go away?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I took down his words. He said the commitments would "go away". I listened very carefully because I wanted to hear someone on the Government Front Bench define the difference in our commitments which these new reduced forces would have to undertake, and if the noble Earl reads in Hansard the speech of this noble friend he will find, unless my ears betrayed me, that he said the commitments would "go away".
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid I must have missed that particular expression. My noble friend is such a master of English it sounds too colloquial for his style altogether. Perhaps I may call the noble Lord's attention—not now, while he is in such agreeable full flood—to paragraph 7, which might have escaped somebody less well informed than he is, where distinction is drawn between commitments and obligations. "Commitments" in the modern phraseology, refers to the method of carrying out obligations.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, perhaps this is the only way in which the Government have succeeded in sophisticating defence, because I have not met anyone who understood the meaning of that or thought it defined the commitments which our reduced forces would
796
have to undertake. But I hope sincerely the Government have some means of undertaking these new commitments, despite the reductions and despite the departure from the bases, and I hope they have some idea themselves of what those commitments may be.
I should like to return for one moment to the island bases, because it seems to me it may be that Defence Ministers intend island bases to be fully manned only in times of crisis. We shall then depend on getting aircraft to these island bases. Unfortunately in times of crisis overflying rights may tend to be harder to obtain. We know that during past years possible routes to the Middle East and Far East have become fewer and narrower. We are now immensely dependent on Turkey, and let us hope that Turkey remains the staunch friend she is to-day. But if the readiness of Turkey to help us should diminish, we should find ourselves without fully manned bases beyond the Suez Canal, without carriers in position and perhaps without means of sending our forces to take up station on whatever foothold is to take the place of those we are now discarding. What is the noble Earl's answer? The Government put it in this White Paper here and there a piece of fairly glib reassurance, but what, I ask, are these reassurances backed with?
In paragraph 9 on page 8 dealing with the Royal Air Force we find:
"More aircraft will be concentrated in Britain; the increased mobility, range and performance of the new aircraft make this possible."
Such as which aircraft? It seems to me that this particular reassurance is to be borne entirely and for an indefinite period by 50 F111s. Up to a week or two ago we had hopes that they would be succeeded by the AFVG. Now that hope has melted. What disturbs me is that the F.111s were never intended to be our only mainstay in a long-range strike capacity. The prospect was that they would already be there when the V-Bombers were being phased out; they would still be there when the AFVG was being phased in. Can the noble Earl now say how long he thinks they will, in the event, have this task to themselves? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, implied that part of this task would be taken over by submarines and helicopters—a

797
very small part of the task in very special and very favourable circumstances. The noble Lord added himself that helicopters have a purely short-range capacity, when he was slightly "smoked out" by my noble friend Lord Watkinson.
In paragraph 10 we are told:
"Major decisions about future equipment for the Royal Air Force have already been announced, and the first new aircraft of the large-scale re-equipment programme are already coming into service."
Such aircraft as are coming into service are owed to the Conservative programme, and, upon my honour!, it requires a strong ingredient of gall to print such a statement a bare few weeks after the project upon which Mr. Healey had set his heart and based his whole philosophy had been dealt a possibly mortal blow. We are told that:
"As a result of the French Government's decision to withdraw from the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft project, we are authorising British firms to carry out a project study of a variable geometry combat aircraft to a modified specification."
Modified in what way? Do not let us forget that the AFVG was not only to be a replacement for the V-Bombers, as suggested in paragraph 10, but also for Lightnings, Phantoms and Buccaneers. Which of the capabilities are being dropped in the modified version if it is ever built?
On a more hopeful note, I should like to wish the Government good fortune in their efforts to bring other European nations into a new project. Germany has been mentioned. It could be that some of the Benelux countries would like to take a technological hand. But the Government must expect to meet some doubt as to their real intentions in this respect, when we see a 22 per cent. cut in Air Force personnel by 1975. Who is to man and maintain this new aircraft, if it is ever built?
Cuts in men and weapons appear to signify military abdication of our world role. This has been said frankly, and I repeat it frankly. The cut of £30 million in research and development in one year corroborates this but carries it beyond the military field. It is recognised that something like 70 per cent. of the fruits of such research and development eventually finds its way into civil industry as a whole—the electronics industry is a valuable example—and, of course, a great
798
deal of this habitually goes into export. Developments in what is called "miniaturisation", the reduction in size and weight of important components, have been widely and valuably employed in civil industry. The Government actually pat themselves on the back for this cut, saying that it
"will free scientists and technicians, and other resources for civil work".
But to whom will it free them? With whom will they find employment? Do the Government really feel sure that they will stay in this country after their efforts have been derogated by their country's leaders? Ministers would not be wise to bet on this.
All the brash and unwarranted complacencies contained in these pages are epitomised and pinned upon the Order Paper in our Resolution. How can the Government say at the end of such a document that the mutilated forces, deprived of the weapons and bases on which they depend, will be capable of meeting all the demands that may be made upon them? Clearly, the Government have not calculated either those possible demands or the forces which may be required to meet them. What in fact they have done is to place an intolerable strain on the men and the equipment with which they are to be left. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe said they would be stretched to breaking point, and that is another more descriptive phrase. Nobody who knows Mr. Denis Healey or those noble Lords opposite would suppose that such would ever be their intention. But I must say that we should feel more sympathy with Mr. Healey over these mishaps and setbacks and crippling disappointments if he did not on each and every occasion appear to be so stupendously pleased with himself. It is one thing never to be discountenanced by failure; but to shrug off, as he does, every blunder and rebuff with a self-satisfied snigger is apt to exasperate every well-wisher he has.
The genuine reasons for this mutilation of the forces are clear to everyone—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was almost frank at one point as to one of them. There are two distinct and separate pressures, both demoralising, to which Defence Ministers have surrendered. On the one hand, we see a Government stultified by their own incompetence in handling the economy. On the other, is the

799
spectacle of a Government and a political Party flinching from their own limp, pink backlash. The effort to justify this depleting of power in any other way is a preposterous waste of time of worthy and frustrated men. This touchingly ostentatious, proudly trumpeted major Defence Review ended last Tuesday, not with a snort but with a snigger.
8.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, this White Paper has been criticised (to use no stronger word) for the most part upon two grounds: the ground of what it says, and the ground of what it does not say. I myself, on the whole favour a third ground: that it says what it does not mean and means what it does not say. As a simple example of this, I invite your Lordships' attention to a remark which occurs at page 5, familiar enough by now, describing how we plan to withdraw altogether from our bases in Singapore and Malaysia in the middle 1970s. It says.
"The precise timing of our eventual withdrawal will depend on progress made in achieving a new basis for stability in South-East Asia and in resolving other problems in the Far East."
Perhaps noble Lords on the other side will tell us how they are getting on with the Chinese.
My intention, in which I invite your Lordships to join me, is to concentrate chiefly on the reorganisation of the infantry, dealt with at page 15, beginning with the reductions to be made in the infantry regiments of the Regular Army. This matter has been referred to by noble Lords before, but it is necessary to remember that these reductions and reorganisations are based on a Statement made by the Minister of Defence, Mr. Healey, in another place on 11 May, just two and half months ago. I would add, if I may, a detail or two that I think has not yet been mentioned, as follows—and I quote from Mr. Healey's speech:
"I am glad to confirm that battalions will retain their existing names."
I should like to make it clear that this new organisation does not affect the separate identity of the individual regiments.
"Regimental and battalion identities are not affected by this regrouping."
My noble and gallant friend Lord Thurlow has remarked on this particular
800
matter in connection, I think, with the Welsh Brigade. For convenience, I will consider the Lancastrian Brigade which is mentioned on page 1. Here we find that the Loyal Regiment (North Lancashire) Brigade is to be reduced by that one battalion. In the next sentence we find that it is to amalgamate with the Lancashire Regiment to form a new regiment. My noble friend asked the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, what this meant. He received some kind of explanation. But it appeared to me to be no explanation at all, because the noble Lord said that the two battalions which were to amalgamate—that is, the Loyal and the Lancashire—were each to retain their separate identities. If they are to retain their separate identities they will remain two battalions, even if they add up to one regiment. Therefore, the brigade itself will still consist of three battalions. But it says at the beginning that the brigade is to reduce by one battalion. So that is clearly nonsense; it makes no sense whatever.
It could make sense if we were to suppose that the Loyal Regiment and the Lancashire Regiment were to amalgamate, and were to some extent to lose their identities, either the one or the other, or both. But we have in the Statement of the Minister of Defence a promise that that is not to take place. Therefore, I put it to your Lordships that under this paragraph—and the case of the Welsh and Mercian Brigades is similar—there is no reduction at all; otherwise, the thing is not making any kind of sense whatever. In other words, either this does not say what it means, or it does not mean what it says.
Immediately above this we have the Lowland Brigade from which is to disappear the 1st Cameronians, of whom my noble and gallant friend Lord Thurlow has spoken with extreme kindness. To a certain extent I take this as a personal matter—not because this is my own regiment, but because I served with it, on attachment, throughout its Chindit service in General Wingate's Special Force in Burma, and so I feel this more than some people. The Cameronians are to go. So also are the Lancashire Fusiliers, the Durham Light Infantry, the York and Lancaster Regiment and the Royal Irish Fusiliers. At the risk of repeating what has been said before, I will say that the 1st

801
Battalions of these regiments are the regiments themselves; and the regiments are now going. I think it was the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who drew attention to the fact that thanks are seldom offered to the regiments when they disappear, and no apology is made for their disappearance. This is happening here, and I feel strongly about it. If these cuts are to be made, whether necessary and wise or not, and a regiment is to be struck out of the Army List, it is reasonable to expect that that should be stated with clarity and honesty. The fighting regiments of the British Army are at least entitled to consideration and respect.
Turning over to the last brigade on the list, the North Irish Brigade, I must here declare an interest, because my own regiment, the Royal Ulster Rifles, forms a part of the Brigade, and the other two regiments I know well enough to think of as friends. This particular Brigade has the distinction of having been throughout most of the post-war years—although I am not sure what the position is now—the best recruiting brigade in the Army. In fact, the record of this Brigade is such that it has been able to provide recruits for other brigades. I know from my own observation, through my own branch of the British Legion, which is in the City of Cork, that even down there, at the far end of the Irish Republic, there is still an interest in the regiments of the North, and there is a steady trickle of recruits into these regiments.
What has happened to the Brigade now? It is to be joined with two divisions to form the King's Division. There are five of these divisions, all with new names. Their names are all worth noticing, perhaps. The Queen's Division—excellent. The Prince of Wales' Division—splendid. The Scottish Division—accurate and descriptive. The Light Division—good. But the King's Division! When regiments such as the King's Own, the King's Royal Regiment or the King's Royal Rifle Corps were given the Royal prefix, this was a mark of honour. There was a King upon the Throne, and the regiments knew exactly whom they were being named after. But who is the King now that this prefix has been put at the head of this orphan of a regiment, when we have a Queen upon the Throne? I call it an orphan of a division, but in
802
fact it is a bastard of a division, if I may say so. Consider the other two brigades which are to make up its composition. They are the Lancastrian and the Yorkshire, two fine brigades. I dare say this was a good arrangement. The Wars of the Roses were over some time ago, and there is even a regiment called the York and Lancaster Regiment, which wears both the red rose and the white. Conceivably, the counties from which the men are drawn being contiguous, this is a reasonable arrangement.
Then, as the third brigade in this division, comes the North Irish Brigade. It is hard to say that this is a contiguous brigade. It is separated from the other two brigades by race, nationality, country—they even live in a different country—language and sea. It is very difficult to see that this is a convenient grouping, and one wonders what sort of a division one is to get when this is done. There is no argument that the North Irish Brigade is an extremely good one. It is small compared with the brigades, and smaller still compared with the new divisions which are to be formed; but it is a special thing of its own, on the other side of the sea, in another country: it is a viable formation, and has been for years. On grounds of economy only, it is to be transplanted, or else it is to stay where it is, in which case the sea wilt run through the middle of the division, which is unusual.
Presumably its brigade headquarters and its training depots are to be uprooted and planted in England. What roots, then, does the brigade have in its own country and among its own people? Or are the headquarters to be allowed to remain in Ireland? And in that case what is the point of the amalgamation with the other two divisions? I may be told that it is too small to remain on its own, and that it is only a brigade. I say that this is not so. This is where the trap comes in. It is too small because the Royal Irish Fusiliers have been disbanded, and with their disbanding there disappears from the ranks of the infantry of the line the word "Irish", an honoured name—but I will not go into that.
In conclusion—I think I have said enough—I would refer to one more point in regard to this tongue-in-cheek document, or perhaps I would now call it this

803
"double-talk". On page 4 it refers to the so-called grand strategy:
"… as our friends and allies outside Europe build up their own forces, the most valuable contribution we can make is the sophisticated elements which they might find it difficult to provide for themselves."
Once it was, "Send us the tools and we will get on with the job". Now it is, "You get on with the job and we will send you the tools". So dawns in England, pallidly, the day of the Pragmatic Man. I beg your Lordships not to be deceived by that double-talk with which the document is sprinkled: and I do not think your Lordships will be deceived. This is not a strategic document at all; it is an economic document.
"It is not our defence needs which are directing our defence policy. In the main it is cost—it is money and economics. It has been emphasised everywhere that if one is directing a foreign policy according to one's purse it is almost certain that the policy will be wrong".
So said our present Foreign Secretary in another place on March 6, 1962. Dressed up in its brave red jacket and labelled Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1967 this document is in fact essentially nothing of the sort. It is not even a statement on non-defence policy. It is a report on the repeated and continuing failures of the Labour Government to safeguard our interests, responsibilities and obligations. These failures rest in their turn on the ineptitude which has squandered, I will not go so far as to say our honour, but at least our cash.
8.15 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I apologise for being slow on to my feet. I also apologise for having been late in arriving in this Chamber, and for not hearing some of the earlier speeches. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I speak as briefly as I can, because I think that the situation which this Supplementary Statement reveals is now becoming so serious that something must be done about it. There is one heartening thing about the Statement, and that is that it does at least acknowledge that we have a commitment and an obligation. I did not quite gather what the noble Earl the Leader of the House meant by the differences as they are stated in the document—"Outside Europe", as is said in one of the sections. I would question very
804
seriously whether we have made any attempt to provide ourselves in the post mid-'70s period with anything that can undertake either a commitment or an obligation.
It is perhaps first worth observing what we have to do. Surely our great task is to preserve stability in the world. If we do not do that, or at any rate contribute our share to securing stability, all the social services which we may think up will be non-applicable. We shall have no chance of using for any other purpose the money that might be saved by cutting down the forces, because there will not be any money there. We are already beginning to see what happens when we start to withdraw. Our oil is seriously threatened, and for what we all know to be quite specious reasons. The reason why this sort of situation has come about is not that we lack the forces, but that we lack the resolution to use the forces which are at our disposal. This is a very solemn situation, and it will get worse. If they do not feel there is anything to prevent them doing so people may create trouble around the world, where our trade must go on to enable us to live. This is fundamental.
How are we to prevent this? Looking at the White Paper one sees that we are to have some naval forces which will operate outside Europe. This is heartening, because it is perhaps the first time that a clear definite policy has been stated as to how the country wants its Navy to be used. However, as we see it is going to be very difficult for them to realise this. The White Paper goes on to say that we are moving out of our main base in Singapore at a stated period, and it also says that we hope to have other bases out there, but without being specific about them. Surely it is most unwise to declare where you are going from before you have confirmed where you are going to. Surely also it is difficult to see how we can have bases which cover the world in the way they have done heretofore from which to operate.
It is neither popular nor desirable for us to have more than a few bases among the islands of the Indian Ocean, which restricts greatly the area in which they can operate. Nor, I imagine, is it popular or generally acceptable for us to have other bases other than in the Continent of Australia, which also puts us very far from

805
where we might have to operate. But if these facilities become available to us they will enable us to do a certain amount of operating of aircraft and, possibly, a certain amount of placing troops.
One gets the impression from the Supplementary Statement that we are relying, as it says, and as was said in earlier Statements, on our friends giving us provision in time of whatever facilities we need on the spot. Just examine this, my Lords. When we have moved out of all the bases which we still possess and, perhaps, have the odd island in the Indian Ocean and a base in Australia, are we going to be sure that our friends, even when they require us, are going to commit themselves to taking the ponderous weight of our land-based forces, both air forces and land forces, into their facilities? I suggest to your Lordships that it will probably turn out that they will hesitate before they do that. After all, countries do not like having large bodies of people who are not of their own race, and they will put off asking for our assistance until it is too late.
Surely the best way of helping these friends of ours, and of ensuring the stability which is so vital to us, is to have forces which we can base at sea. The Government may well say that the Statement provides for just this, and it does, with one very important exception; that is, that it does not provide sea-based air power. It says:
"After the last carriers go, the Royal Navy, like the Army, will rely on Royal Air Force land-based aircraft to support it."
The first point I would make is about the Royal Navy being like the Army. I am sure your Lordships would all agree that the Royal Navy is not like the Army, if only because Army officers tend to wear moustaches and very few soldiers are allowed to grow beards.
To be more serious, the conduct of warfare at sea (and this is why this sentence is so very suspect, because it implies that it is written by somebody who has no knowledge of the conduct of warfare at sea) is totally unlike the sort of battles which the Army has to fight on land. The nearest approach to it was the Desert war in World War II. If any of your Lordships have read that most interesting book by the late lamented Lord Tedder, Without Prejudice, which
806
I found to be wholly accurate in every way, you will have seen that in order to make the Army self-sufficient with air support he was continually establishing airfields as fast as the Army could move; and the Navy needs to have its airfields moving with it in the same way.
The document goes on to say—and this shows that some of the people, if not the Government, who contributed to the writing of it understand some of the problems—
"… every ship from frigate upwards will have the most effective capacity for reconnaissance and for surface ship and submarine attack that helicopters can offer".
This shows that the need for reconnaissance, the need for strike—though the Statement omits defence—by seaborne aircraft is appreciated, but it is the best that can be done by a helicopter. This is nonsense. You must have something better than a helicopter can provide.
I am not arguing now specifically for a particular type of aircraft carrier, specifically for a particular type of aeroplane, but that you must have sea-based air power to make your Naval forces comprehensive in order to do the job which the White Paper asks them to do. I would remind your Lordships of what I said earlier, that the amount of air support from shore bases is almost certainly going to be a great deal less than the Government hope for in their wildest dreams. It is just not practicable to assume that everything will fall into place, just because it suits you to have a policy that way.
Several noble Lords have talked about the Army and have said how miserable it was if you were a soldier when you did not get enough support, when you did not get the right sort of weapons, and when you were permanently demoralised—if I took correctly the sense of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, had to say—by this lack of proper support. What will the Navy feel like, when it is invited to represent the Government's policy in the late 1970s without one of the major features of its armament? That, surely, will be demoralising. There is just time to get this right, and I implore the Government, regardless of all the arguments which have gone on, to think again. For heaven's sake, think!
8.27 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I was not going to inflict myself on your Lordships' House to-day, but last Saturday I attended a certain occasion in the City of Plymouth at which it was very apposite that the subject of defence should be brought up. I should like first to say that Plymouth is very worried about its future position from the Navy point of view, from the Marines points of view, and from the point of view of the whole defence set-up. I met there a man whom I had last seen in Australia, many years ago, when he was serving on the liaison mission and I was in intelligence at Army Headquarters in Melbourne. I mention this because he spoke to me—and it is a feeling which I myself have had for some time—of the utter shame he feels, as do a lot of other people I know, about the behaviour of this country in withdrawing from various places, and particularly from Singapore.
When we consider the casualties, percentage-wise, of Australians and New Zealanders in the last three wars fought on behalf of this country, to the West of and aroud Suez, if the Government then turn round and say to them, "Right, we will remove ourselves from the only position which will give you an adequate defence", which is Singapore—and Singaporians do not want us to go—to my mind it is most ungrateful. It seems also that the Government have not learned the lesson of Malta. I was interested to hear a reference to the negotiations about a possible base in Australia. I should like the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government to let us know how far negotiations have gone. I do not pretend to be absolutely up to date with all my old Australian friends, but I know that many of them were taking the line, "Why, if you are going to treat us like this, should you now take for granted that we will give you a base in our country?". I thoroughly understand that point of view. That may be because I was born there.
Just over a year ago I was flying in a; small aircraft down from Bahrein to Muscat, and I sat alongside an educated Iraqi businessman who went into great detail as to what would happen to the Gulf area if we withdrew our presence. He prophesied that at least five countries would try to fill the vacuum. I mention
808
these things in passing, because it seems to me that it is not just "old Blimps" who are advocating that we maintain our responsibilities to the world. To me, it is dubious morality to withdraw from, say, Singapore until Australia and New Zealand are fit to take over themselves. I heard a remark on this subject from, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to the effect that anyone who has studied any intelligent feasibility projects of this sort will realise that, with such a coastline as Australia has, and with their population, it is very difficult, to say the least, to do it; whereas it would be a different matter for such a country as our own. We have our defence on the Rhine, and, naturally, they would like a similar defence line in that part of the world.
I also think it is dubious morality to dodge our responsibilities and commitments so as to keep up our own standard of bread and circuses. I do not know about the rest of your Lordships, but in my particular business my insurance runs out at about 8 per cent. of my gross income. I am under-insured; but I would say that surely a country which has any self-respect should be prepared to pay the equivalent of 8 per cent. of its gross national income in keeping up its commitments. I cannot understand the logic of those who were the most vociferous in wanting to support Israel east of Suez, or bomb railway lines in Southern Rhodesia, but who then are the most strenuous advocates of fleeing from, say. Singapore. Perhaps it is supposed to facilitate entry into the Common Market.
My Lords, I just wanted to make that particular point, I suppose because I was horn in Australia. I know that many Australians have been over here putting their views to the Government, and I know what many of those views are. I should like the Government to say what arrangements they have made. They talk rather airily about them in the Paper. I should like to end by quoting, if I may, what a famous admiral once said. This was the admiral who, in 1910, said to Sir Maurice Hankey:
"The war will come in 1914, and Jellicoe will command the Grand Fleet".
When he was visiting Smyrna a gentleman was complaining about the actions of the British administrators, and so on,

809
in turning a friendly country against them. This admiral could not refute many of these things, so he turned to the gentleman and said:
"Sir, you must remember, we are a nation of lions governed by asses".
8.35 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, we have had a rather long debate on Defence, and no doubt you Lordships will not welcome any irrelevance, but I do not think that I should let pass the fact that it has just been announced on the tape that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is to leave his position as Government Chief Whip in this House and is to go as Minister of State to the Commonwealth Office. I think the first thing that all of us would like to do is to congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment, and to wish him well. If I may say so, I think he has done a wholly admirable job in his last position. I think it was the office day, when we were having rather a dispute, that the noble Lord was paid the best compliment that he could have been paid by my noble friend, Lord Conesford, who said that he was an asset that the Government did not deserve. My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, as I understand, takes over from him, and we welcome him very warmly. I assure him that we will give him the same collaboration and co-operation as we have given to his predecessor.
My Lords, we have listened to a large number of speeches this afternoon, and almost all of them have been critical of the Government. It has been noticeable that other than the professionals, there have been only two in support—the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, and those apostles of scuttle, the Liberal Party, led by the arch-apostle, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord: is that meant to be a compliment? We have, after all, pioneered this whole policy, which the noble Lord will discover is the right one.
LORD CARRINGTON: It is not quite so late as that!
My Lords, I think we shall have learnt from these speeches that we have been discussing not so much defence and strategy, and what are or what are not British interests, as a determination on the
810
part of the Government to save money on defence, and to save it without relation to strategy or to current circumstances. For the White Paper takes two decisions. It announces, first, the intention of reducing our total Armed Forces by a quarter by 1975; and, secondly, the decision to abandon our bases in Singapore and in Malaysia by the same date. I want, if I may, to concentrate on those two factors, and in particular the factor of the abandondment of the bases in South-East Asia.
It is, as I understand it, the Government's firm intention to be out of Singapore and Malaysia by 1975. I have a very shrewd suspicion that when the White Paper was originally written there were no saving clauses, and that there is no doubt that it was at the instance of both the Americans and the Australians—particularly the Australians, I think, for I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has said—that the words about carrying out the reduction more slowly or more quickly, and so on, have been inserted. But the fact remains that no Government spokesman has or would or will dare to get up and say that it is not the firm intention of the Government to be out of Singapore by 1975. There would be such an outcry from his own supporters if he did so that he could not face the music.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to say that I am one who will stand up and say that it is not the Government's firm intention? It is to be in the mid-1970s, within the conditions as set out in the White Paper.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am just coming to all that. The noble Lord must not jump up too quickly, because I do not think he will find what he has just said to be very convincing in the light of what I am about to say. One must ask oneself why the Government have chosen this particular moment to announce these two decisions. It surely cannot be that they are convinced that the situation in the Far East or in the Middle East is potentially less dangerous than it was a year or two years ago. The impartial observer would surely have thought the reverse was the case. Although the Indonesian confrontation is over, the Vietnam war still continues; and all the evidence

811
that can be deduced from China's activities tends to show that she is becoming more, and not less, aggressive. She has detonated her first megaton weapon; and riots of a serious nature have taken place in Hong Kong. The whole of the Middle East has been in a state either of war or of uneasy peace for the last many months. Yet the Government have chosen this moment to announce that they intend drastically to reduce East of Suez.
One really must ask oneself, Why?—and, of course, the answer lies in the internal politics of the Party opposite; or, at least a part of the answer lies in the internal politics of the Party opposite. There is a large body of opinion in the Labour Party which is totally opposed to expenditure on defence. Many Labour M.P.s have tasted the fruits of some of the economic measures that the Government introduced last July; they see unemployment rising; they disapprove totally of the wage freeze; they are keen at any cost to increase the material benefits under the Welfare State, and they are not prepared to see defence expenditure running at the level it now is. And the Government have felt obliged to take note of this feeling. One of the main reasons for the introduction of this White Paper is that the Government need to take account of the opinion of their Back Benchers in the House of Commons—because we are given no strategic reason for these decisions, and the White Paper does not even pretend that the defence circumstances, the military circumstances, have altered.
My Lords, in Paragraph 6 of Chapter III of the White Paper, we are told of the reduction in force level to take place in Singapore and Malalysia in 1970 and 1971. Then, in paragraph 7 we find:
"In parallel with these reductions, we intend to change our Far East commitments."
So we read on, anxious to find how these commitments are to be changed, only to find that no change whatever is proposed in the commitments. They remain exactly as they are now:
"We shall continue to honour our obligations under SEATO … We shall honour our obligations under the Anglo/Malaysian Defence Agreement … We shall also continue to make a substantial contribution to the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve …"
These are exactly the same commitments that we have at the present moment. What
812
is happening is not that the commitments are changing, but that our ability to meet the commitments is changing and is being drastically reduced.
To put paragraphs 6 and 7 of Chapter III in plain English, they mean this: "We have decided to reduce our forces. We still have the same commitments, but we shall have to reduce our contributions to honour those commitments because our forces will be smaller." That is not a defence policy; that is not a policy dictated for strategic reasons. Time and again those on these Benches have emphasised that the only real way to save money on defence is to cut your commitments. To cut the forces and pretend still to honour them is just a trick—and not a very convincing one.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it would be unfair to the noble Lord to allow him to proceed along these lines without pointing out to him, as I did to the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, that in that paragraph 7 of the White Paper a distinction has to be drawn between "commitments" and "obligations".
LORD CARRINGTON: Really, my Lords, I think we deserve a little better than that from the Leader of the House. I find that one of the most unconvincing interjections that I have heard in the many years I have sat in this House.
I am tempted to ask why it was necessary to be so specific about the dates of withdrawal from Singapore. What is the virtue of announcing that we intend to leave by the mid-1970s? I should have thought—and many noble Lords have said this—that the experience of making precisely the same mistake over Aden would have taught the Government that announcing, so far in advance, intentions of this kind can have nothing but the most unsettling effect. If we were put in the position of Singapore or Malaysia, or indeed Australia or New Zealand, we should start as from now doubting the capability or the willingness of Britain to honour her obligations.
When we say that we are going to get out of somewhere then, at that very moment, our influence is greatly diminished. We are no longer a permanent factor to be taken account of;

813
other arrangements will have to be made; somebody, something, will take our place. And, as from that moment, influence as well as power vanishes. Why mention dates unless you mean them? What is the point of saying that you are going in the middle 1970s if you then go on to say—and this is the point that I was arguing earlier with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—that the precise timing of our eventual withdrawal will depend on progress made in achieving a new basis for stability in South-East Asia and in resolving other problems in the Far East? Either withdrawal will depend on these factors, or it will not. Why say that it is difficult to predict what the situation will be, and whether this will allow withdrawal, and then predict that it will be in 1975 that this will take place? What possible evidence have the Government that things will be any different in 1975 from what they are in 1972, or 1969 or 1979? Why give these hostages to fortune?
If things went well, if we were able to create a stable South-East Asia capable of defending itself, why should we want to stay till as long as 1975? The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in the last few sentences of the last part of his speech—what I think I might call the Transport House part of his speech—produced out of his sleeve what he seemed to think was a high court card, which was a speech of mine in which I said precisely what I have just said. It is true; but it is equally true that if things go badly we might wish to stay longer. This is not a case of staying when we are not wanted. Both Lee Quan Yu and Tunku Abdul Rahman have made it clear that they do not wish us to leave—and this not only, in Singapore's case, for economic reasons; although no doubt this must play some part in their thinking. But both of them feel that the area will be that much less secure as a result of our withdrawal.
I must say that I find this section of the White Paper wholly unconvincing. For what the Government are seeking to do is to appease their Left Wing by a firm announcement of withdrawal and at the same time to comfort our friends and allies by seeking to reassure them that withdrawal will take place only if circumstances permit. I am sure they will succeed in doing neither of these things. The Left Wing is clearly still not
814
satisfied, and the Australians and the Americans, in spite of the polite and gentlemanly words with which they have clothed their reactions, are deeply disillusioned at what they see as an abdication of British responsibility. No wonder my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, at the beginning of his speech, quoted some sentences of Mr. Healey! I want to repeat them. Mr. Healey, on February 3, 1966, speaking in Canberra, said:
"We have no intention of ratting on any of our commitments. We intend to remain, and shall remain, fully capable of carrying out all the commitments we have at the present time, including those in the Far East, the Middle East and in Africa. We do intend to remain in a military sense, a world Power … It would not make any military sense at all for us to leave Singapore unless we had to … From every point of view I think it is in our interests to stay in that part of the world as long as we can do so with the consent of the local people".
If I were an Australian, I should not think much of Mr. Healey or place much reliance in anything he says in the future.
My Lords, at the end of this section we are told that even when we have left Singapore and Malaysia we cannot assume that we shall never again have to use our forces in the Far East. But the White Paper says:
"We do not need to settle the precise character, size and deployment of this capability now".
There is a defence policy for you! The only thing the Government have firmly decided to do is to get out. But there is no need, they say, even though British interests may be virtually at stake, to decide how to protect them when they have got out. Really! The Government must take us for simpletons if they expect us to swallow that. The answer is that it will be almost impossible to honour our commitments East of Suez unless we are prepared to plan on the build-up of a maritime capability. For how else can we operate in that area?
Even if airfields with the required sophisticated equipment were available, anyone who has knowledge of the complication of modern weapons knows—and this point has been made already, in a very powerful speech, by my noble friend Lord Watkinson—what time must inevitably elapse before aircraft can be operational from a base which does not have the supplies and backing necessary for the maintenance of

815
that particular aircraft. We no longer live in a time when it is possible just to fly an aircraft to an airfield and operate it at once from that airfield, without backing and without planning. To a lesser degree this is true of the Army and the very diverse and varied equipment which even the smallest of military formations requires to fight a modern war. My Lords, I do not believe that this can be done wholly from the air. I do not think we have the physical capacity necessary to supply even a comparatively small force for a short time, and I should not have thought that was in our capability.
Any continuation of British power or presence in the Far East must depend very largely upon the Royal Navy and the proposals put forward in the White Paper for the Royal Navy are, from that point of view, totally inadequate. We read that after the last carriers go—this was the point made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone:
"the Royal Navy, like the Army, will rely on Royal Air Force land-based aircraft to support it."
I must say to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who I understand is to reply, "Go and tell that to the Marines—but take your tin hat when you do". How is the Royal Navy going to be supported in the Far East by land-based aircraft when there are no land bases? And how can the Royal Air Force be expected to carry out this additional task when we are told that the front line is to be reduced but that all the other roles are to stay?
My Lords, I say again (I have said it so often that your Lordships will not be in the least surprised to hear it) that any British presence East of Suez is dependent on the Royal Navy, and for that presence it is essential that the Royal Navy should have air power of its own. The term "aircraft carrier" is emotive. It immediately conjures up in the minds of its opponents hundreds of millions of pounds spent on comparatively few ships. It may well be that this is not the sort of ship that we can any longer afford, but there are other ways in which air power can be deployed from the sea. And instead of writing nonsense like paragraph 3 in chapter IV of the White Paper, the Government should be exploring those different ways of finding air power.
816
I do not want to talk for too long but the other day I had luncheon with an overseas friend of mine who had not visited this country for seven years. I asked him what his impressions were. He said this. "I find a very odd atmosphere, and I am very puzzled. You have lost an Empire, through no fault of your own—indeed, it is greatly to your credit that you have converted it into a Commonwealth of independent nations. You have had since the war grave balance-of-payments difficulties, largely not of your own making, and due in great part to the loss of your Empire, and neither of these two things is at all discreditable. Yet you seem to spend the whole of you, time running yourselves down; saying how bad you are at everything; what bad things you produce; how wrong everything is with your country; how lazy you are and how incompetent, and how you do not matter any more." He said, "I am puzzled by it, because none of these things is true. But you are making them true by your insistence and your constant reiteration of them, and you are beginning to believe that they are true."
I think that there is a lot of truth in what my friend said. If we wish to be a great nation; if we have confidence in ourselves; if we feel that British interests are at stake; if we feel that we have some service to perform in the interests of the peoples of the Free World, whether it be in Asia or Africa or Europe, then, provided we really do want to do that, we can do it. Perhaps it may be necessary to make some sacrifice; to postpone an increase in the material benefits and to reduce the expenditure on the Welfare State to a rate less than would have been possible if our total income had been spent entirely and directed entirely at ourselves and on ourselves—though I am doubtful whether any country that is totally inward-looking and concerned only with its material welfare will, in the end, remain prosperous: it is more likely to degenerate and decay. I continually read in the newspapers and ill the writings of members of the Party opposite, and I hear in their speeches, what a good thing it is that we have at last abandoned our pretence to be a world Power; how little we count now; how much better it would be if we minded our own business in our own little Island, and left the

817
affairs of the world to those who really matter. The implication is, of course, that, provided the Americans protect us, what does it matter what we do? Let us take advantage of their strength and their generosity and grow fat, if we can, regardless of our solemn promises and the commitments into which we entered freely.
My Lords, I reject that attitude, and I reject it absolutely. I do not want to see Britain and British power deployed in the Far East just for the sake of prestige or nostalgia for the past—far from it. If there is no need for it; if we are not wanted; if there is a stable Asia or a stable Middle East, let us by all means remove ourselves. Nobody wants to spend money on having a big Navy or a big Air Force or a big Army just for the sake of show. But that is not the truth of the matter. There is no suggestion, even in this White Paper, that British troops are not necessary. There is no defence of the proposed cuts on military or strategic grounds. No one in the whole of this debate has suggested that the Forces are too big for what they may have to do. What we are being told is that Britain can no longer afford to spend 6·5 per cent. of her gross national product on defence. Why? If it is necessary, we should afford it; and if our economy had been expanding, instead of stagnating, there would have been a possibility of a reduction in that percentage. After all, many other countries do as much, and some do more. And an examination or comparison of Britain and NATO countries' defence forces, expressed as a percentage of the male population, does not show that our efforts are greater than others—rather the reverse.
Why is 5 per cent. of the national gross product the figure which the Government have chosen? Well, my Lords, we know the answer to that. As soon as the Government took office they decided to limit our defence spending to £2,000 million (the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, brought this out), at 1964 prices, unrelated to military needs or commitments. They are continuing down that road. I believe that that is the way to lose all influence and to lose all power. That is the way to offend and dishearten your friends and your allies.
818
That is the way to make this country negligible and of no account.
My Lords, I believe that this is a White Paper written by men of limited horizons, of no vision—"Little Englanders"—and I hope that when the Amendment is taken your Lordships will demonstrate to the Government, and to anybody who may read an account of this debate, that there are those of us in this country—I hope the majority—who do not accept such a policy; who believe that Britain has a role to play in the world; who believe that British interests in the Far East are vitally at stake; who reject this flabby document and are prepared to stand up and be counted.
8.59 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the Leader of the House replies to the attack which has just been launched on the Government by the Leader of the Conservative Party here, I should like very sincerely to add my congratulations to those of my noble friends to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on his new appointment, for which, if I may say so, his international experience and Commonwealth background eminently qualify him. On the other hand, we shall be losing a very good Chief Whip; and, speaking as a former Chief Whip, I would say that it is a breed which ought to be preserved and not lightly dispensed with. We wish him well in his new post. I personally should like to thank him very much for the many kindnesses he has shown to me as a new Member of your Lordships' House. We shall look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, the new link through the usual channels, and we will give him the usual co-operation.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I know that everyone for whom I speak will wish me to thank the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Byers, for the characteristically generous and, I know, completely sincere things they have said about my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and for their congratulations to my noble friend Lord Beswick. I believe that Sir Winston Churchill used to refer to Professor Lindemann, later our friend here Lord Cherwell, as the half of his brain. My noble friend has been half of my brain—many people would say the

819
better half. It will be a colossal loss to us all, and perhaps most of all to me. I would submit one proposition about my noble friend which will be acceptable everywhere: that he has conceived his duty to be directed to the House as a whole. Of course he has had to look after his own Party in a special way, but he has acted always in the way he conceived as to be in the interests of the House. There can be few Members who have been in your Lordships' House regularly for some time who do not owe him some little kindness or consideration, of which the facts would not be known.
I should like to join with the noble Lords in their good wishes to my noble friend Lord Beswick, an old colleague of mine in the Ministry of Civil Aviation and in these later days a Minister who has earned the respect of the House by his firm and studious contribution to debate. I feel sure that he has the makings of a Chief Whip in the Lord Shepherd manner. Though they are different men—I do not know if the House is aware of that—I think that in the performance of their duties, they will turn out to be very similar, and I cannot pay my noble friend Lord Beswick a higher compliment than that.
I listened with close attention, as always, to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I am reminded of what Sir Winston Churchill said about Mr. Shinwell during the war. He said that Mr. Shinwell possessed only one handicap as Opposition Leader: he was so happy that he could not conceal his happiness when things went well for Britain and his unhappiness when things went badly. In other words, he was so dedicated a patriot that he was not always the ideal critic of the Government. I am sure that that is generally true of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. But to-day he made a much more partisan speech than usual. I hope it will not go to his head. He got such tremendous applause he might be encouraged to make a few more speeches like it. I am afraid he would lose the reputation, to which I am sure he attaches some value, for objective statesmanship, on our Benches and other Benches outside his own rather closely serried ranks. Though we like this sort of thing from him occasionally, we hope it will not be his invariable practice. May
820
I take one point that showed he was not quite at his usual level? In twenty-odd years I have heard many cheap gibes about the Liberals, but I never heard a cheaper one than that delivered to-night to loud laughter and applause.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I plead guilty to being a "scuttler" in much the same sense in regard to land bases in foreign countries as the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, and I believe also the Shadow Tory Minister of Defence.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I have the noble Lord's support in the defence of the Liberal Party that I was seeking to offer.
LORD ST. OSWALD: As a fellow scuttler.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I proceed? Noble Lords opposite had a good say earlier. As I was saying, when the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, permitted himself to break out, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, took tremendous credit from the fact that all the Conservatives here had supported him. He found the Labour people against, and the Liberals. But that does not bother him. He felt sure that anybody who knew anything about it—in other words, the Conservatives—were on his side.
LORD CARRINGTON: The Cross-Benches.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: We had some Cross-Benchers who were critical, but some of them were gentlemen of Conservative temper. Not all; I do not say that of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, but I do say it of others. The noble Lord must understand a little more about the Labour Party, about which he became a little bit obsessed to-night. There is not some sinister group called the Left Wing which dictate to us here.
A NOBLE LORD: The Right Wing.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: We have the Right Wing represented here; that is certainly true. I really must ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to believe me when I say that this is the right policy. The noble Lord shoots me a quizzical look as though I should have what is

821
called my head examined. I can only say to him that as chairman of a great bank, if he, in his capacity as a banker, found a customer trying to live at this rate beyond his means, he would not lend him much more money. So I would ask him to take off his Party hat and put on his banker's costume and then he would pay much more attention to the economics of this problem than he showed in the course of his speech.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, why is it beyond our means? We were spending over 7 per cent. of our gross national product until quite recently, and now it is 6·5 per cent. Why is it beyond our means?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I was going to develop that at some length, but since the noble Lord challenges me, I would give him a simple answer. The expenditure on defence in which our Conservative friends landed us was one of the main factors in the record deficit in 1964. I shall come to that, but perhaps I shall be allowed to proceed. I can assure the noble Lord that I will come back to the Tory Party, if I do not go on too long, but I shall not have a very great deal to say, because there is not a lot to be said for it.
I must be allowed to say a few words about the economic position and background. I apologise to noble Lords whose speeches were not covered by either of my admirable colleagues and who have waited to hear me reply in detail, but I shall have to answer some of them by letter. Some interesting points were raised during the latter stages of the debate, including the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, that we should have only one Chief of Staff in future, which seems to me to be not a secondary point but one of importance. All these points will be carefully studied.
We have been told that this White Paper (or Red Paper) would get a poor mark at the Staff College. I do not know much about the Staff College, unlike my noble friend Lord Chalfont, who graduated from the Staff College with distinction, as I am sure did the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow.
LORD THURLOW: Without distinction.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Without distinction. Then my noble friend did a little better. All I know about the Staff College, since the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, has been quoted, is that when I was Under-Secretary of State for War he took me there—I suppose technically I took him, but anybody who knows the noble Viscount will realise that he took me—and on that occasion he finished his address to the Staff College, pointing at me, as follows:
"Never forget the politicians. They are our masters, and it is up to us to lead them up the garden path."
That is what the noble Viscount thought of politicians in those days. So we must be careful about our great technical Service chiefs, bearing in mind that the rest of us here—and I suppose they, too, in their later years—are politicians, acting on behalf of the country and trying to take a broad view of things.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others will, I am sure, forgive me if I concentrate on the economic side, bearing in mind that my noble friends Lord Shackleton and Lord Chalfont have dealt with most of the professional issues raised. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in our last debate, said something with which I agree. I was hoping in this last speech to find something with which I agreed, but if there was anything, it escaped me. But on May 2 he said something which can surely be accepted by everybody. I now quote the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, just to give us a starting point for a consensus. He said:
"After all, defence is but a means of implementing foreign policy, and there can be no successful foreign policy which is not based on the economic strength of the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2/5/67; col. 827.]
That is surely the starting point of the whole subject. The objective stated by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, of building up an unshakable economic base, is again, and must be, common to us all.
I should like to emphasise a point on which my noble friend Lord Shackle-ton touched; namely, that this is not a selfish aspiration. The truth is that if we are going to be of any use to anybody in this world we must pay our way. Solvency is a condition not only of our own security, but of our playing any part

823
in the world. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made an old-fashioned, jingoistic, imperialist sort of speech about our role and about our being a great nation. The question is whether you can be a great nation and bankrupt at the same time. I must commend that to the noble Lord, as a distinguished banker; and I intend to labour this point, as it has a great deal to do with this debate.
Let us look at one or two facts. Some noble Lords, and even my old friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge, to whom I always defer whenever possible—and it usually is—seem to me to have come very near to the heresy of saying that you have to decide what your tasks are and then decide whether you can pay for them. The noble Lord shakes his head; I have misrepresented him, and I apologise. But a number of noble Lords gave that impression. To use the expression of my old friend and master, the late Lord Beveridge, when asked if we could afford the Beveridge Report, he always used to say: "We cannot not afford it". That would be true about the basic minimum safety of this island.
But if one looks at the duties that we can perform in aid of other countries, we have to ask ourselves which we can afford. I would point out—and this did not seem to be much in the mind of the House—that defence expenditure has varied greatly in recent years. Naturally, it fell after the war until about 1950. Under the impact of the Korean War it increased in real terms by about 50 per cent. between 1950 and 1953. From then on it fell steadily until 1959. Then you find it rising again, until when we came into office it was still a lot higher than it was in 1950. The proportion of the national income devoted to defence at the time we came into office was of the order of 6½ per cent., compared with just under 5 per cent. pre-war. I should like to stress that to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Before the War, in those Conservative days, we spent just under 5 per cent. of our national income on defence. If the noble Lords says: "Why 5 per cent.?", we are working back, if you like, to the standard which was found adequate then.
An aspect that I should like to bring out for the benefit of the noble Lord,
824
Lord Carrington, has been the increasing proportion of this expenditure which has been incurred overseas—and as he is an overseas banker of distinction, he knows all about this kind of thing. One has to be a little careful with statistics, but I would point out that in 1953 the Government's military expenditure overseas net was only £140 million, but in 1964 it was of the order of £250 million; it was well on the way to being double. The item of £250 million is an absolutely crucial item, and I need hardly point out that it was about a third of the record deficit which our Tory friends left us in 1964. There was a tendency to have a little good-humoured jeering when I said that it had something to do with the deficit. It had a great deal to do with the deficit of 1964—here it was, £250 million.
Just for the sake of "old-timers", if there are any present, I may point out that before the war the overseas Government expenditure—they could not separate, apparently, the purely military expenditure; this was a larger figure than the military expenditure would have been—was £16 million. You can multiply that by three, if you like, or a bit more, and say that it is £50 million to-day. That is taking other items—diplomatic items, and so on—besides military items. I am only trying to bring out the fact that this figure of £250 million, which is where we, so to speak, started from when we came in, for overseas military expenditure, was not only nearly twice as much as the figure had been eleven or twelve years earlier, but several times as much as the pre-war figure. So people really must not assume that, because we found ourselves with an expenditure of £250 million, therefore, if we were going to be patriotic at all, or look after defence, or honour our ancient traditions, we had to go on spending this £250 million overseas every year. So we have had to take action.
But it is fair to say at this stage: "Well, you have been trying to cope with these problems, with the White Papers and Defence debates, and all these steps and so on. Why is it there has got to be this further development?". And that I should like to answer quite clearly and definitively. The explanation is quite simple. From 1963 onwards—you might

825
say, from the Budget introduced by Mr. Maudling in 1963—the experts advising our Government, and the Governments themselves, formed the opinion that we could manage a growth rate of 4 per cent. a year. When it was announced by Mr. Maudling elsewhere it was widely applauded on all sides—I am not deriding him in any way for that—and it was applauded by myself here, I well remember, in quite a long economic speech, among more notable speeches. Of course, the Conservatives tried very hard to live up to it, but they left this record deficit. I am sorry to keep mentioning it, but it comes into all these calculations. At any rate, it was a big factor—the attempt, no doubt, to get to 4 per cent.
We took up the tale, and we tried to get the 4 per cent.—it came in our National Plan—and we have decided that in fact it is at the moment impossible to achieve this 4 per cent.; and I think there is general recognition that 3 per cent. is the most that either we or anybody else would get at the present time. So if anybody wants an explanation why we had to scale down Defence in this new White Paper—Red Paper—the candid answer is that calculations have now been made, which I should think are generally accepted, to the effect that we shall not get the 4 per cent.; we must rule out that possibility, and must be content with 3 per cent. And, surely, nobody in this House, even a fanatic, will say that if we reach this conclusion that 3 per cent. is all we can get, that would not have any effect on the Defence budget. I will not stop to ask, but I do not imagine that anybody would seriously say, "Well, the 4 per cent. or 3 per cent. is no concern of ours; we are going to insist on this expenditure, whether we go bankrupt or not". Hence the economic proposals, which have been explained already elsewhere and to-day—when I say "the economic proposals", I mean the proposals for curtailing expenditure.
I would just point out that if you leave out West Germany, where our aim is to achieve the full offset of our costs, we plan to reduce the expenditure on our Forces overseas from the estimate of £192 million for 1966–67 to about £120 million a year in 1970–71, and subsequently to £60 million. Leaving out Germany, where we intend to cover costs, the figure would come down from £192
826
million to £60 million. I say that that was an essential duty which we are seeking to perform, and anybody who just laughs it off is not taking the fortunes of the country seriously.
It has been already explained that, to take the full budget, we are aiming to bring down the Defence budget for 1970–71 from £2,100 million to £1,900 million, and by the mid-'seventies to £1,800 million. I would repeat that, by 1970–71, the expenditure on Defence will still be just below 6 per cent. of the gross national product, which is still a good deal higher than the pre-war figure. I want to keep repeating that to noble Lords, some of whom, I think, will be hearing it for the first time.
My Lords, I do not want to take up a great deal more time. I must say a few words about the Conservatives. I am afraid one can only say that they are showing themselves completely evasive in regard to the main Defence issue. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was rather more candid, if I may say so, than those who speak for the Party elsewhere, but it appears that if you take the House of Commons spokesmen for the Conservative Party, they are totally split. The Sunday Times last week-end described them as "fundamentally divided on defence". Mr. Powell is referred to as wishing to withdraw into purely European defence; Mr. Sandys as wishing to retain Britain's traditional defence posture. Certainly Mr. Powell, who I know is a man of courage and scholarship, is something of a phenomenon in this role as defence spokesman. So far as I understand it, he does not agree at all with the propositions which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has unfolded. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, shakes his head. Unless he contradicts me and says that Mr. Powell would agree with his speech, I should find that impossible to believe.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do contradict the noble Lord, and I think Mr. Powell would agree with every word I have said.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord can hear from the derisive hoots that very few people in the House believe that sentiment. I am

827
sure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, believes it himself, but it is clear that in the eyes of the Sunday Times and many commentators there is understood to be a deep division at the top of the Conservative Party in regard to East of Suez policy.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Earl said that my remarks received derisive hoots. Has it occurred to him that noble Lords might have been hooting at him?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, to be absolutely candid, it had not. I will bet the noble Lord any sum he likes to a bad sixpence that they were in fact aimed at him. So that clears up that little issue. I wish that the graver topics could be disposed of quite so happily.
The Conservative Party dare not go forward with any defence policy because of this fundamental split. Everybody knows about the split—it is not discreditable—and everybody knows that Mr. Powell is an eccentric—some people say an eccentric of genius, but you cannot retain a man as defence spokesman if he is an eccentric of genius and then put forward a coherent defence policy. Nobody to-night, except in a shadowy way, has told us what the Conservatives would spend on defence. Mr. Powell himself was asked this. People kept getting up and asking "Would you spend a larger proportion?", but all he suggested was that they should look at some earlier speech or at his record in the First World War, or something like that. It was a long way back. He was not going to answer that one; so it does not lie in the mouths of noble Lords opposite to come forward and pour scorn on our defence policy, because they have not got a defence policy of their own.
That explains to the Conservatives why their Motion does not commend itself to us. Their policy is a vacuum. There is not very much you can do with a vacuum. You cannot argue with it—that is quite true. But you can despise it, and I hope that everyone who shares the views I have been expressing will throw out the Motion with contempt,
828
by voting for this Amendment. I do not want to end on quite that note, in view of the fact that this is the last speech in the last general debate in what I think we can all agree has been a very fruitful year for the House of Lords. There is a genuine difference here. I think that anybody who reads the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Chalfont (they need not take my own, as I have been in so much of a hurry) will see that here is a difference which cannot easily be glossed over.
Nevertheless, I believe that we in this country are more unified in regard to some of the fundamental questions of policy than ever in the past. In the old days, there was a cleavage between the imperialists and the "Little Englanders", and, in one form or another, between those who loved the Army and those who disliked the Services. These cleavages are now finished. There is general attachment to the Services throughout this House, and, with very few exceptions, throughout the country. We are all as one, of course, in our fundamental patriotism, and I hope and believe that we are all at one in seeking to promote a different sort of international society from any we have yet seen—a subject on which the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, spoke with such authority and, I thought, so movingly earlier to-day.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday—and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has quoted it to-day:
"I claim for the Government that the new defence policy published last week will for the first time during the coming years bring into harmony British economic policy. British foreign policy and British defence policy."
That is what he stated, and I hope that I may add:
"and bring into harmony all these aspects of policy with the fundamental moral aspirations of our people".
My Lords, I hope that the House will vote for this Amendment.
9.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 85.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gifford, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Amherst, E.

Granville-West, L.

Raglan, L.

Annan, L.

Henderson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Beswick, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Rowley, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowles, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Samuel, V.

Brown, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Segal, L.

Burden, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Byers, L.

Lilford, L.

Sorensen, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Summerskill, Bs.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Wade, L.

Darwen, L.

Mitchison, L.

Walston, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Moyle, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Derwent, L.

Milverton, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Digby, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Albemarle, E.

Effingham, E.

Mountevans, L.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Moyne, L.

Auckland, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Barnby, L.

Fleck, L.

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Redmayne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Boston, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bourne, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brecon, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hacking, L.

Salisbury, M.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Buckton, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sempill, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Somers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Inchyra, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strange, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Thurlow, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lambert, V.

Vivian, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mar, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Watkinson, V.

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L,

Wolverton, L.

Denham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
9.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to express my grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and my noble friend Lord Longford for the kind words that they have said. I have been Chief Whip now
830
for some time, both on the other side of the House, which I enjoyed particularly—nothing is better really than making the life of the Government miserable—and as Chief Whip for the Government. But there is one thing that has never altered; that is, the generosity and the good humour that has prevailed on all sides of the House.
There are some who wonder how the House of Lords can possibly work without a Speaker. There are some who

831
would like a Speaker. I would not want a Speaker, because it is the wonderful friendship and the give-and-take which exists on all sides of the House which makes the House work. It is the one factor which makes the life of a Government Chief Whip possible. I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for a wonderful tour of duty, and I hope that they will extend the same spirit to my noble friend Lord Beswick who will be taking over from me. I thank you all very much indeed.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL BILL
9.39 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is twofold, and both purposes are to remove anachronisms. The first clause of the Bill in effect removes the requirement that Greenwich Hospital should seek the approval of the Treasury in each instance when making certain investments of its capital. Some years ago the Treasury, in line with modern practice, agreed the terms of reference and composition of an Advisory Committee of experts in the field of finance and property. The Comptroller and Auditor-General noted on the Hospital's Accounts for the year 1962–63 that the Treasury had agreed for a trial period that their approval need not be sought for individual investment transactions, and that in doing so they had regard to the Department's intention to seek amendment of Section 40 of the 1865 Act at the next convenient opportunity. Thus the first purpose of the Bill before the House is, instead of the provisions of Section 40, to put a new provision that the Treasury, for these investments, shall prescribe the source from which the Hospital and the Secretary of State shall take advice, rather than give the advice in each instance themselves.
I am certain that noble Lords will agree that this is a much more sensible procedure. It has, in fact, been working since 1962, and from my own personal experience I believe it has worked well.
832
I should like to take this opportunity of repeating the tribute paid in another place to the Advisory Committee, which has advised the charity so wisely for no other reward than an occasional lunch. We are grateful to them.
The purpose of Clause 2 of the Bill is to remove another anachronism. This is the waste of Parliamentary time occasioned by the enactment in 1885 of a requirement that the Estimates for the current year shall be laid before Parliament and be submitted for approval by Resolution of the House of Commons. When moving the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy claimed for Her Majesty's Government that they were finding time in 1967 to stop wasting time.
The case for repealing Section 3 of the Act of 1885 is based entirely on saving Parliamentary time. No money is voted by Parliament when these Estimates are presented. The Hospital is required by the Act of 1865 (Sections 47 and 49) to place the accounts of the Hospital before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days after completion of the audit by the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the accounts will continue to be presented. Parliament would not, of course, be deprived of its right to exercise supervision over the affairs of Greenwich Hospital. Ministers would answer questions in both Houses as required.
In the course of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy gave an undertaking that a copy of the Hospital's current estimates in future years would be made available in the Library of the House of Commons. A copy will similarly be made available to the Library of the House of Lords. The bulk of the Hospital's income is expended on the Royal Hospital School, and the present arrangement whereby Members of the House of Commons, from the Government and Opposition Parties, serve on the School's management committee will continue.
The possibility of Greenwich Hospital producing an annual report on its activities has been examined. The Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation, under the provision of its 1903 Act, makes an annual report to Her Majesty, but the Treasury Solicitor's advice is that it

833
would be inappropriate for the Hospital (which is not required by its Acts to produce any such report) to do so. This is because Ministers of the Crown do not produce annual reports on the exercise of their statutory or prerogative functions, and the government of Greenwich Hospital is vested in the Secretary of State for Defence.
The Greenwich Hospital Acts lay down the specific objects on which the funds of the Hospital may be expended, and in each case provide that regulations made under the Acts shall not take effect unless and until they are approved by Her Majesty in Council. Nothing proposed in this Bill alters in any way the legal obligation of the Secretary of State to obtain the approval of Her Majesty in Council to regulations established from time to time under the Greenwich Hospital Acts, which are amended in minor degree by this Bill which is before this House to-day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the purposes of this Bill, which seem to be entirely acceptable and entirely helpful. I understand, in the first place, that it will give statutory form to what is already the present procedure with regard to the disposition of funds. May I join with him in thanking the advisers who have given their advice in such an honorary capacity? Secondly, I understand that this is going to save Parliamentary time, in that no longer will it be necessary to place annually before Parliament the accounts of the Hospital. Thirdly, I understand that questions can still be asked both in this House and in the other place about the affairs of the Hospital, and therefore the Bill seems to be entirely satisfactory to Parliament in every way and an advantage to everybody. I have much pleasure in giving it my support.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received; Bill read 3a, and passed.

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL CO-OPERATION SCHEME 1967
9.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON) rose to move, that the Draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme 1967, laid before the House on June 28, 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government's policy on co-operation was set out in the White Paper, The Development of Agriculture. We now propose to stimulate co-operation, as outlined in that White Paper, by establishing a Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, and by a new, comprehensive scheme of grants. The main powers were granted in Part IV of the Agriculture Act 1967. The name of the chairman of this new Council and the details of the membership of it were announced in another place last week, and I hope that the Council itself will be set up quickly. I join with others in welcoming as chairman Mr. Roger Falk, and thank him for taking on yet another and very important public duty. I am sure that he will be most successful in this task. The approval of this Draft Scheme completes the powers necessary for implementing the Government's policy, and I hope that your Lordships will give it your support.
I shall not go through the provisions of the Scheme in detail, but there are just a few points which are worth mentioning. Paragraph 4, for example, sets out the rates of grant. Paragraph 8 provides for the Council to deal with applicants for grant through intermediaries, such as the central co-operative bodies, and to reimburse them appropriately. I should also like to deal with two particular points which seem to have given worry to some people. The first of these is the fear that grant aid under the Scheme will result in the widespread development of small marketing societies, to the detriment of existing societies. I can assure your Lordships that the Government have no wish whatsoever to see this happening; and for my part I see no reason at all to think that it will. But this does not mean that independent group marketing may not in some circumstances be desirable for some commodities.
Equally, we must bear in mind that if we get the development of co-operation in production which we desire, the members of the co-operating groups will wish to ensure that their, production is geared to meet the needs of the market. Their production plans may have to be changed in order to do this; and also, of course, they will want to receive the full benefit for their successes. But it should not be assumed—indeed, there is no reason at all to assume—that such producers will withdraw from the existing co-operatives of which they are already members. I know that a number of the larger multipurpose co-operatives want this type of co-operation between producers and welcome anything which leads in this direction. We have been in consultation with the Agricultural Co-operative Association and other central co-operative bodies to see how these co-operatives can be helped under the Grants Schemes to develop such group activities within their existing organisations. Finally, on this particular point, may I remind the House that the administration of the Scheme will be in the hands of an independent and responsible Council? I am certain that the Council will act in the best interests of agriculture co-operation generally.
My Lords, the second point which has worried people concerns grants for cooperatives pioneering in new aspects of co-operation. This has been set out in sub-paragraph 4 of Paragraph 4 of the Scheme. Some rather extravagent comments have been made which have suggested that the Government are proposing to subsidise wholesale competition with existing marketing organisations and to make good financial losses, no matter how hair-brained a particular scheme may be. It is perfectly true that there are exceptional powers which may be used for a particular marketing venture. But what we want primarily is cooperation in production. Normally, grants for such ventures will be no higher than those for other schemes; but there may be occasions when the ordinary run of grants are not enough to stimulate good, new ventures which, because of their experimental nature, entail exceptional financial risk. That is why these special powers have been given. But
836
I can assure the House that the use of these powers will be very rare.
The sort of case I have in mind in which they might be used is one where co-operating producers undertake a new venture that would result in the whole pattern of their farming having to change in such a way that it would be very difficult for them to return to their earlier systems if the experiment proved to be unprofitable. Of course, we hope and believe that the possibility of failure is very remote; because, already, the Council would not recommend grant aid for new ventures of this kind until they were satisfied that it had a good chance of success. What is more, they would always be keeping these pioneer activities under very close supervision, and they would not simply allow them to start without paying any attention to them thereafter. I am certain that we can perfectly safely leave the selection of these projects and their supervision in the hands of a responsible body.
There is one other point that I should like to make, and it concerns the future of AMDEC. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in paying tribute to the work which this Committee has done and, in particular, to the part played by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, as Chairman of the Committee. That part of the work of AMDEC concerned with co-operation will become the responsibility of the new Council when it takes over the administration of the grant scheme. There are differing views about the amount of work left for AMDEC but, fortunately, we are not in any great hurry: we have a certain amount of time left in which to consider the matter, because the current scheme does not expire until March of next year. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has told me that he hopes he will have an opportunity of discussing the future of AMDEC with Lord Nugent of Guildford in the autumn, and I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to fit in some time in which to do so. So there is, as I say, plenty of time for these discussions, working out in the future, and tied in with AMDEC and the new Council, before the existing Scheme expires.
Finally, my Lords, a word about the date on which the Scheme will come into

837
operation, if it receives the approval of both House of Parliament. Paragraph I provides that it should come into operation 28 days after it is made. We are anxious, of course, that this should be as soon as possible, but the new Council must have time to organise its affairs and to look round, so that it can administer the Scheme efficiently. We shall consult the Council about the actual operative date. For that reason, I cannot tell your Lordships now the proposed date when the Council will start work, but I hope that it will be before the end of the year. This Scheme, in conjunction with the promotional and publicity work of the new Central Council will, I am quite sure, be a real stimulus to co-operation, both in agriculture and horticulture, and of genuine assistance to all those engaged in the operations which are likely to benefit from this type of co-operation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme 1967, laid before the House on the 28th June, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Walston.)
9.56 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for moving this Motion and explaining the scheme so fully in such felicitous terms. May I thank him also for his kind words about my own minor part as chairman of AMDEC, of which I should like to say a few words in the course of my speech. It is perhaps apposite that we should now be discussing, in a quieter atmosphere than during the previous debate, what is ultimately the fourth line of defence of the country, that is, the industry that produces the country's food—agriculture. Here, of course, there is no division of opinion. We all want a steadily increasing home production, and in that context this Scheme has a warm welcome from me, because I am sure that it will make a useful contribution in this field.
Nowadays in the farming industry, as in other industries, developments move very fast, and again, as in other industries, there are advantages to be derived from
838
the sheer size of the unit of production, and not only in production, but in processing and in marketing. Therefore, the encouragement of farmers to form themselves into groups and co-operative societies or private companies under the Industrial and Provident Acts is in every way to be welcomed in order that they may win for themselves the economic benefits of size. It is, of course, as we all understand, in the nature of things that there will always be very large numbers of small production units in agriculture and in horticulture, and if these small producers are to hold their own in the fast-moving competitive world of to-day they should certainly be encouraged to group themselves together and to integrate their operations both for production and for marketing.
I hasten to add that experience has shown that there is no automatic benefit from forming themselves into a cooperative society or into a group. Success depends on two factors, good management, basically, and the constant loyalty and discipline of the producer members of the society or group. With these two factors forthcoming, a group can win great benefits for all its members. During the past five years while I have been Chairman of the Agricultural Marketing Development Committee, to which the noble Lord so graciously referred, we have been engaged in pioneering this kind of development. The group or co-operative activities may be limited to one fairly simple operation, or they may develop into a comprehensive range of operations covering the whole process of production and marketing, and AMDEC, as it is called, has grant aided many kinds of schemes. The simplest kind of operation is where a number of farmers get together to market one particular product—for example, pig weaners or calves. This has happened with many groups in the West Country wishing to sell in their markets in the Midlands and in the East country.
Then there is, at the other end of the scheme, the more elaborate development where farmers have joined together and have integrated production and the preparation and marketing of their products. Of course, by coming together into a group to market the produce of a number

839
of farms, they are big enough then to have a direct relationship with their markets and consumers, to find out what they want and reflect this back into production and to reshape it to meet more precisely the consumer demand, either by breeding different kinds of beef or lamb or growing different varieties of potatoes. In practice, we have found that such co-operative operations, successfully done, can reduce the unit cost of production, and increase the realisation price for the advantage of all. Small producers on their own could not possibly achieve such a result.
As I said earlier, and I stress it again, success is not automatic, and a good deal of expert advice and much patient and hard work are needed to get it. This new Council can give this expert advice and the appropriate grants to help groups of farmers to get going in the right way. In passing, it may be of interest to record that one of the major lessons that AMDEC learned—AMDEC being primarily set up for marketing produce—was that it is usually impossible to improve the marketing of produce without bringing in production as well and reshaping it on the farms in order to get better marketing. It is to the credit of the Ministry's agricultural officials that they have accepted this lesson and made our scheme flexible enough to do it, and the scheme now before us covers production as well as marketing.
May I say that AMDEC was set up after the 1962 Price Review by my right honourable friend Mr. Soames, with a £1½ million grant in order to get it going. It was actually set up as a committee by the three National Farmers' Unions of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think it is a notable credit to the enterprise and vision of the three Farmers' Unions that they set it up and operated it successfully. The only sad note in welcoming this new Council is that, with its setting up, as the noble Lord has said, the Minister has decided to transfer to it all the work which AMDEC now does in connection with cooperatives and groups—rightly, of course, in order to bring it all into one place; but as this comprises about 60 per cent. of AMDEC'S work it is bound to leave
840
AMDEC with rather an uncertain future, as the noble Lord recognised.
I am still of the view which I originally expressed to the Minister, that the right course was to merge AMDEC into the new Council. This would have had two substantial advantages: first, in avoiding the confusion of having two authorities working in the same field and the danger that only one might be viable, and, secondly, in giving the new Council the benefit of the considerable reputation which AMDEC has won in the farming world, particularly in winning the confidence, on the one hand, of the Farmers' Union world and, on the other, of the agricultural co-operative world. These two sides have not always seen eye to eye in these post-war years, where there has been a certain amount of friction. I think everybody is looking to this new Central Council in the hope that it will bring these two basic sides of agriculture together in friendly harmony. In the event, there are only two members of AMDEC who appear as members of the new Central Council, but I should like particularly to welcome one of them, Mr. John Jenkins, who is the new vice-chairman, and a distinguished member of AMDEC. I know that his great gifts will be invaluable on the new Council. I noted the noble Lord's kind invitation from the Minister to consult with him about the future relationship, and this I am ready and willing to do at the Minister's convenience.
I would add just one other point in commenting on something which the noble Lord said about the fear of some of the old traditional agricultural cooperative societies that the new Central Council might set up a large number of small units. I would join with the noble Lord in saying that I think these fears are unfounded. AMDEC has grant-aided many small groups within the existing agricultural co-operatives, very much to the benefit of both. This, far from having a disrupting effect, has had the reverse effect of strengthening the traditional agricultural co-operatives, which have been much more concerned with the purchasing of agricultural requisites than with the marketing and production side. I would support the noble Lord's comments. I do not think these great agricultural co-operatives need have any

841
anxiety. I think they will find this entirely helpful to them.
For myself, I am entirely concerned to see the Central Council successfully launched and making a valuable contribution
842
to the farming world, which I am sure it will do. I have much pleasure in supporting the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNIVERSITY EXPENDITURE AND GOVERNMENT GRANTS
10.8 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON rose, to ask Her Majesty's Government what ceilings have been fixed for expenditure by universities on furniture and equipment, including scientific equipment, in the financial years 1966–67 and 1967–68 and subsequently; whether the limitation has led to supplementary applications and, if so, to what total amount; whether the universities, particularly the newer universities and Imperial College are more than usually dissatisfied with the limitation, having regard to previous Government intentions and to their own commitments by way of building, the purchase of equipment and the recruitment of scientific personnel; and whether the Government will reconsider the limitation as regards the present financial year and the future.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is late, as I expected it to be. I had to take my chance on that, because I think it right to raise this matter before the Summer break, in the hope that it may not be necessary to revert to it later in the year. I should like to thank all those noble Lords, far more distinguished and more knowledgeable about this kind of thing than myself, who have stayed here this evening. What I have to say comes from two recent letters in the Press to which I shall refer, and from published papers, particularly recent Civil Estimates.
The grants with which the Question is concerned (and I suppose I should formally ask the Question on the Order Paper) are capital grants to provide furniture and equipment for new university buildings or existing buildings adapted to new use. Until recently they were granted, case by case, on applications made by the university concerned, and vetted by the University Grants Committee, with or without assessors. Early in 1965 there began a review of the system conducted by a Joint Treasury Departmental and University Grants Committee. Quite recently, in or about May of this year, a decision was reached and communicated to the universities imposing an overall limit on each univer-
844
sity,in the first place from April, 1967, to August, 1968, and subsequently, I think for the quinquennial periods. I am not concerned with the theoretical merits of this change, but I am concerned with its reception and effect.
Before I come to them, however, a few background facts and figures may be useful. The need for this furniture and equipment arises on the completion of new or existing university buildings which have attracted building grants over the years on construction. These grants are controlled, not by their actual amount but by reference to the total value of the new work to be started, however long it may take. Roughly, therefore, the building programmes represent ultimate intention, and the grants represent progress towards fulfilment.
These building programmes were stated, on January 31 this year, to be £35·1 million in the current year, and £29 million in each of the two years 1968–69 and 1969–70. Those figures represent a slight increase on previous intentions. There has also been a slight increase in the total of furniture and equipment grants, those with which we are concerned to-day. In the 1966–67 Estimates these were estimated at £19 million, but in the 1967–68 Votes they appear for 1966–67 as £21½ million, with £25½ million as the estimated total for the current year, 1967–68. I note, however, that the total of grants estimated for 1967–68, both building and furniture equipment grants, represents not an increase but a decrease on those made for 1966–67. The increase of £4 million in furniture and equipment grants is more than counterbalanced by decreases of about £5 million in building grants and £1½ million in professional fees, presumably in connection with building. I conclude from these figures that the furniture and equipment grants have had to be increased because they were insufficient, but that the increase has been met by decreases in building grants. These represent a slowing up, for the building totals do not show corresponding increases. In the circumstances, I am not too ready to be impressed if the Government say that they cannot afford any further increase in furniture and equipment grants.
Let us see what has happened about the effect and the reception of the changes I have indicated. One finds in the Estimates that the new building in progress, as might be expected, consists of science laboratories and halls of residence for undergraduates. While it is difficult for an outsider to draw detailed conclusions, one would expect two groups, at least, to have special need for furniture and equipment grants. One group is the newer universities, which we are committed to get into operation; another is the special case of Imperial College, which it is intended to develop on what I might call Massachusetts Institute of Technology lines, and which, in addition to other works, has a special building programme of its own amounting to £17½ million.
Let us begin with the newer universities. On July 9 this year the education reporter of the Observer appears to have made a round of the newer universities, and I quote some, but not all, of his conclusions. The heading is:
"University crisis over paying for equipment".
He says:
"The new universities are particularly hard hit. Sussex has no money to equip buildings where third-year biology students are due to be taught. Lancaster, East Anglia and York are said to be in similar straits. At Liverpool"—
perhaps hardly a new university, and I see the Chancellor here—
"there is a new Nuffield building for medical genetics, but no money with which to equip it."
"As one Sussex professor put it: 'Everywhere new buildings and programmes have been stopped because the money promised has been cut off and the money which has been given takes no account of new requirements or existing commitments'.
"For third-year biology students alone, Sussex is £40,000 short. 'We will obviously have to try to teach them somehow,' said the professor, 'but standards will just have to be dropped and they will not get what they came to Sussex for. Instead of giving a fine, up-to-date degree course in biology, we shall virtually have to stick to looking at flies in bottles'."
I should think the grants will cover the bottles.
"Mr. David Allen, Bursar of the University of York, said: 'We are being hit very hard indeed'. As a new university, York has new buildings coming into use all the time. The
846
scientists, said Mr. Allen, will be £100,000 short in the money they need for equipment."
So the story goes on, and they then refer to the difficulty of the rather complicated change I mentioned about the grants system. They say:
"So a ceiling had to be fixed:"—
I think they have the figures wrong at this point—
"for 1967–68 it was £22½ million"—
I think the right figure is £25½ million—
"£1 million more than for 1966–67."
As I have already explained, the apparent increase was more than met by the slowing up of the building programme itself. No doubt the furniture and equipment grants were seen to be insufficient. But I turn from the newer universities to the special case of Imperial College.
The Times used to be called "The Thunderer", and on July 17 there appeared a special peal of thunder, signed by six distinguished scientists and one distinguished engineer. The first name on the list was that of Dr. Hinshelwood, who is an ex-President of the Royal Society, a Nobel Laureate, the holder of the Order of Merit, and one of the most distinguished scientists in the country. The other five were, in their way, just as distinguished, and one cannot really neglect the views expressed by gentlemen of this learning and distinction in the field to which they have, after all, committed their lives.
Having said that, I must admit at once that the letter reads to me like a letter of someone who is exceedingly angry. It was headed, "Promises that are not kept". I do not know who was responsible for the heading, but the letter begins as follows:
"The recent decision to limit university expenditure on equipment grants during the financial year from April 1, 1967, only reached universities during May, when orders had already been placed against grants previously awarded.
"Moreover, this retrospective instruction to limit expenditure applies both to items ordered since April 1, and to those on long delivery covered by orders placed well before April 1, and for which delivery—and therefore payment—is due during the year in question.
"Many universities find themselves in the alarming position of having commitments far exceeding the severe limitations now imposed on them; even more restrictive is the case of

847
those who have new buildings now becoming available and no chance of equipping them.
"As financial plans revolve, one promise after another made by the Government is not kept."
It is the next sentence that made me feel that somebody was in a temper:
"Numerous unfilled commitments are covered up by the lure of fresh targets, with little apparent discomfort to our vote-triggered government administration."
It has a peculiar lucidity of its own. I know what the man means. The letter continues:
"But, Sir, the long term damage is rather more serious when firm arrangements to pay are not met. Public attention must be drawn to at least one instance."
My Lords, I think the one instance relates to Imperial College itself, and perhaps at this hour of the night I need not go into it in any detail. The general point is clear enough. Later on the letter says:
"Appropriate new appointments have been decided and in many cases have been made. And now, by what seems an extraordinary decision, financial outlays fully agreed on both sides are annulled retrospectively."
This letter is signed by seven very distinguished people. I daresay we shall be told they are all wrong, but I think we should like a little further explanation and possibly a little reconsideration. The letter then says:
"In scientific research time does not stand still. … The consequences of scrapping fully pledged capital and human commitments of this kind can be far more disastrous than cuts in current expenditure. Experienced scientists may withstand the lure of the brain-drain when only their own relative affluence is at stake. But they cannot as readily accept rigidity and ineptitude in dealing with financial provisions for creative research.
"In Britain, the smog of administrative disincentives for science and technology is spreading. Seen in perspective, the relevant claims on current public expenditure are quite moderate."
My Lords, the universities do not want nearly as much as the generals do.
"We feel that uninspired and narrowly framed appraisals of this kind of outlay are beginning to team up with administrative disrespect for the old-fashioned virtue of honouring firm pledges. Truly the damage can be severe and lasting."
My Lords, that is very strongly put indeed. I do not know whether, if I knew the facts more thoroughly than I do, I should support it all. But I do ask
848
your Lordships to bear in mind this is not a letter of a single person; not a letter of an irresponsible person. This is a letter by seven extremely distinguished scientists, and, however it is expressed, it sounds to me as if there were something, in fact a great deal, in it. It was when I read that letter that I said to myself "We must get the answer to this, if we can, before the summer break" and that is why I am rising to put my Question so late this evening.
I turn back for a minute—and I have nearly finished. That letter is headed "Promises that are not kept". I do not know how far that particular comment may be justified, but I should like your Lordships to remember that my Part, at any rate, are fully committed to the importance of science and to the consequent support that it ought to be given. On October 1, 1963, before the Election which returned a Labour Administration (the one before this), the present Prime Minister proposed a statement of policy called Labour and the Scientific Revolution, and in doing so he said—and he was referring to Lord Taylor's Working Party:
"They propose and we accept a tremendous building programme of new universities."
He said that one cause of the brain-drain was the failure to provide adequate research facilities and equipment, and added:
"Britain is not so rich in facilities for training scientists and technologists that we can let this brain drain continue."
I am not here to argue about the brain-drain tonight. I simply say that I heard that speech. I am perfectly certain it was absolutely sincere, and I see no reason why this particular comparatively small matter should be allowed to be a hindrance in the way of the ideal that was thus expressed, and in the Policy Statement that was then presented to remedy this situation. Let noble Lords opposite get above themselves. The situation was described as
"Tory stop-go attitudes to university grants".
We must make certain that the "Stop-Go" is not catching. The Policy Statement said:
"to help the brain-drain the first and overriding need is for a major expansion in our universities."

849
They are there, starting now; some of them, indeed, started. The pamphlet continues:
"The Government must make firm decisions at least to double the number of university places in the decade 1965–75: to create, that is, an additional 150,000 places as a minimum programme … and to provide simultaneously the new senior appointments, post-graduate facilities, equipment and building necessary to maintain the quality of scientific research."
Those were good words. They were perfectly sincere, I believe, just as the Prime Minister's speech was. But the moment has now come to consider whether this particular matter that I am raising in my Question is not impeding the progress that was expected.
What is one to say to a man whom one tries to bring back from America to teach in a new university, or to do research work there, and who is told that there are some fine buildings but no chairs and no test tubes; or to someone who, after all, is asked to undertake research work for the universities and is drawn perhaps from some other sphere? We want all the scientists in this country we can get, provided that they are committed men, intent to search for that improvement in natural knowledge to which I think the Royal Society commits its Fellows. These are fine men. They are, I believe, the greatest hope of this country. We heard tonight about the need for international connections. They are certainly needed. This is a widespread field of scientific research, an international field. Are we to slip behind in the race?—we, a country whose achievements in pure science and applied science have ennobled the name of Britain. Are we now, for lack of equipment and furniture, to slip behind? It is ludicrous, I think.
I do not for a moment suggest that there is nothing to be said on the other side about this problem. I am sure that mistakes have been committed. There was the question at one stage of putting in too many applications. There are things of that sort. It will be said that, "The Government have not done so badly". But on a matter of this kind surely the opinion of those who have got to do the job is well worth hearing.
I beg the Government not to dig their toes in over this; to look again to find out what really has happened, and to consider whether the claim I am making
850
tonight is not one that ought to have a high, I would say a final, priority. At this time of the year everyone asks for money—it always happens. But the pursuit of truth, the struggle of a man against the perils and the difficulties of his environment, is surely a noble thing, something which was recognised by my Party, by the noble element in it, in the pamphlet that I read out. I trust that we are not going to hear that the matter has been fully considered by the Department, that it has been considered finally, that we have not got the whole story, and that there is no more to be done.
10.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we on this side of the House are most grateful to the noble Lord for having put down this Question. His tremendously moving sincerity on this matter, and indeed I would say his courage, must command our respect from every part of the House, and it makes one feel that this must not be a debate on Party political lines. I liked what he said about the pursuit of truth, for I also have been trying to get at the truth; and if I am just a shade Party political at the end I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me.
Undoubtedly the predicament of certain engineering and science departments in our universities is serious at this time. The situation in one department of engineering of which I have knowledge (I will not mention any specific universities in my remarks, and I am not even going to refer to that remarkable letter in The Times, but some of the things I am going to say arise out of it) appears to be fairly typical of certain universities whose engineering departments have been rebuilt or extended, and also of the new universities to which the noble Lord referred, where equipment is now being ordered against grants already approved. To meet the growing demands of science and technology, many fine new buildings have been completed; but the carefully planned supply of equipment to use in these buildings has now been cut off, leaving them partly empty.
Relevant capital budgets were scrutinised and fully agreed with the University Grants Committee many months ago. But now these departments have

851
been stopped in mid-stream from obtaining these carefully planned and often unique new facilities. In the case of one department, I understand, they have had to stop equipping new laboratories at the stage when less than three-sevenths of the fully agreed totals have been obtained or supplied; and, worse still, where orders for complicated apparatus for which delivery is slow were placed many months ago, the result of the unforeseen axeing of the agreed budgets has resulted in capital accounts being heavily overdrawn, through no fault of the departments concerned.
I am told that certain departments in several universities have been equally badly hit; that one new university has stated that it has no chairs or desks for the students who will be coming up for the first time in October, and that in another they are at present short of beds. All universities have, I believe, been caught in one way or another, but the new universities (and the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, will perhaps confirm this) may be worst hit because they have the major outstanding equipment grants. I gather that the University Grants Committee argue that the demands made on universities this year are much higher than their rate of spending last year, and that the ceilings provided are reasonable for normal purposes. But the implication that universities are having an unreasonable spending spree, and that there can be no hardship in slowing down the rate of acquisition of equipment, should, I think, be challenged.
There are many reasons why there should be a big demand this year. It has taken time for research and teaching programmes to build up, because of the preoccupation with rebuilding and increasing undergraduate numbers. In the case of another department, I know that it is only in the last two or three years that they have had time for the staff to get down to designing test rigs and apparatus for the more sophisticated teaching and research purposes, and all these have hit the order books at about the same time. I believe there is plenty of evidence that this is true in other places, too.
The argument that equipment allocations have been improved to correspond to the completion of building during the
852
past session does not seem to me to be reasonable. This is far too short a time scale; and the more sophisticated and expensive items require the longest gestation and delivery time. There is no question of the universities' demanding more money from public funds than has already been authorised. All requests were carefully scrutinised by outside experts. To quote two examples at another university, a programme fatigue testing machine—a complicated piece of machinery—specified four years ago has only now become available; and a special supersonic wind tunnel is only now being constructed, after several years of waiting. Both of these items come up for payment during the period in question. And I believe that there are a number of other examples.
If the original equipment grants were considered reasonable in order to equip the buildings authorised, surely the individual requests could have been added together and a commitment of that order recognised. I am told, too, that no warnings were given that the moneys should be expended by a certain date, and that it may now be the provident and the frugal, who deliberately aimed at getting the greatest value for money, who will be penalised. As your Lordships know, certain universities were invited to increase their undergraduate intake to meet the post-war bulge in the birthrate, and special grants were made for equipment. It is only during this coming session that the greater numbers reach the final year of the undergraduate course, and apparatus is still coming in and has to be paid for.
I do not think the universities are criticising the new scheme of equipment grants. I believe that this will work well. Their concern is with the retrospective decision to limit the rate of spending to grants already made. The worst aspect is that after July next year unspent balances are to be wiped out, without any indication as yet of the magnitude of the new recurrent grants for equipment. It must be very difficult, if not impossible, to plan ahead on this basis. I shall not trouble your Lordships with further specific examples but I know that in one case a Chair which was recently filled, after more than two years searching for the right man, will

853
now be affected. It took a long time to find this highly qualified man, and it was part of the inducement to him to join that the necessary funds were available. It does not look as though it will now be possible at any foreseeable date to honour the offer to him.
I recognise that the old system of linking equipment grants to new buildings may have been inequitable and tended, perhaps, to make the rich richer; and I think it right that as from August next year equipment grants will be linked not to buildings but to student numbers. But this does not resolve the present predicament of certain departments. Clearly, with the new system coming in some departments may have tended this year to draw more money than they might otherwise have done, and this may be one of the reasons for their present quandary. But I gather that in the future in aggregate—and I am glad to hear this and to have had this assurance, although, as I say, it does not altogether meet the difficulties which I have mentioned—amounts granted will not be less than those granted in the past. I hope that the noble Baroness, when she replies, may be able to confirm this.
I think we all recognise, including the U.G.C., that it is the new universities and the ex-CATS, as we call them, that are most feeling the pinch. Some of the old universities have buffer reserves which may tide them over this difficult period, but the new universities have not. Nor, I think, have some of the old. I hope that the U.G.C. will look at these hard cases as sympathetically as possible, but the U.G.C. cannot themselves promise supplementary grants: that is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, and of the Treasury. Indeed, in all that has happened I am not blaming the U.G.C. so much as the Government and the Treasury, who have presumably insisted on these cuts. It is no use crying "Wolf!" (or, rather, "Wolfenden!") in this matter. I believe that Sir John Wolfenden has tried to tackle the problem as best he can. Nevertheless, the present muddle is an unhappy one, and I am afraid that it stems, as in the case of defence, as your Lordships heard earlier this evening, from the total failure of the Government to manage the economy. While I am certainly not blaming the noble Baroness who is to
854
reply for what has happened—I have a great respect and, if I may say so, affection for her—the responsibility lies fairly and squarely on the Government, and I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that. As the Guardian said recently—and this rather confirms one of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison:
"The Government is bound to be warned from all quarters of the scientific establishment which the Prime Minister wooed so assiduously before he came to power"—
and, I might add, since he took office—
"that by making these cuts the brain-drain from Britain may well increase."
10.43 p.m.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, may I entreat the noble Baroness not to listen to any of the blandishments which have just been offered to her by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough? This is not, at the moment, a case in which the universities are in dispute with the Government. It is a case in which the universities are in dispute with the University Grants Committee. The Secretary of State cannot possibly go against the advice of the University Grants Committee when it informs him that this present crisis has arisen because the universities have got themselves into a financial jam.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? Surely he will agree that the overall cuts were the responsibility of the Government, and that the U.G.C. was told that certain cuts would have to be made.
LORD ANNAN: Perhaps the noble Earl will forgive me if I come to that a, little later in my speech.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: Of course. I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD ANNAN: My Lords, all I think the Secretary of State can do at the moment is to wait until the universities make out a satisfactory case, as I believe they can, to show that the University Grants Committee is in error in some of its calculations.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that this is an extremely complicated issue. Last December the University Grants Committee informed the universities that a new system of allocating grants for

855
furniture and scientific equipment would come into force at the end of 1968. At this late hour I shall not go into that new system. All I shall say is that it is really perfectly agreeable to the universities provided that, in the end, the right price tags are put on the articles.
But it is not the new scheme which is under debate at all. What is under debate is the interim scheme which is tiding over the position until the new scheme comes into force. The U.G.C. told universities that they would be making a final payment under the old scheme this year, but they warned them that the cash ration which they handed out would have to cover not only scientific equipment but furniture as well. And then the bomb dropped. The cash ration which the University Grants Committee handed out bore no relation whatsoever to the expectations of the universities. In global terms, the University Grants Committee expected to meet drawings of £22·5 million. The universities had expected to make drawings of over £41 million.
What is the cause of this extraordinary discrepancy? The U.G.C. maintain, so I understand, that it has been caused by the universities making, as it were, a "run on the pound". Equipment grants were naturally increasing annually, but the increase was in the nature of £4 million to £5 million a year. This year, the U.G.C. expected the increase to be in the order of about £5 million. The universities expected an increase of £20 million. Surely, said the U.G.C., there is something "fishy" here. None of their calculations, which were based (and here, of course, I do not speak from any knowledge) I should have guessed, on theoretical calculations based on the phasing of spending, could possibly justify such a staggering increase.
The U.G.C. therefore deduced—and, I imagine, advised the Secretary of State—that the universities were wilfully anticipating the new scheme for equipment grants. They had been buying forward, hoping to get under the net before the new scheme got under way in the autumn of 1968. So if the universities had got themselves into a mess it was only their own fault.
This is not how the universities see the matter at all. The universities are
856
convinced that the U.G.C. has miscalculated the number of new buildings coming into use this autumn; that they have made theoretical calculations and have not had before them the concrete figures of the cost of equipping and furnishing the new buildings one by one. I do not want to deny or confirm that there has been some forward buying of scientific equipment. We have simply not got any evidence on this point—although the Vice-Chancellors are now trying to provide some—but forward buying in itself could not possibly account for this huge discrepancy. The universities maintain that the U.G.C. has miscalculated the number of buildings coming into use this autumn, buildings which have to be equipped and furnished. The Vice-Chancellors are therefore going to go back over the figures since 1958 in order to show how the annual spending on furniture and scientific equipment relates to buildings coming into use.
The Vice-Chancellors intend to draw distinction between buildings for scientific use and other types of buildings, especially those for student residence because some of us believe that the U.G.C.'s calculations are based on a pattern of spending which may be appropriate to the equipping of laboratories but is not appropriate to the furnishing of residential accommodation. Moreover, if I may put one of my own suspicions forward, I am suspicious that the U.G.C. have related their figures to building starts rather than to building finishes. I believe they may also have overlooked the need to provide all the furniture at once when a residential building is handed over. Whereas the provision of scientific equipment can be phased over a period of months, when a new scientific building comes into effect the residential building needs all the furniture at once. It is no good having a table and no chairs or a wash-stand and no bed.
Furthermore, I wonder whether the U.G.C. may not have overlooked the possibility that a lot of capital money for building may have gone into relatively small schemes of adapting, for the sake of economy, old buildings and that these adaptations throw up a very heavy cost for furniture and equipment compared with a relatively low cost for actual

857
building work. Here, again, I think there may be some possibility of miscalculation. As, regards scientific equipment, I find it almost impossible to explain to professors how it is that equipment whose purchase has been sanctioned by the U.G.C. assessors cannot now be bought because another department of the U.G.C. says that it cannot provide the funds.
My Lords, there is no doubt that many universities are in a desperate plight at present. Promises have been made to new members of staff; foreign visitors have been asked and then have had to have their invitations abrogated. New buildings are going to stand empty. It is said that the teaching of third-year students at Lancaster is in jeopardy and that only those universities who have no new buildings coming into operation are in at all a happy position.
The University of London is particularly hard hit, and all the colleges and schools there are getting only half their needs. For instance my own place, University College, has eight buildings and various minor schemes coming into operation this autumn. Our cash ration we are told, is £400,000. The minimum cost for furniture alone for these buildings is £600,000. In addition, we have been expecting another £350,000 for scientific equipment. All this should be known to the U.G.C.—I do not know whether it is, but it should be known to them in detail. We shall therefore have to "go into the red" to the tune of something like half a million pounds, and when our new chemistry building goes up we shall be in danger of that building being left unequipped and unfurnished until we have paid off this backlog.
My Lords, I started by saying that this situation is not the fault of the Government. I hope that I have not suggested that it is simply the fault of the U.G.C. My guess—and I hasten to say that this is only a guess—is that there has been some forward buying of scientific equipment. I also guess that there has been some miscalculation in the U.G.C. But if good relations are to be preserved between the Government and the U.G.C, on the one hand, and the universities on the other (and I may say that these relations are not, on the whole, very good at the moment) I ask tonight that if the Vice-Chancellors make out their case, they will not be faced with a blank
858
refusal, and will be given the possibility of getting supplementary grants. That is all we ask. If it can be shown that there has been an underestimate of funds needed for furniture and equipment, surely it would be a disastrous act of injustice if the situation were not remedied. The Vice-Chancellors must make out their case. If it is made out, I think it must be met. If it is not met, then indeed I think the Government would be in a case of very serious dispute with the universities.
May I remind the noble Baroness who is to reply on behalf of the Government that this is the third occasion this year when the Government have been in dispute with the universities. The first was on overseas students' fees; the second, I suspect—of course I do not know—will occur in a few days time when we in the universities rather expect that the Government may announce that unversities will be subject to inspection by the Public Accounts Committee. If I may say so on my own behalf, I do not regard this as a major tragedy by any manner of means. But here is this third case, and I think it should be taken awfully seriously.
My Lords, I have just come this evening from a most agreeable occasion in another part of your Lordships' House, a dinner given in memory and honour of the poet Horace. Horace, of course, put the case for the Vice-Chancellors most admirably. He said:
"Grammatici certant et adhuc sub iudice lis est".
If I may translate solely for my own benefit:—
"Scholars"—
that is to say, the U.G.C. and the universities—
dispute, and the case is still before the courts".
The case is still before the courts, and I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to give us an assurance tonight that it is not prejudged. If the universities make out their case, and if then the case is not granted that will be bitterly resented and will be regarded as a betrayal.
10.54 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, I know that I am speaking for a very large number of those who work in universities when I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for raising this question.

859
I would emphasise that some of the universities are faced with a quite new situation—a situation that may well create a dangerous climate of bewilderment and disillusionment. This is not a normal, natural complaint that we bring from time to time, that we have not got as much money as we wanted. This is something rather different from that.
To some extent the situation in which we find ourselves arises from a new method of budgeting for scientific equipment which comes into force next year. This is a scheme which may well be admirable for large and established institutions, though perhaps not for all of these. Nevertheless, I think that as the years pass it will be admirable, because it will make it possible for obsolescence to be taken into account. But for a number of rapidly expanding institutions, as matters now stand, its impact can be simply disastrous. The subject is a complicated one and it is easy to get bogged down in figures and details in trying to stretch the neck too wide. Therefore I think that the right line for me is to explain as simply and as shortly as I can what is happening at my own University of York, as a kind of case study. I am sure that what I say will be more or less true of a number of other growing universities.
During the course of the year we have finished, or we shall shortly finish, the following buildings: a large physics laboratory, a computer centre, a language-teaching centre, a large main hall and two colleges which, with us, not only are residential but also have substantial and essential teaching and social areas. Every one of these buildings has been approved to the last pound by the U.G.C. Every one of these buildings has a date of completion which has been known to the U.G.C. for many months. There are the buildings: we have been very fortunate to get them, and we are grateful for the co-operation of the U.G.C. I think it is perhaps the speed with which some of us have been able to build, with new techniques and decent architects, that may have misled those who are responsible for the extrapolations based on previous years' draws of money.
The sum that we have calculated as needed for furnishing and equipping the buildings and completing the courses of
860
our first intake of chemists and biologists, as well as of the physicists now about to start on their third year, is £900,000. By far the greater part of this sum, between 90 and 100 per cent., has been scrutinised and approved by the U.G.C. without reservation of any kind, and in some cases years ago. With that assurance, as only prudent administrators would do, we ordered most of the furnishing and equipment months ago; and the furniture, I am delighted to say, is beginning to arrive. The bill for furnishing the buildings which we have been allowed to build is £900,000. The sum we have been given to meet the bill is £545,000. Perhaps, on the whole, my feelings for the U.G.C. are a little warmer than those of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, because I was a member of it for ten years, and for me it can do no wrong—yet. At any rate, I think that the U.G.C. has done its best. But the position, as I say, is that we have £545,000 to meet bills of £900,000 incurred with the knowledge and approval of the U.G.C.
How do we meet this gap. This is a gap, mark you, not between what we are getting and what in our wildest dreams we hoped to get, but a gap between what we are getting and what we have been promised as reasonable to get by the U.G.C. Faced with this gap, I very much hope that the noble Baroness, when she answers this debate will tell us what she thinks we ought to do. We are, in fact, cutting our plans for further equipment of every kind; and since the point from which we start is the expenditure limits of the U.G.C., this means that in our crowded premises we shall have to fight hard if we are not to produce in some ways a sub-standard university. It means, for example, that it will be more difficult to make our teaching in the sciences as effective as we hope—though I believe that my colleagues will do it. It means, for example, a cut in our programme on working computation. Let me repeat that this is not because we are getting less than was approved for our particular need. It was not a question of hope; it was not guesswork: it was a promise. But cut as we will, delay every demand that we legitimately can, we are still faced with a gap of £140,000. I want the noble lady in her reply, if she will be so good, to say in very simple terms

861
what a new university should do in this position so that I may report it to my colleagues.
There are three alternatives. One can write to some students already accepted and say: "We cannot have you, after all. The accommodation in which you would have learned, slept and eaten is there, but cannot be furnished. Nor shall we have sufficient apparatus for your needs." The buildings are there, but they must be partially empty. The second alternative would, I suppose, be simply not to pay our bills and to wait and see what happened. Neither of these, I think, can we call a practical solution. I am not having empty buildings in our university while there are students who want to be there. We will do something.
But this drives us to the third alternative, which is to try to increase our overdraft. No doubt the noble Baroness will tell us that this is exactly what we should do, as, indeed, it is the only course left. But is it really rational, on any grounds, that money intended for academic purposes—that is, out of current grant—should be used to pay interest on a loan, incurred inevitably, not because we have made a mess of it, but because we have been allowed to build buildings which there is apparently insufficient money to furnish? Is it really the wish of the Government that money intended for education should be spent like this? If it is not, then they really must do something about it. Frankly, I think there are four things that are necessary to prevent the situation from becoming still more chaotic and still more disillusioning over the next few years. The first is a supplementary grant—I know that those words are like a nail, but this is a very difficult situation—to meet the immediate and inescapable needs of rapidly expanding universities; that is, to redeem promises already made. Secondly, we must have an assurance that between April 1 and July 31 next year sufficient money will be forthcoming to meet the inescapable commitments that we are deferring now. We must pay those bills some time.
Thirdly (and this is essential) we must have an assurance that we shall not find ourselves in an exactly similar position next year, when we, for example, shall have yet another college and another
862
large laboratory—this time for biology—buildings which are already rising from the ground, to equip. Sometimes I wonder whether these extrapolations are not based on those archaic universities that still build in stone, and the less archaic ones that still build in brick, and take no account of those of us who have discovered industrialised building. Fourthly, we need an assurance that during the first years of the new system for equipment grants special provision will be made for the items of equipment essential for new laboratories, for which approval has already been given but the purchase of which has been prudently delayed. It would be intolerable if we lost those sums simply because we have not rushed to spend them.
My Lords, let me assure you once again that I am not making a fuss about distasteful economies. It is not primarily economies that we are discussing, for it can scarcely be called an economy to let a building stand half vacant because one cannot furnish it. We are talking about something which I regard as much more important than economies. We are talking about a situation which, if it continues, will simply destroy the relationship of partnership and trust between the Government, the U.G.C. and the universities; and it is on that foundation of trust and confidence alone that we can build the economical, the ordered, the creative academic progress that we all desire.
11.7 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, as a university professor, I feel I must express my deep concern at the consequences of the Government's decision and its effect on the scientific staff of universities throughout the country. I shall be brief in view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that most of my points have been taken up by previous speakers. There is, first, the chaos that has resulted in many university schools from not knowing where the money is to come from for much of the equipment already ordered. I have heard it suggested that the only solution will be to resort to hire-purchase agreements, with the additional expense this must involve. I wonder how the Government would react to this proposal.
There is, secondly, the frustration at being prevented from ordering equipment

863
for which permission has already been obtained, as I know from personal experience. Long-term plans for research have been drawn up and courses of instruction arranged that now have to be delayed indefinitely. Thirdly, there is the unfairness—and I speak from bitter experience—of penalising those who have delayed ordering equipment in order to make sure that it was the most suitable and represented the best value for money, and who now find this equipment denied them. This applies especially to the purchase of the more valuable items, over which particular care has had to be taken. Fourthly, there is the uncertainty as to how the universities will fare, particularly those institutes concerned with higher education and research, under the proposed new method for allocating grants for equipment, with the suggestion, I have heard, that this may be based on student numbers. In my view, this may well have precipitated the flood of supplementary claims that have been put forward. I should like the assurance of Her Majesty's Government that there is no truth in this suggestion.
Lastly, there is the sheer waste involved in building laboratories which must stand empty for lack of equipment, to which other noble Lords have referred and of which I have personal experience. There is in fact another medical school in the building in which I work, on the floor immediately below me, of nearly 9,000 square feet, which has been empty for a year. I feel that if those responsible for this decision were to see some of these laboratories for themselves, they would realise that this simply must not be allowed to happen. Do Her Majesty's Government realise that for many scientists in this country this crippling limitation on the purchase of equipment is really the last straw? How can they reconcile this decision with their stated intention when they took office that there would be a new deal for the scientist, and their oft-repeated concern about the brain drain, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has so eloquently referred?
The effects of this decision are being felt particularly by those centres of higher education which have undergone rapid expansion in recent years and are in the
864
forefront in their contribution to the scientific future of this country. Imperial College, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, referred, and the Royal Postgraduate Medical School, with both of which I am personally associated, are cases in point. However great may be the need for cuts and economies in public expenditure at the present time, there are certain priorities that must not be allowed to suffer as a result, and technological and medical research and teaching in our universities are among them. My Lords, I feel that scientists throughout the country will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for having put down this Question, and will await with the deepest anxiety the Government's response.
11.12 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for raising this matter before Parliament goes into Recess. He has dealt faithfully and vigorously with the matter as it has affected Imperial College. The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, has dealt with it as regards the newer universities, and I should like to direct your attention to the technological universities—that is, the new universities stressing the technological side—and perhaps I may also make some reference to the position in Scotland, for I happen to be a member of the Court of both Edinburgh University and the Heriot-Watt University.
As regards the technological side, I should like to draw the attention of the Government to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Snow, when he was in office, regarding the utter importance to this country of getting ahead with our technology and how far behind we were. He made this remark in one of his speeches:
"If Britain had put one-tenth of the effort into engineering as into the Indian Empire it would now be a very prosperous country: individually more prosperous than Sweden and able to look American technology in the face."
We cannot look American technology in the face yet, but we were hopeful that the dawn was coming, whereby we should get our young men trained and able eventually to look American technology in the face, and get our own industry moving and away from our present somewhat stagnant economy. But that is not to be.

865
The cuts which have come to Scotland seem to be much more severe than those which have been imposed in England. For Edinburgh University, the sum for which permission to spend had been given by the U.G.C. was well over £1 million, and it has been cut to about a third. In the Heriot-Watt University our needs were well over £500,000. The initial cut reduced that sum to £45,000. Going on our knees we got that generously increased, making a total of somewhere about £140,000. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, "Lucky you London colleges that are getting half your needs".
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough made reference to the residences for students which have been built, and, as the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme has said, there is no furniture or equipment for them. This is indeed a serious matter. In the Heriot-Watt University we have two new residences coming in and 100 students already accepted for them. Are we to spend money that we have not got on furniture that we need?
The noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, spoke about overdrafts. Overdrafts, as I see it, are the only possible solution unless the Government take action, and take action very soon. Pruning all possible expenditure and reducing our allowed amounts from the U.G.C., as regards both Edinburgh University and Heriot-Watt, we might be able to postpone in each case somewhere about one-third of our allowance; but, even so, if we are to do justice to our students and to the equipment of our laboratories we should both have to draw fairly heavy overdrafts. It is reckoned that the amount which the University of Edinburgh will have to spend on interest on the overdraft will be of the magnitude of something substantially over £30,000 a year, and Heriot-Watt, a small emergent technical university, will be saddled with an extra expenditure of £12,000 a year. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, the universities simply have not got these resources. Some of them have certain resources, but a new, young technical university never has any resources to draw upon.
Several noble Lords have touched upon how this is going to affect the staffs at the universities. There is one very well known scientist of this country who some
866
years ago was appointed professor to a university in the Midlands. He was able to stick for one year the lack of equipment which had been promised, and he is now the head of a department in Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I understand we have sent a team to the United States to try to wean our scientists and technologists back to this country. I wonder whether that team is going to tell the scientists it is trying to wean back the truth, and the whole truth. It can tell them about the fine new buildings, the wonderful new buildings, that have gone up, a million pounds spent on one of them—and a million pounds may be spent on one university department. But will it go on and tell them the whole truth? —that there is no equipment in the buildings, no tables, no typewriters, no secretary, because the interest on the overdraft has to be paid; therefore there will not be any money to pay for administration.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said that this was an extremely complicated situation. I would suggest that one of the faults underlying the situation is the fact that a little technology needs to be directed into the administration of these university grants. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I would make a further quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Snow, from the same speech from which I have already quoted:
"In the nineteenth century administrators studied Latin and Greek, not for intellectual interest but because that was the accepted training".
I suggest that administrators should now be brought up in the technologies. If that were done, there would not be the gross miscalculation of perameters that has occurred.
Our promises are out to accept students. Are those promises to be honoured in September and October next? We have made promises to pay manufacturers for equipment and furnishings. Are those bills to be honoured or are the orders to be cancelled? The legal position is still that we should have to pay. We have promised to provide adequate scientific equipment for the new departments and for the new professors who are coming to the universities. Are these to be honoured? They can be honoured only by the universities going head over heels into debt. We must incur overdraft if we are to do our job

867
properly and do our duty by the young men and women, and by the nation as a whole. The question that I should like to ask the Government at this moment is, who pays for them? Will they be added to our expenses in the future? Both Edinburgh University and the Heriot-Watt University have approached the same bank. We are both hoping to get generous treatment from that bank. We hope that we shall "rub the nose" of the Government in regard to this most difficult problem. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for giving us the opportunity to draw your Lordship's attention to this point, which is felt, I would say not just in Edinburgh Univesity, but equally in all the Scottish universities.
11.22 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for putting down this Question, and I apologise to noble Lords that it is so late in the evening before we have had an opportunity of dealing with it, and in what I may suggest a sense of anti-climax after the weighty matters of defence. I am most conscious of the fact, that, as Lord Mitchison said, those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate are distinguished and knowledgeable. I am equally conscious of the fact that I have been told even before I have given the Answer, that few of your Lordships will like it. I would merely suggest, just as those of your Lordships who have contributed to the discussion have done so sincerely, that equally sincerely I shall make my case on behalf of the Government.
If we were really a vote-triggered Administration—and I must say that this is a new one—it seems unlikely that we should fly in the face of these various irate university dons, staffs and students. Certainly I should have thought that a vote-triggered Administration would have been only too happy to hand out any money that anybody requested of them at any time; so there seems to be some slight conflict of comment there.
I have been asked for explanation. I have been asked for reconsideration. I have been asked for a pursuit of truth. Therefore I am afraid that I must go in some detail into the existing system
868
and the change-over, partly because some of your Lordships have dealt with some parts of it and some with other parts. I learned to my cost, when I attempted to cut a speech which was rather long on a recent occasion, that the Government were accused of evading. So I shall never make that mistake again, even though it be one o'clock in the morning.
Several words have been thrown about, and had they come from anybody but the academic profession I should have said that they were emotional. We have heard talk of "cuts", of "economies", of "drastic reductions", and of "failure to accept commitments". I should like to remind your Lordships that under the existing system universities may apply to the University Grants Committee for non-recurrent capital grants to buy furniture and equipment only in the case of additional accommodation. As your Lordships may well know, this accommodation may take the form of a new building, or it may be an existing building which is being converted to a new use. But the grants must be related specifically to additional accommodation. They are not available for replacing or renewing or augmenting the furniture and equipment in existing accommodation: to meet those requirements universities must use their ordinary income.
The procedure broadly is this. At the time when a building project is being planned a university applies to the Committee for a grant to cover the cost of the fixed and loose furniture required for the building and a grant to cover the cost of the teaching and research equipment. The Committee, on the advice of panels of assessors, decides the amount of grant which it would be reasonable to make in each case, and notifies the university accordingly. At that stage, the sums of money assessed for furniture and for equipment are not grants in the sense that money is then and there paid to the university. They are authorisations to spend up to a given amount. That amount then stands against the name of the particular university department concerned in the books of the University Grants Committee. The department then draws the money as and when it actually spends money on furniture and equipment for that particular building. It has not been the practice of the Committee to place any limit on the rate at which

869
money may be drawn against a particular authorisation, or on the amount which may be drawn at any one time. The only requirement has been that the university must certify that they have spent a given sum before they apply for reimbursement, and that they must not exceed the total authorisation for each project.
This system has two serious disadvantages so far as equipment is concerned. The first and most obvious one is the restriction of capital grants for equipment to additional accommodation, as several noble Lords have mentioned. This has meant that departments which are not moving into new accommodation have had to rely on the allocations which the university has been able to make from its ordinary recurrent income; and when a university has to meet many other expenses, such as salaries and wages and running costs, from the same source, it may be impossible to make proper provision for renewing the equipment in existing buildings. So the present system tends to lead to disparities between universities which have had a number of new buildings and those which have not, and between those departments in a university which have been fortunate enough to secure a new building, and those which have not. As a consequence, departments which have remained in the same accommodation over a period of years tend to suffer from obsolete equipment. It was to meet this problem that the University Grants Committee announced early this year a special distribution of grant, to the value of £3 million, which universities could spend specifically on teaching and research equipment for those departments which were not moving into new accommodation. This was a palliative only, and it did not remove the fundamental defect in the present system.
The system has another disadvantage also; namely, the difficulty of estimating the annual cash flow. Since a department may draw grant against its authorisation for a particular building at whatever rate it chooses, the Committee have the difficult task of advising the Department of Education and Science on the actual cash sum which will be required in any given year to meet the drawings of universities. I would say here that, having worked at a much lower level, it has come as a
870
complete surprise to me, because I feel that this may well be unique in the pattern of drawings against such authorisation. An estimate has to be made, of course, in order that Parliament may vote a sum of money for the purpose. The only way in which this can be done is to look at authorisations as they arose in past years and to project this forward. From records kept by the Committee it can be shown that the sum authorised for furniture and equipment tends to be on average a certain proportion of the cost of the building project to which it relates, and that universities have tended, on average, to spread their drawings over a period of some six years, starting from the year when the building project itself starts. From such considerations an estimate can be made of the toal amount of drawings likely to fall in a given year. These projections of total drawings have proved reasonably accurate overall in the past, though of course the method provides no guide to what a particular university will actually draw in a particular year.
Increasing dissatisfaction with the present system led the Committee, very early in 1966, to propose to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals a completely different system of grant aiding the purchase of teaching and research equipment based on the recommendations of a Working Party from the Department, the University Grants Committee and the Treasury which had examined the whole question in the previous year. No change was proposed in the procedure relating to furniture grants. For equipment it was proposed in the future to discontinue the system of making grants linked to particular buildings, and instead provide each university with an annual sum of money, related in the main—and this will reply to several noble Lords—to the number of students in that university, weighted to allow for differences in the balance of subjects, and the balance between undergraduate and post-graduate students, with supplementary amounts to take care of those cases where, as for example in new universities, the need for equipment to some extent precedes the build-up of the student body. The idea is that universities should have full discretion to spend their grants as they wished, provided only that they were used for the purchase of equipment. The grants would be fixed for a period of years in advance, and universities would be free to allocate

871
money to new buildings or to old as they thought best, and to carry money over from year to year.
Discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals began in January, 1966. There were, of course, many points of detail to consider, but it became clear that the Vice-Chancellors fully appreciated the reasons why the proposed change was desirable. They accepted the new scheme in principle, subject to assurances about the way the annual capital grants were to be calculated and about the total amount of money which would thus be made available to universities. I emphasise "the total amount of money". It was, of course, impossible for the U.G.C. to give a categorical assurance about the total amount of money, but they said that it was their aim that the amount of the annual sums should be no less than the total amounts which would have been spent by universities year by year under the old system, taking together expenditure out of equipment grants for new buildings and expenditure on equipment from recurrent grant.
Throughout these discussions, both sides were aware that there was one particularly difficult problem arising from the transition from the old system to the new. This had to do with the authorisations already given to universities under the old system, which would not be exhausted by the time the new one came into operation. This brings us to the heart of the matter raised by the noble Lord. As I have said above, it has been the observed practice of universities in the past to spread the drawing of grants against a particular authorisation over an average of six years. Some grants are drawn more quickly, especially if they relate to furniture; and others much more slowly. It therefore stands to reason that at whatever point in time a change in the system was introduced, inevitably there would be a number of authorisations outstanding which had not been drawn in full. Indeed, with the spreading of the drawings over a period as long as six years, it has been the case that the total amount of authorisations still undrawn at any time has far exceeded the amount drawn in any given year. The view taken by the U.G.C. was that this undrawn balance had resulted from a pattern of spending freely adopted
872
by the universities themselves; and that there was no need to envisage a different pattern merely because departments would in future be drawing their money from a fund held by the university and fed by annual grants from the U.G.C. rather than direct from the U.G.C. itself. Each university could in the future under the new system continue the spending pattern established under the old system. Presumably, therefore, a particular department would be able to look to the university's central administration for sums of money to clear off its authorisation. This would be a matter for each university to settle.
At the same time, it seemed only reasonable to suppose that there might be a tendency on the part of departments to draw on their authorisations more quickly, if they knew that the present system was coming to an end—and they are only human. The possibility of a change in the system had been widely discussed in the course of the U.G.C.'s visitations all round the universities in 1966, and it seemed only prudent to expect that some universities might accelerate their rate of drawing. With over £30 millions worth of undrawn authorisations, an acceleration could have a marked effect on expenditure, and might cause it to outrun by a large margin the funds voted by Parliament. It was with this in mind that the Chairman of the University Grants Committee, writing to universities on December 16 last year, included the following:
"As you will know, we have, after consultations with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, framed a new system for equipment grants, which will cover both new buildings and departments which are not moving into new buildings. There will be problems in connection with the changeover from the present system to the new one. One of these will be the need to ensure that the prospective introduction of the new system does not cause expenditure under the present scheme to get out of hand in the period between 1st April next and the date when the new scheme is introduced. In other words, in this interim period drawings against approved grants must be kept broadly in line with the pattern of expenditure assumed for Estimates purposes. And I am therefore serving notice now that we are working on a procedure for controlling drawings in 1967–8, so that the transition from the current system to the new one may be as smooth as possible."
That was eight months ago.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, it has not been very smooth.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: No, my Lords; but these are not cuts. I think that word has been used several times, and that is why I am emphasising this point. The date for the introduction of the new system had been fixed as August 1, 1968, and the Committee's staff were at work on a memorandum for the purpose of explaining the interim procedures which would be in force in 1967–68 and the first four months of 1968–69. This memorandum was sent for comment to the Vice-Chancellors' Committee on January 26, 1967. Again, I am emphasising this because it appears to me, from the outside looking in, that perhaps the lines of communication within the universities are not quite as good as they might be. This memorandum was circulated to universities on March 30. It explained that in order to keep drawings against existing authorisations in accordance with the past pattern of expenditure and the provision made in Parliamentary Estimates, it would be necessary to set a limit on the drawings of each individual university in 1967–68. And each university was at the same time told what its provisional drawing limit was.
I come now to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. The total sum of money voted by Parliament in 1967–68 for the purpose of meeting drawings on furniture and equipment grant was £22.5 million. I believe the noble Lord gave that figure himself. This is the highest sum ever voted for this purchase. In 1966–67 the sum was £21.5 million; in 1965–66 it was £17 million. The estimate of £22.5 million was based on the assumption that universities would continue the pattern of spending established in the past. The total amount of unexpended authorisations at the beginning of 1967–68 was £38 million, but this figure is entirely consistent, on past form, with an expenditure of £22.5 million during the financial year.
The Committee decided, when they issued their initial drawing limits in March, to work within a total of £20 million, keeping £2.5 million in hand as a reserve. This was because they were conscious of the difficulty of ensuring that the limit assigned to each university accurately fitted that university's needs. Universities were therefore invited to submit a claim if they wanted a higher limit. In the event, the claims
874
submitted by universities amounted in total to £21.5 million over and above the total of the limits notified in March. If these claims had all been met, it would have meant that the drawings of furniture and equipment grant in 1967–68 would have been £41.5 million, as compared with £21.5 million in 1966–67 and £17 million in 1965–66. It seems clear from these figures that a total of £41.5 million in a single year presupposes a completely different pattern of drawings from the past pattern. The U.G.C. saw no possibility of justifying such an increase in expenditure, and therefore proceeded to distribute the remaining £2.5 million, having regard to the building programmes of universities and their outstanding balances of past authorisations.
Now it is certainly true that the limit which has been assigned to some universities may prove to be less than they can legitimately claim that they need and less than they would have drawn if the drawing of grants had been left to take its own course as in the past. But it is also true overall that more money for furniture and equipment is being provided in this year than in any year in the past. It looks as if the prospective change in the method of providing money for equipment—a change which all agree to be thoroughly sensible—is having its effect on the pattern of drawings. The Chairman of the University Grants Committee took pains to give universities warning against this, and at every stage in the working out of the new system and of the interim arrangements he has taken steps to explain the situation, first to the Vice-Chancellors' Committee and latterly to the universities themselves. I understand that discussions with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors are still in progress, and the Universitity Grants Committee are making a careful study of the situation, and particularly that of the comparatively small number of universities where, because of particular circumstances, the impact of drawing units has been particularly hard. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Education and Science has asked that he be kept informed of developments. I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, any suggestion of reconsideration other than that.

875
My Lords, since there have been a number of quotations from the Press, I know that noble Lords will forgive me if I also quote from The Times Educational Supplement of July 14, in which they referred in an editorial to the dissatisfaction of some universities in connection with the change-over of their drawing. The editorial concluded with the very telling sentence:
"To the outsider, it is almost incredible that cost control and long-term financial planning should be under the wing of planning committees usually composed of senior academics who are often not only ignorant of accountancy and the operation of analysis but probably have a haughty disdain of the subjects."
My Lords, I am quite sure that this does not apply to any of the universities that are represented here this evening through your Lordships; but I would suggest that this is a comment from the Press which is just as impartial as any which your Lordships have quoted.
I am sorry that I am unable to give the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, a direct reply. I should have loved to be able to tell him what he was supposed to do. I suppose that the noble Lord will feel that I am unhelpful and may even suggest that I am cynical; but it appears to me, as a housekeeper, that perhaps one has to spread one's expenditure over more than one year and that this appears to have been the practice of the universities in the past.

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  SOCIAL SERVICES AND EFENCE COSTS
  SOCIAL SERVICES AND EFENCE COSTS