Sitting of 6 March 1967

Preamble
The House met at Ten o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT (LICENSING)
10.4 a.m.
Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the licensing of certain private places of entertainment.
The credit for the Bill goes to others—in this House to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who in 1965 introduced a Measure with a similar aim. He did that having heard the evidence given on the Manchester Bill, which passed as a Private Bill. Credit for this Measure must go also to Lord Parker, Lord Chief Justice, who in another place has successfully launched and has almost completed the passage of a Bill in identical terms with that which I ask the House to grant leave to introduce.
In June last year, I was pleased and proud, having won a place in the Private Members' Ballot, to be given permission to introduce a Bill in similar terms to that proposed by Lord Parker in another place. Thanks to Government drafting, his Bill was improved, and I was not able to bring my Bill within the Long Title. Hence my bringing forward the Bill today under the Ten-Minute Rule.
This is in no way an anti-club Bill. Indeed, there could hardly be anything more satisfactory than we should find developing properly accommodated and properly-run clubs which provide for coffee, dancing, beat, jazz or pop groups for teenagers. One hopes that this will in future become part of our society and of our way of life.
Unfortunately, however, over the last five years there has been a very different development which has made almost a mockery of the word "club" by places which charge, say, 2s. 6d. entrance fee and subscription for a year and which
958
are formed simply for the purpose of avoiding the existing legislation. This House will not need to be reminded of the evidence of what has been happening in these clubs. Our knowledge comes from Questions in the House, the experience and evidence which was given during the consideration of the Manchester Bill, articles in the Press and notably an article in The Times in 1965. The position in Manchester was that sleazy and unsatisfactory clubs in tenements or blitzed premises were being run by people with known criminal records. For many hon. Members, these clubs must have become a familiar feature of their constituencies.
I need only emphasise that there is no control over the premises of such clubs. Some of them are filthy and insanitary and there is a considerable fire risk. One has only to think of what might happen in one of these basements where no proper fire precautions had been taken and dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of young people were present late at night. There might well be a disaster of major importance. There is no control over the proprietors themselves or their background or record. There is little or no control over morals or the sale of drugs in such cases.
I emphasise that this is not an antidrug Bill, but we must be well aware that many of these places of the most unsatisfactory type are primarily outlet points for drugs such as purple hearts and hemp, which are often the start of much worse things. We know also that they are used, because there is no control over their hours of opening or closing, as doss houses where people stay all night. We know from the evidence in London, Manchester and elsewhere that they are often the refuges of absconders.
I have, naturally, made inquiries in my constituency from the chief constable, and I have discussed the matter with those concerned with clubs at New Scotland Yard. They all tell the same story. I am glad to say that the situation in Blackpool has not yet become serious, but it is giving rise to some concern. Only last week a special squad to deal with drugs had to be instituted in the Blackpool Police Force.
Both the Chief Constable of Blackpool and New Scotland Yard made it clear to me, however, that the best of the clubs

959
are well and properly run and should be encouraged. I hope that the Bill will make sure that the best survive and that the bad are driven out.
The law is somewhat complicated, because local authorities in different parts of the country control public entertainments by virtue of powers under different statutes. There is the Public Health Acts (Amendment Act), 1890, which deals largely with areas outside London. There is the Home Counties (Music and Dancing) Licensing Act, 1926, which is concerned primarily with Essex, Hertfordshire and most of Buckinghamshire and Kent. There is also the London Government Act, 1963, which deals with the London Boroughs and the City. There are also a number of local Acts controlling certain county areas.
Clause 1 of this Measure gives power for the appropriate local authority to which it applies to adopt the Bill. Clause 2 is the vital provision because it requires premises used for dancing, music or other entertainment to obtain a licence if it is within the area in which the Bill has been adopted and if it is a club which is run for private gain. The Clause also provides exemptions for theatre clubs and cinema clubs—and it is also necessary, apparently, to exempt broadcasting studios because they come under premises where music is made. Subsections (4), (5) and (6) of Clause 2 deal with the problem of what constitutes "private gain", although I will not go into this matter today.
Clause 3 deals with the granting of licences on such terms and conditions, including terms covering entry and inspection as the authority may specify. The House will note this provision with pleasure. These terms will be those which the local authority concerned may require. I would expect those terms to be in line with the ordinary terms imposed by licensing justices, covering such matters as the conduct of the premises, drunkenness, the control of strip-tease shows, the use of the premises by prostitutes, and other terms such as fire precautions, sanitation and so on. To give teeth to the Bill, Clause 4 proposes a maximum fine of £200, three months imprisonment, or both.
In asking leave to introduce this Measure, I wish to say to the House in
960
general and the Government in particular that it contains provisions which are much needed and which are recognised to be needed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I appreciate the Government's difficulty in that the timetable makes the easy passage of a Bill such as this more difficult, with Easter and other Measures coming along. However, by virtue of the drafting of the Bill, it is virtually unamendable. It has also been through its Committee stage in another place. Accepting the limitations that these two facts will impose on the Bill, I hope that the favourable wind which has blown so far may see the Bill safely home in this Session.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Miscampbell, Mr. Deedes, Sir D. Renton, Mr. Gresham Cooke, Mr. Blaker, and Mr. Carlisle.

PRIVATE PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT (LICENSING)
Bill to provide for the licensing of certain private places of entertainment, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 10th March and to be printed. [Bill 202.]

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (CANADA, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND SINGAPORE)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd January.
It may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if we discuss, at the same time, the following two Instruments:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Trinidad and Tobago) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 7th February.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Singapore) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 10th February.
Mr. Speaker: I have no objection to that course, if the Opposition have no objection.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It seems to be a perfectly satisfactory course, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MacDermot: These are three further double taxation agreements which have been renegotiated recently. As the House will remember, we have been renegotiating a number of agreements in consequence of the changes in the taxation system, with the introduction here of Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax. As it happens, these three agreements were all terminated by the other country and while, naturally, we have taken into account in the negotiations the tax changes in this country, the renegotiation would have been needed in any event in all three cases.
There are advantages in this because it enables us to bring these agreements up to date and embody in them, as we have done in many other agreements, many of the new model provisions which were laid down by O.E.C.D.—or if not to adopt them completely, to adopt them with modifications. It might be convenient if I briefly explain the provisions of the three agreements.
The Canada Agreement first. The previous comprehensive agreement, which dates back to 1946, was determined by the Canadian Government from April, 1965, and the House will remember that there was a limited interim agreement which was signed in December of that year and approved by the House. This is now the new comprehensive agreement which, in effect, incorporates the substance of that limited agreement with one exception, in that there is a special rule concerning the profits of Canadian life assurance companies. This is dealt with in Article 6 (7). It retains much of what was contained in the old 1946 Agreement and it contains several new provisions, the more important of which I shall mention.
First, in dealing with the treatment of dividends flowing from one country to another, in general, each country has agreed that it should have the right to impose a withholding tax limited to a maximum of 15 per cent. This is subject to special withholding tax exemptions contained in Article 9 (4), which deals with the case where dividends are paid to a shareholder in the other country and 90 per cent. of the paying com-
962
pany's income is derived from a business carried on in that other country.
For this exemption to operate—and it operates particularly in relation to investments of British companies operating in Canada—the Canadians give up their right to impose their additional 15 per cent. non-resident's tax, as it is called, and which was a special protection measure which they adopted as a result of many, particularly United States, companies operating in Canada through branches rather than through subsidiaries to avoid the withholding tax.
Secondly, the relief for underlying tax follows the common form in that it is restricted to that which we are prepared to give unilaterally. In other words, relief is given only where the recipient of the dividends is what I would call a 10 per cent. parent; that is, a parent company in the sense that it controls 10 per cent. of the voting power of the paying company.
Thirdly, on the matter of interest payments, each country agrees to limit the tax which it may pay on interest flowing to the other country to a 15 per cent. rate.
Copyright royalties are still to be exempt in the country of origin, and other royalties may be taxed up to 10 per cent. in the country of origin.
The agreement contains a provision in Article 12 covering capital gains. This is based on an O.E.C.D. recommendation and is provided against the eventuality of Canada later introducing a capital gains tax. It does not operate at the moment.
There are a substantial number of other provisions in the agreement. As I have said, it retains the substance of many of the 1946 provisions and the wording has been brought more closely into line with O.E.C.D. Articles.
The agreement also provides that certain classes of income are to be exempt in the country of origin. Some of these are of considerable importance to us. They include shipping and air transport profits, certain trading profits not arising through a permanent establishment, pensions, purchased annuities, and earnings of temporary business visitors.
Government salaries are normally to be taxed by the paying Government only,

963
and there are also provisions under which the remuneration of visiting professors and teachers, and payments made for the maintenance of visiting students and research workers may be exempt in the country visited.
I turn now to the second Order, relating to Trinidad and Tobago. The previous agreement was terminated with effect from 1st April, 1966, owing to changes in their tax system which were analogous to ours. As both countries now have the Corporation Tax system, it has been agreed that in the treatment of dividends each country will be permitted to charge up to 25 per cent. withholding tax on portfolio investment and up to 15 per cent. on direct investment, the test of direct investment for this purpose being a holding of 25 per cent. voting power by the parent company in the subsidiary.
There is provision for relief for underlying tax. It is already limited to payment of 10 per cent. voting power of the parent company. The interest provisions, again, are the same as under the Canada Order—
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Can the hon. Gentleman say something about the disappearance of the pioneer tax relief as it affects this Convention?
Mr. MarDermot: I will come to that later, if I may.
I turn now to the royalties provision. Copyright royalties are to be taxed only by the recipient countries, but other royalties up to 15 per cent. Most of the other provisions follow the general line which I outlined in relation to the Canada Agreement.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the point that under this agreement, unlike the next one, there is no provision for matching credit, the term given to the position where developing countries, when they introduce provisions to spare tax on investment which is intended to promote development, the other country from which the investment comes sometimes agrees to give matching credit, the effect of which is that the benefit of the tax concession goes to the investing taxpayer rather than to the Exchequer of the country concerned.
The reason for the different treatment here is that this was an agreed provision
964
and a necessary provision in order to get a balance for the whole of the tax agreement. This is not the only difference between the Trinidad and Tobago Agreement and the Singapore Agreement, and it was on this basis that we were able to reach agreement with the Trinidad and Tobago Governments. Both Governments are satisfied that the agreement, as a whole, gives a fair balance, and it was signed and agreed on that basis.
The previous Singapore Agreement, which dates back to 1949, was terminated by the Singapore Government as from a date in 1962. A fresh agreement was negotiated and signed under the previous Administration in August, 1963, but it was never brought into legal effect owing, in the first instance, to the constitutional changes in Singapore, and then later to the United Kingdom tax changes.
Singapore continued, by unilateral action, to give the reliefs which would have been due under the 1963 agreement. The new agreement is in effect, a revised version of the 1963 Agreement, which is operative, with necessary adaptations, from the 1962 date of expiry of the old agreement.
If I may refer briefly to the main changes, Singapore is still operating on what I may call the old tax system which we had before the Corporation Tax system—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I hear some murmurings of, "Hear, hear." I do not know whether the Opposition have changed their mind and want to abolish the Corporation Tax system, but I thought that we had argued the details and that the principles had been agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must keep to the Order in front of them.
Mr. MacDermot: We have accordingly agreed to retain the old rule that neither country will impose a withholding tax on dividends flowing to the other country. This is subject to certain exemptions which are to be found in Article 7. It is perhaps important, in this connection, that the income tax which the Singapore Government levy on companies is a 40 per cent. tax, so that the rate involved is the same as that under our Corporation Tax system. The balance of this new arrangement is that there is almost identical tax treatment for dividends

965
flowing in either direction. The credit which one country has to give for the other's tax in relation to dividends is limited, first, to any withholding tax charges which may be made under the exceptional cases to which I referred a moment ago, and, secondly, as in the other agreements, to underlying tax only in the case of direct investment where dividends are paid to a parent with 10 per cent. voting power control.
The other important points in the agreement are that we agree to give matching credit, in this case for taxes which are spared under the Singapore legislation, to promote development, and as under the Canada Agreement, there is a precautionary provision to meet the eventuality of their introducing a capital gains tax. Another difference between this and the Trinidad and Tobago Agreement is that in this case all royalties, not only copyright royalties, are taxable only in the country of the recipient.
All these three agreements are the result of careful negotiations, and the variations between them are the result of particular circumstances peculiar to each of the countries concerned. In all cases we are satisfied that they are fair and balanced agreements, and I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 23rd January.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Trinidad and Tobago) Order 1967 he made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 7th February—[Mr. MacDermot.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Singapore) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid
966
before this House on 10th February.—[Mr. MacDermot.]
To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

CENTRAL BANKS (INCOME TAX)
10.31 a.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move,
That the Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
This Motion seeks approval for a draft Order under Section 22 of the 1957 Finance Act. This section was designed primarily to meet the situation which arises when the assets of a currency board are taken over by a new central bank. This commonly occurs when a former colonial territory acquires independence and establishes its new central bank.
The currency boards are regarded as Government agencies, and, consequently, their income is exempt from tax on grounds of sovereign immunity. A central bank, on the other hand, may be, and quite frequently is, a separate legal entity from the Government of the country concerned, and, therefore, is independent in law and does not qualify for that exemption on grounds of sovereign immunity.
The purpose of the section is to enable Orders to be made, where it is thought the right thing to do, to give the same immunity from tax to the newly formed central bank as was enjoyed previously by the currency board which it replaced. This is what the Order does, and does in relation to the Bank of Guyana which came into existence in October, 1965, as an autonomous institution. Although its capital is wholly owned by the Guyana Government, it appears that it has such independence of the Government that it does not qualify for the sovereign immunity exemption.
The Bank satisfies the conditions of Section 22 in that it is entrusted with the custody of the principal foreign exchange reserves of Guyana, and the policy is within the policy of the section in that it is the successor in the territory to the currency board. From an immediate point of view, the effect of extending

967
this exemption in terms of cost to us is really nil, because it is only extending a privilege which existed before, and it is clearly to our interest that that central bank should have the same advantages and the same incentive to hold its reserve assets in the form of investments in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Central Banks (Income Tax Schedule C Exemption) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. loan L. Evans.]

AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION (YORKSHIRE)
10.34 a.m.
Mr. Paul Bryan: I was not one of the pioneering enthusiasts for morning sittings, but my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are pleased to use this one occasion to initiate this debate—a very important one from Yorkshire's point of view—about agricultural education in Yorkshire. I have given notice to the Government that the particular incident of Yorkshire education on which we want to concentrate the Minister's attention is the delicately termed "invitation" received by the Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University from the University Grants Committee to discontinue undergraduate teaching of agriculture at Leeds University. I fancy that on the back of that invitation in not too invisible ink is a note not to bother too much about the R.S.V.P. because anyway no more money will be coming from the U.G.C. for the teaching of agriculture at the university.
I expect that the Minsiter has been surprised at the strength of the storm of protest which has blown up in the North since this proposition became known last November. I hope, also, that he has been impressed by the quality of that storm. The Yorkshire Agriculture Society with its 11,000 members led by Sir John Dunnington-Jefferson, the biggest society of its kind in the country,
968
the society responsible for the famous Yorkshire Show which is so largely imitated by other counties; the N.F.U. from all three Ridings; the Leeds University Agriculture Society; the Yorkshire Agriculture Adventurers, a unique type of club of progressive farmers; many individual farmers, many distinguished individuals, such as Lord Netherthorpe, all have had their say, and a very deeply concerned and well informed say it has been.
These are not people who are irresponsibly signing some petition against the closing of a service which they never use. These are bodies of professionals or knowledgeable and dedicated amateurs who know. They know what the Department of Agriculture has done for Yorkshire farming, and they know what the remarkable variety and quality of Yorkshire farming has done for the Department of Agriculture.
The proposal to reduce the number of universities giving first-degree courses in agriculture originates from the Bosanquet Report, and the relevant quotation reads:
"We would not think it contrary to the national interest if one or two universities with small schools of agriculture were to decide to close them down."
This recommendation—though it is in such half-hearted terms that one does not know whether it is in fact a recommendation at all—may be wrong. In fact, the Bosanquet Committee in its Report, looking back at its predecessor, the Loveday Committee of 1945, looked back with sympathy and pointed out how that Committee proved to be wrong, and in an understanding way it said that the revolution in agriculture has been so vast and so fast that it was impossible for the Loveday Committee to foresee the future needs accurately. But the Bosanquet Committee also says that this revolution is continuing at an increasing tempo. Its Report therefore can be out of date before very long, though I think it is correct in its forecast that a greater total number of graduates in agriculture will be wanted.
If the U.G.C. accepts the Bosanquet Report, and is determined to reduce the number of universities teaching agriculture, may we be told by the Minister of State by what criteria the Committee chooses the University Departments to be expunged? I suggest that to justify

969
its continued existence a Department of Agriculture should show evidence of three things. It should show that it is wanted, it should show that it is good, and it should also show that it is placed in a farming, academic, and industrial environment favourable to its work.
I answer the first question—is it wanted?—by reciting the following bald statistics: Yorkshire and Lancashire together constitute about one-eighth of England and Wales, and have nine universities. Leeds is the only one with an agricultural department. In 1966, 42 students completed first degrees, and 10 completed training in post-graduate diplomas and higher degrees. The annual output of graduates in agriculture has doubled since 1962. For admission to first degrees in October, 1967, 625 applications have been received from U.C.C.A. Compared with 1966, applications are up by 33 per cent. in agriculture, and 20 per cent. in agricultural sciences. Currently there are 30 candidates for higher degrees and diplomas. The number has doubled in the last five years. I need say no more to show that the demand is there and is increasing.
My next question—is the Department good? The very statistics that I have just given are probably the best guide in that direction. But there are other telling facts. In this session the Department holds 13 research contracts and grants with an annual value of £28,000. Six grants, to the value of £13,700, are in agriculture, compared with three worth £4,600 per annum in 1962. The university farm, consisting of about 640 acres, yields a gross annual turnover of between £55,000 and £60,000—a large turnover for this type of semi-experimental farm. The balance of income over expenditure in the training account has averaged £9,800.
The farm is run in a practical manner. Since 1955 no less than £80,000 of income from the farm has been spent on or allocated to the provision of research equipment and the development of farming enterprises. In the same period the farm received £15,000 from the University Grants Committee. Again, the contribution of the university to help itself in this practical way has been extremely impressive.
Apart from this commendable present performance, over the years the Depart-
970
ment has produced a steady stream of distinguished scholars—names such as Woodman and Crowther, highly regarded in the field of animal nutrition, and Professors Tyler and Holdsworth. One does not have to argue about the quality of the department at Leeds; its reputation is high and has remained high, because there has always been a striving to improve and innovate.
My third qualification was a favourable environment. This factor was seriously underplayed in the Bosanquet Report. The practical contact of a university with a wide variety of farming experience is all-important. How does a student learn about crop production without seeing crops of every kind being produced? How does he study animal nutrition without contact with a far wider experience of farming than is produced by a university farm? In this respect, Yorkshire is unrivalled. It has everything. It has every type of soil, at every height, from blowaway sand to the heaviest of clay, together with wold and warp and moorland. With a variety of soils goes a variety of crops and a variety of livestock of quality.
In farm organisation we have great estates like Warier, Garrowby, Sledmore, large world farms, with 80 or 90-acre fields in East Yorkshire, right down to the small, part-time dairy and poultry farms of the industrial West Riding. We have highly developed horticulture down by the Humber. No area has a record of scientific poultry breeding comparable with the Calder Valley. Supporting this great farming complex are the great industries of the West Riding—chemical fertiliser plants, machinery and tractor makers, such as David Brown, and the great grain port of Hull. At Selby we have the main compound foodstuffs manufacturers, including B.O.C.M., with its experimental farms.
This marvellous broad agricultural background, plus the fact that an agricultural student at Leeds is a member of a large university, with faculties in subjects allied to agriculture, gives him a unique advantage. He lives in a big and stimulating world. I pity the poor agricultural student at London University marooned out at Wye in a close agricultural community. I believe that the student at Nottingham is in much the same plight. The importance of a natural

971
and advantageous alliance between the Department of Agriculture and its environment cannot be overstated.
Yorkshire has been not only angry but puzzled at this threat, and I hope that the Minister of State can tell the House the reason that gave rise to this incomprehensible proposal. I hope that he will tell the House that, after all, the University Grants Committee has realised that it has made a gigantic blunder and will rectify its bad judgment.
For more than 60 years Leeds University has given splendid service to the farming industry of Yorkshire. Indeed, until 1946, when the National Agricultural Advisory Service was created, the University, in conjunction with a Joint Committee of the three county councils of Yorkshire, provided and developed a system of agricultural education at all levels in this county which was the envy of many other areas in England. The creation of the N.A.A.S. and the consequent dissolution of the Yorkshire Council for Agricultural Education not only had the regrettable result of divorcing the two services of agricultural teaching and advisory work, but weakened the direct contact between Leeds University and the farmer.
If the agricultural degree courses at Leeds were withdrawn, it is no exaggeration to say that this contact would virtually cease. This would be nothing short of a catastrophe.
10.46 a.m.
Mr. James Ramsden: My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) has done a service in raising this topic. I want to say a few words in support and possibly in amplification of the case that he has made out. The purpose of the debate is to discover from the Minister the exact nature of the proposal concerning the Agricultural Department of Leeds University. Fairly well substantiated rumours have been circulating to the effect that the Department is to close down, but nobody knows what the exact proposals are, or their extent, or when they may be implemented, or even whether a firm decision has been taken. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us about the present position.
What are the present proposals? Is it true that the Department of Agriculture
972
is to close down, and that degrees in agriculture will no longer be obtainable at Leeds University? If it is true, will any of the courses allied to agriculture remain within the ambit of the university? If all the rumours are true, what alternative arrangement is it proposed to make in Yorkshire and elsewhere?
I have no doubt that a great deal of thought and study has been given to this problem. I do not claim to be an expert in this matter, but it would seem to me that the study of the problem must have fallen broadly within two contexts; the national context of the future demand for graduates in agriculture, which was, broadly speaking, the field covered by the Bosanquet Committee, and the specific Yorkshire context—which is of most concern to my hon. Friends and me—the value to agriculture in Yorkshire of the continuance of the facilities which now exist at Leeds University.
The conclusions of the Bosanquet Committee as to the national problem of a future demand for graduates of agriculture were quite unequivocal. The Committee drew a distinction between the need for graduates in agriculture and the demand for such graduates, which I took to mean that with the prospect of a world food shortage and the need for under-developed countries to develop their agricultural resources, there was an undoubted need for people qualified in agriculture both in this country and for service overseas.
With regard to the demand, which I assume to be the actual jobs offered to people so qualified, the Committee reached the conclusion that the demand certainly would not diminish and that within 10 years or so it was likely to approximate much more closely to the need. In other words, more people qualified by degrees in agriculture would certainly be required to fill posts which might be offered. That emerges from the conclusions at page 35 of the Bosanquet Report.
If that is true and if the Leeds faculty is to close, the question then arises of where, how and when the existing facilities for this type of academic instruction will be replaced. Where will the expansion take place elsewhere if Leeds is to go? How will it be done, and when can it be done? If Leeds is to go, will there be a time lag before

973
suitable alternative provision can be made elsewhere? Those are the questions which the Minister should try to answer for us in what I call the national context of this problem.
Turning to the Yorkshire context, I was particularly impressed when my hon. Friend the Member for Howden stressed the link which has always existed between Leeds University and practical agriculture and the activities of practical farmers throughout the county. I have seen a letter from Sir John Dunnington-Jefferson, who knows what he is talking about in this context, in which he says that the environment provided in Yorkshire for this type of interchange between the practical man and the academic is unrivalled. Nobody would dispute that.
It is interesting to note that the Bosanquet Committee emphasises at page 20 of its Report the value to agricultural studies of that kind of relationship with the world of practical farming. I quote:
"Agriculture will benefit if these interactions are intimate and helpful and if there is an all-pervading attitude of realism fostered by continuous contact with the practice of farming for profit."
It was the main burden of my hon. Friend's case that such continuous contact had existed in Yorkshire because of the existence of the faculty at Leeds for a number of years and that it would be a loss to farming in Yorkshire—and, one would think, to the world of academic studies—if this were to cease.
I would like the Minister to be fairly specific and to tell us which of the courses at Leeds are likely to go and which will remain. I see from pages 50 and 51 of the Bosanquet Report that Leeds provides diplomas in agricultural botany, plant pathology, agricultural chemistry, agricultural zoology and, I think, agricultural bacteriology. These are distinct from the general agricultural course. Are these to go, or will they remain?
Within the ambit of the general agricultural course there are the Diploma in Agricultural Economics and the Diploma in Agriculture (Farm Management). Is it these two courses which it is proposed should go as a result of these changes? If so, it would be unfortunate, particularly in the case of the farm management diploma, unless the Minister can assure
974
us that adequate alternative facilities will be provided.
I say that for this reason. Leeds was the pioneer of farm management studies. There are a large number of farmers throughout the county who, at least until recently—and, I think, still—submitted their accounts to Leeds University for analysis and comment and as a practical background to the development of studies in farm management. It would be a great pity if it were no longer possible for this to be done.
Farm management is, to use current jargon, a growth point. Comparatively recently, there has been established a National Institute of Farm Management. Obviously, the development of these studies is of great economic importance to the country and to agriculture generally. It would be a great tragedy and a great blow to the development of those studies if the opportunity for pursuing them in Yorkshire were lost.
It may be that those concerned have in mind other avenues for their pursuit and that they contemplate linking them with the Yorkshire Institute of Agriculture at Askham Bryan, or that they can be developed in some other way. We ought to be told. There is concern about this among farmers and members of the National Farmers' Union in all three Ridings.
It is important that these questions should be cleared up and that those concerned in Yorkshire should know where they stand in relation to this decision, which at the moment has the status of rumour although it is a fairly strong rumour. I have no doubt that great thought has been given to the matter. One knows all those concerned to be people of wide experience, great wisdom and common sense. There may well be something to be said on the other side of the question, but we want to know what it is and we want an opportunity of judging.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us. I certainly assure him that the future handling of this problem deeply concerns all those who are interested in agriculture and in the academic side of agriculture as well as the practical in Yorkshire.
10.58 a.m.
Mr. Michael Alison (Barkston Ash): I would like to join briefly in supporting

975
my right hon. and hon. Friends on this topic and to declare a constituency interest, because the Barkston Ash constituency includes the Leeds University experimental farm. I would like to add two or three relevant points to the plea that we are making to retain the agricultural degree course at Leeds. The first two are general points and the third relates to some facts which I have extracted from various Government publications on the subject.
One of the most fruitful results of technology and industry since the war has been its marriage to the agriculture industry. There is no doubt that the flourishing productivity of British agriculture, with its high degree of mechanisation and the fact that it continues to supply our needs to a greater extent in spite of an enormous manpower drain, has been due to the marriage between agriculture and technology and science since the war. This marriage has been peculiarly fostered and encouraged by the cohabitation of science, technology and engineering with agriculture at the University of Leeds. It has proved to be a singularly fruitful marriage, and it would be a tragedy if it were dissolved. Leeds has a great tradition in engineering, and the co-existence of the two departments in Leeds has been one of the reasons for the way in which British agriculture has gone ahead in the use of machinery and scientific methods since the war.
My second general proposition is that Leeds is fast becoming one of the greatest centres of our traffic and road network system in the whole country. We are just about to become the great national cross-roads for England in the trunk road system. The Minister will be aware that we are about to have the M1 brought right into Leeds, where it will impinge directly on a huge trans-Pennine east-west road, which will in due course be extended eastward into Howdenshire and will link up with East Anglia through the new Humberside road network and the Great North Road to the North from Leeds.
These road developments will put Leeds strategically in a remarkable position. There will be access to the mountainous Pennine areas of Britain east and west from Leeds. There will be a splendid
976
trunk road running from Leeds to London and the South in the M1. When the M62 is extended eastward towards East Anglia, linking with the Humberside road network of which we have just had notice, there will be direct and rapid access by road from Leeds to all northern East Anglia, and the dual carriageway Great North Road will be the northern segment of this road communication system.
This all emphasises the strategic character of Leeds as a university centre, particularly for agriculture. It will be splendidly accessible to all the main types of agricultural ground production areas and so on in the whole of the British Isles.
I want the Minister to bear those two major factors in mind—the fruitful marriage of agriculture and technology exemplified by the cohabitation of the two departments in Leeds University, and the rapid access to all parts of the country which will soon be a peculiar feature of Leeds as an industrial and educational centre.
I conclude with a few references to some hard statistical facts. I have been looking at the figure provided by Cmnd.3106, the returns from the universities and university colleges of the numbers of full-time students in agriculture. It is evident that Leeds does not do at all badly at present. We are, I think, No.5. As far as I can see, only London, Newcastle, Nottingham and Reading are ahead of Leeds in terms of full-time students. In my view, one can straight away knock out Reading and London as serious rivals to Leeds in this matter because, although they have very many more full-time students in agriculture, their catchment area is much further south and they cater for a type of student for whom Leeds could not hope to cater. The comparison must be made between universities lying, broadly, to the north, and here the serious rivals to Leeds in terms of numbers must be Nottingham and Newcastle.
Although Nottingham and Newcastle at present have marginally more students of agriculture than Leeds, there are two major disadvantages or liability factors to be set against both as competitors of the Leeds department of agriculture. In the first place, Nottingham and Newcastle are not so well placed in road traffic and communication terms as Leeds

977
is, as I have tried to show. Nottingham is very much out on a limb, and Newcastle is at the end of the trunk road system rather than in the middle.
Perhaps more telling is the cost per student. The cost per student at Newcastle is about £934, according to the latest figures given on 2nd March by the Parliamentary Secretary, and Nottingham at £770 is almost on a par with Leeds at £781. Thus, the real competitors in terms of numbers are Leeds and Nottingham, with roughly the same cost per student, though with Leeds being immeasurably better placed in terms of its link with a great engineering tradition and its remarkable strategic positioning from the point of view of road communications.
On that basis, it is indisputable that Leeds remains a centre of agriculture of great significance favoured by remarkable natural advantages. I urge the Minister, therefore, to hasten slowly in any proposals to discourage the continuance of the Department of Agriculture at Leeds University. It is well placed. It is stimulated by the local environment. It is readily accessible to other agricultural areas. Its cost per student is one of the lowest in the country. There is everything to encourage the continuance of this traditional and highly prosperous department in the university, with its associations with Yorkshire agriculture.
11.5 a.m
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): I have greatly appreciated the spirit and content of the speeches we have heard. The leading speech, by the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), covered the ground with great fairness and cogency, and the contributions of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) and his hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) added to the rational discussion of this important matter.
My task this morning is to try to answer some of the Questions which have rightly been raised. There are, of course, some questions which touch on the relationship of my Department with the University Grants Committee which, I am sure the House will understand, cannot be dealt with here, much as one might be tempted to enter into an amic-
978
able discussion of how these matters are assessed and decided.
The hon. Member for Howden rightly said that the proposal for the discontinuance of undergraduate teaching in the school of agriculture at Leeds stems from the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the demand for Agricultural Graduates, the Bosanquet Report, published in 1964. That Report raised a number of important issues, not least the desirability of some rationalisation in the existing pattern of university schools of agriculture and horticulture.
The Government asked the University Grants Committee for advice on these issues. This is the normal and the best procedure. I am sure that the House generally agrees that this is how it should be done. The U.G.C. remitted them in the first instance for examination by its agriculture sub-committee, which, of course, contains within its membership experts in both agricultural education and agriculture itself. The sub-committee reported last summer, after visiting all the schools of agriculture and horticulture—I believe that there are 13—and after making a thorough review and analysis of the situation both nationally and in relation to the individual schools. I can, therefore, give an absolute assurance that there was a full examination on the spot of the factors which hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned in support of the continuance of the Leeds school.
The findings of the sub-committee, which have been accepted by the U.G.C., suggested that there was scope for rationalisation in the faculty of agriculture, which is very expensive. There was scope for perhaps rather more rationalisation in that field than had been indicated in the Bosanquet Report, which stated, in paragraph 72, that it:
"… would not think it contrary to the national interest if one or two universities with small schools of agriculture were to decide to close them down."
I agree that Leeds is not a small school of agriculture. It is of medial size and I made the quotation from the Report with that qualification. After informal consultation with Government Departments concerned with education and agriculture, the U.G.C. is now pursuing specific proposals for such rationalisation. That is referred to in paragraph 31 of the Annual Survey of the U.G.C. for the academic year 1965–66.

979
For example, it has proposed to one university that it should consider arrangements whereby two of its constituent colleges should complement each other's agricultural courses rather than run the risk of duplicating them. Secondly, it has proposed to another university the realignment of its work in horticulture. Those proposals have been accepted in principle by the universities concerned, and the consequential changes are being worked out.
Thirdly, the Committee has proposed to Leeds and other universities that they might consider the discontinuance of undergraduate teaching in agriculture, with the objective of concentrating the teaching of agricultural subjects in fewer and stronger schools. I do not think that that objective is at issue in the House. There have been repeated calls in the House for an effort to concentrate scarce resources and rationalise courses. That policy is proceeding.
What is a matter for discussion is how and where it should be done. Quite fairly, hon. Members have made their case that it should not involve Leeds. Given that policy intention, which I hope we all share, both in higher and further education, the U.G.C. had the difficult and distasteful task of deciding which universities to advise to consider discontinuing their schools of agriculture. The fact that Leeds and other universities were chosen for that type of proposal does not mean that they are academically inferior, but only that taking all factors into consideration it is better to concentrate growth in those which will remain.
It is fair to put forward figures showing that this or that school of agriculture is by no means among the smallest. It is fair to bring forward proof of the academic achievement of a school and all the other arguments which have been most cogently advanced. But the U.G.C. must take those arguments in the round and come to a decision not on any one of them but on their totality, and in relation to the general national pattern of agricultural teaching and research as it sees it developing, and as it thinks that it should develop.
The right hon. Member for Harrogate asked me what was happening and whether anything had been decided. No
980
decision has yet been taken to discontinue undergraduate teaching in agriculture at the University of Leeds. The proposal has been put to the university; it is being considered by it; it will be a matter for the university to decide in the light of all the relevant factors.
Having said that, I must say that the U.G.C. intends to continue urging the university to take the steps necessary to implement its proposal.
Mr. Ramsden: Does the proposal cover all the courses I mentioned, or is it confined to the general agriculture course?
Mr. Roberts: I was about to try to deal with that point, which involves a fair amount of detail.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the proposal included the discontinuance of degree and diploma courses and what alternative arrangements would be made If either or both were discontinued. I understand that the proposal covers both types of courses but that the discussion deals with the position likely to arise in relation to such discontinuance and is related to the national position. It is possible that one sector of the teaching now done at the universities might be found to be viable even if another sector were discontinued. If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to obtain more information for him on that I would do so most readily.
There is a need for degree qualification in agriculture. The hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) indicated certain directions in which the need may develop and grow. There is also a need for what one might call the medial qualification, the diploma type of qualification. I should like to look into that point a little further. That is not to say that I prejudge the issue. It must be a matter for discussion between the U.G.C. and the university, but I am interested in the assertion, which I think we would all agree is proved, that we must be careful about the continuance of adequate provision for medial teaching, for recruiting and properly training the diploma type of agricultural student.
I listened very carefully to the objections to the proposal. It is not for me to argue the case for the University Grants Committee. The points raised this morning are most certainly points

981
which the Committee has considered carefully and will continue to consider with great care. There is the continuing need for agriculture graduates and the argument that this will not be met by closing down courses. The Committee, however, has made it perfectly clear that it is not considering any reduction in the total number of university students of agriculture. It believes that rationalisation of university provision for agriculture would lead to stronger though fewer schools with benefit both to education of students and to research and that the remaining schools should not only accommodate the present total number of students, but could if required cope with a considerable increase.
Mention was made today of the schools' contribution to developing countries. The Ministry of Overseas Development has been kept informed of this proposal and it has quite rightly made clear that it regards the structure of British education in the higher field, as in other fields, as one which must be governed in all essentials by the needs of the country. It does not, therefore, question the rightness of the policy for rationalisation and it does not feel inclined to examine any particular proposals. I think that absolutely right. But it is convinced that it should still be within the capacity of British universities as a whole to make available the number of good young agriculture graduates in each year that it needs for immediate overseas appointments or for postgraduate study.
I have dealt with the question about the school's size and viability. I repeat that although size and viability are important factors and were taken into account by the University Grants Committee, they are not the only factors of significance. I have every sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Howden about special services provided by educational establishments to local farming communities. This is one of the factors which the University of Leeds will he taking into account in its reaction to the proposals. Of course, local farmers in Yorkshire and elsewhere have other sources of advice besides the University's school of agriculture. The National Agricultural Advisory Service is one.
Mr. Bryan: I asked this question in no aggressive sense. If the indication invitation sent to Leeds University is turned down and the university decides to go on with its agricultural degree, what happens then? Is it to be cut off from the money or what is to be the outcome?
Mr. Roberts: I believe I said earlier that the University Grants Committee proposes to urge this course upon the University of Leeds.
The relationship between the U.G.C. and the universities are delicate, as the hon. Member mentioned, and also effective. I hope that he will not try to draw me on the ultimates of this relationship particularly in regard to Leeds. What is happening and what will continue is a consideration of an informed proposal by the U.G.C. to Leeds University. The university may be reacting, commenting, possibly—I do not know—objecting, arguing, proposing alternatives—I could not say. I think it would be helpful if the hon. Member and I left it at that.
The N.A.A.S. is a major source of advice to local farmers and there are many other sources to draw upon. The service keeps in touch with the university departments of agriculture in general, not only with the local school of agriculture in the local university, but with university research throughout the country and with the research results coming from the many research institutes wholly or partly financed by the Agricultural Research Council.
This is how it should be. The National Agricultural Advisory Service should continue to draw its own advice and help which it can then channel to farmers everywhere, not only locally, but from national institutions whether they be universities rearch institutes operating under the Research Council. I think the right hon. Member for Harrogate specifically raised the point about—I do not want to misquote him—whether there could be a gap between a course's discontinuance if that were decided upon and the operation of alternative facilities in other centres. I understand that the effects of closure on staff and students have been fully taken into account by the University Grants Committee in making its proposal and, of course, that is being considered as an important aspect of these proposals by the University of Leeds itself.

983
It is envisaged that in any event arrangements would be made for existing students to complete their courses. Most of the courses are of three to four years depending on the nature of the qualification, whether it is an ordinary pass degree or an honours degree, so those entering this year will certainly be taken care of academically if the decision goes a certain way. There would not therefore be a gap and it is clear that there would be ample time to make the proper arrangements for alternative facilities whether they were confined to degree courses or extended, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, to diploma courses.
The provision of undergraduate teaching is an educational matter on which the Secretary of State is advised by the University Grants Committee. On this occasion the Committee had first-hand information about the work carried on at each university department of agriculture and it is understood that they took fully into account all the relevant factors before putting their rationalisation proposals to the universities. These and the comments made in today's debate will no doubt also be taken into account by those concerned in the University of Leeds when considering the proposal which has been put to it.
This is a matter of academic judgment for the university and the University Grants Committee and it is not one in which the Secretary of State intervenes. I emphasise, however, that this is precisely the sort of carefully considered rationalising process carried through by the Committee, in full consultation with the universities themselves, for which Parliament generally has often pressed. I think that the University Grants Committee deserves credit for the thorough and objective manner in which it has tackled this question. I have no doubt that the University of Leeds, under its very able leadership will consider the proposals made to it in a similarly objective manner.

SCOTLAND (RATE BURDEN)
11.30 a.m.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Having listened with interest to the reply of the Minister of State to the Department of Education and Science, and believing that my hon. Friends who represent Yorkshire constituencies would be brief—they are noted for their brevity and the penetrating way in which they adduce their arguments—I had assumed that the discussion on agricultural education would come to an end with time to spare. I therefore hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may be allowed now to raise the subject of the high burden of rates in Scotland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Has the hon. Member given the Scottish Minister notice of his intention to raise this subject?
Mr. Taylor: Yes, Sir. I took the opportunity of passing a message to the Minister's private secretary at 9.45 a.m. stating that I hoped to raise this matter. I also took the liberty of advising Mr. Speaker that, if the opportunity arose, I would seek leave to raise the subject of the high burden of rates in Scotland.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I understand that my office received a message from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) at 9.50 a.m. I received it at 10.15 a.m. and I have cancelled everything to be here.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order. We are obviously in great difficulty as a result of morning sittings. If we must give notice of our intention to raise matters when occasions such as this arise, it is obviously difficult for us to give very long notice. This all comes about because the business of the Government appearing on the Notice Paper has fallen to the ground and because they are unable to get their supporters here in the mornings to speak on these topics.
If I sensed your question to my right hon. Friend aright, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would seem that if one is unable to give notice in advance to the Minister one might be unable to raise a

985
second Adjournment debate. It would, therefore, be helpful if you would clarify the position because although it happens this morning that my hon. Friend was able to give notice to the Minister, on another occasion I or one of my hon. Friends might wish to raise a subject but would not be able to give notice to the relevant Minister. In those circumstances we would be making speeches but might not receive a reply from the Government. That, however, should not prevent hon. Members from having the right to discuss whichever subjects they might care to raise. Since this is a matter of importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House, I would be grateful if you would clarify the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am happy to do that for the guidance of the House. It is perfectly competent, and within the rules of order, for an hon. Member to raise on the Motion for the Adjournment any subject that is in order on the Adjournment. There is a convention, that if an hon. Member wishes to take advantage of an opportunity such as that which has arisen this morning, he should give notice to the Minister concerned of the subject which he intends to raise. That is desirable, otherwise it means that an hon. Member may discuss something without receiving a Ministerial reply, something which my predecessors in the Chair have on more than one occasion deprecated.
Mr. Lewis: Further to my point of order. I appreciate that it is customary for hon. Members to give notice to the Ministers concerned, and I am sure that whenever that is possible it will be done. However, I asked you to clarify the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since I might wish to raise the matter of dogs and might want the Prime Minister to reply, although I appreciate the difficulty in which he finds himself. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has announced his intention of raising an important Scottish subject, I will not attempt to express my concern about the question of restraining the activities of dogs. However, if I had had the opportunity which my hon. Friend has taken, I would have asked the Prime Minister to come here and I would have asked him about his activities last weekend, when he tried to
986
restrain back benchers from exercising their rights to vote or abstain—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot make a speech on a point of order. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor: Having given notice to the Minister of State that I would be endeavouring to raise the important subject of the high burden of rates in Scotland, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for coming here at short notice, although I regret having inconvenienced him. I am also glad to see the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) in their places, because I know how extremely interested they are in Scottish rating. As we would expect of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, they are here this Monday morning to take part in our debates.
I can, perhaps, raise this matter on a Monday morning with a clear conscience, being one of the few hon. Members on this side of the House who voted in favour of morning sittings. I still believe them to be valuable because they provide us with a unique opportunity of raising matters like this, an opportunity which we would not otherwise have. I have on several occasions endeavoured to raise the question of the rating burden in Scotland. On only one recent occasion was I indirectly successful, in that I was able to refer to the subject briefly in the debate on the high cost of living in Scotland. On that occasion the Minister of State was in his place to reply, and I am sure that today he is glad of this opportunity to reply even more fully to the specific question of Scottish rating.
While I am glad of this opportunity to raise this subject, certain Scottish hon. Members might be reluctant to speak on it because in the past week or so there has been a reluctance on their part to speak on any Scottish matters at all. This is because the Government have taken the view, particularly in view of what was said in reply to Thursday's Scottish debate, that we should more or less close down and not do any business because of the prospect of a by-election in Scotland. This has been a totally unreasonable attitude on their part.

987
As the Minister of State is aware, I have been raising the question of the high burden of rates in Scotland in every suitable occasion. When the matter was raised last Thursday the Secretary of State was in his place and, in the interim, he has spent the whole of the week-end trying to persuade a reluctant population that he is not an office boy merely transmitting messages to the North from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Rates are indeed a serious problem in Scotland. They have traditionally been a problem. Paragraph 215 of the Allen Report stated:
"The average rate payment in Scotland is greater than in England and Wales as a whole for all income groups, and very considerably so. It is only in the top income groups of the South, the region with the highest rates, that the level of rates is higher on average than in Scotland but even then rates as a proportion of household income are still not higher than in Scotland."
It should be stressed that the Scottish rate burden is higher than any other area for all income groups, with the one exception of the high income groups of the south of England—and even then the rates as a proporition of household income are still not higher than they are in Scotland.
Mr. Peter Doig: When was that Report published?
Mr. Taylor: In February, 1965, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the rates in Scotland have increased substantially since then. They have gone up by 16 per cent. this year and I understand that they went up by 9 per cent. last year. This is surprising because Scottish property is no better than property elsewhere. Indeed, one might expect the rates to be less. Certainly incomes in Scotland tend to be considerably lower than those in the rest of the country.
On the basis of figures provided by the Allen Committee, an average household income in the London area was £1,146 a year; in the South, £1,288 a year; in the Midlands, £1,143 a year; in the North £1,055 a year; in Wales, £1,059 a year. All of these are household incomes above £1,050 a year. What was the figure in Scotland? £980. Here we have a situation where the household income in Scotland was considerably lower than in the rest
988
of the country. Despite this, the rate burden was considerably higher. In Scotland, rates went up to just over 4 per cent. of disposable income, while in England and Wales they amounted to only 2·9 per cent. of diposable income.
The domestic property situation in Scotland is more serious than in the rest of the country. If we did not know this before, we have seen the Government's housing plan, which puts the position quite clearly. We have had the Culling-worth Report, published recently, which showed that many people in Scotland are living in appalling, unbelievable housing conditions. As far as I can estimate, as opposed to official estimates, rates in Scotland are at least 70 per cent. higher than for the same house in England and Wales.
Mr. Doig: Would the hon. Gentleman agree, having been a member of a local authority, that rates have nothing to do with the state of the property but are for services provided? Would he agree that if they are 70 per cent. higher in Scotland, then Scotland must be providing better services than other places?
Mr. Taylor: If this was the case, there would be no problem. But I would suggest that we have had no information that the services provided in Scotland are 70 per cent., 50 per cent. or even 10 per cent. better than those in England and Wales. It may be that Dundee is particularly fortunate, because I know that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the town council there. No doubt he was attending to the problems of the ratepayers there with the same assiduity as he attends to their problems in the House.
Accepting, on the basis of the Allen Committee's Report, and the other information that we have, that rates are more in Scotland than in England and Wales, we have to ask why is this differential so substantial? One reason advanced by the Allen Committee dealt with municipal rents: There is no question that part of the differential is because of municipal rents. Even if we assume that this is a substantial amount, and that municipal rents in Scotland should have been reviewed a long time ago, and in many cases should have been increased, with adequate safeguards for those who could not afford to pay,

989
the fact is that the housing subsidy comes to only one-twelfth, on average, of total rateable expenditure. Housing and rents must be dealt with but even if they are, and rents are brought to an economic level, we would still have a substantial differential compared to England and Wales.
Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the figure of one-twelfth. I do not disagree with what he has said, but if municipal rents were reviewed in the way that he has suggested and given all the safeguards that he proposes, what fraction is he thinking of, if not one-twelfth?
Mr. Taylor: I have made my views on municipal rents quite clear, and I might be called to order if I want into this in any great detail. I have given my views in the debate on housing conditions and have gone into the matter very seriously. In the case of some Scottish local authorities, the need to review rents is an urgent one, because it amounts to a substantial proportion of rating costs.
On the other hand, we have to recognise that in some local authorities, in some municipal schemes, the general standard of communal facilities available are so inadequate that some provision will have to be made for these in fixing the municipal rents. I hope that the Minister will not think that I am dodging this question. I would be glad to take up this issue if I were in a position to do something about it. At present we are in opposition, but my party has made its views quite clear and I have endeavoured to do so when I have been serving on housing committees.
Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman has not been quite frank about this. This is strictly in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the hon. Gentleman raised this question in his speech. If he reads again the passage of his speech he will see that he referred to a case where some municipal rents might be raised subject to certain safeguards, so that this fraction of one-twelfth, which he was implicitly criticising—and I am not disagreeing with him, it is entirely a matter for him to defend—could be changed. All I want to know is, when he uses the phrase "an economic rent", does he mean that the fraction
990
should rise to the English fraction, that is, with local sources buttressing the housing account, or should it rise to a fraction above one-twelfth? If so, may I ask what is the fraction?
Mr. Taylor: I can give an example from Glasgow where we have a housing deficit, I believe, of £6 million for the current year. If one looks at the figure for rents, it will be seen that they brought in a total of £6·3 million. In these circumstances, and I would have liked to have gone into these figures in more detail before giving an answer, it would appear that the rents are providing about the same as the deficit. In this case there is room for some adjustment.
On the other hand, I would not like to say that we should try to put the faults of history right in one fell swoop. This could bring hardship, but in this case I would say that there is a need for adjustment. If the Minister would like to go into this in more detail, and I am very grateful to him for showing his interest, I would be only too glad to have a meeting with him very soon and to put my view to him. I hope that it was not the Minister's intention to deflect me from the point that I am making—that even if we had rents increased very substantially tomorrow, and brought up to an economic level, with no deficit in housing accounts, rates would still be substantial in Scotland and greater than in other parts of the country.
All the figures that I have given have been in respect of 1953–64–1963–64, which I understand were the figures upon which the Allen Committee based its Report. Since then, there has been a substantial increase in rates, and it would appear that the Government, unfortunately, have not been able to make proper estimates, or to maintain proper control over local authority expenditure, which has increased. I well remember that shortly after the Minister was put in charge of local authorities in Scotland he suggested that rates in the first year would rise by 4 per cent. I suggested that the figure might be nearer 8 per cent. In the event we were both wrong and the rise was proved to he 9 per cent.
In 1966–67 the Government made it clear that local authority spending was getting out of control and something had

991
to be done. They issued urgent directives about the need for restraint by Scottish local authorities. The net result is that the amount collected in rates increased by 16 per cent. The position is infinitely worse now than it was at the time of the Allen Committee's Report, and we have had additions to costs such as the petrol tax, vehicle licences, and the high cost of interests on loans. All of these will undoubtedly make the situation serious this year.
There has been a revaluation in Scotland this year, which did not take place in England and Wales. In revaluation years it has been the case that some local authorities indulge in a spending spree. In some cases this has happened in Scotland.
The Government have a very heavy responsibility indeed. They know that they owe their existence to Scotland. Were it not for the substantial swing in opinion in Scotland since 1964 their very shaky and miserable existence on the basis of a tiny majority could not be possible. The plain fact is that many people in Scotland voted for the Labour Party specifically because of its promises on rates.
What specific promises did the Labour Party make? There was one promise which was made quite clear and which was referred to by a substantial number of hon. Members opposite when we were in power. I wish to quote from "The New Britain", which was the Labour Party's manifesto for the 1964 General Election. In a reference to rates, it says:
"… Labour will restore the percentage grant and transfer the larger part of the cost of teachers' salaries from the rates to the Exchequer."
This was a wonderful promise which, if implemented, would make an enormous impact on the high cost of rates. As far as I can make out, in Glasgow the net cost of education this year will be about £27 million and teachers' salaries £13.3 million. Therefore, if the Government were to keep their pledge to transfer the cost of teachers' salaries to the Exchequer, I calculate that in Glasgow rates could be reduced by 8s. in the £.
But suppose that the Government wished to say, "Watch the small print. We did not say 'all'. We just said 'the larger part'", and suppose that by "the
992
larger part" they meant only half. If we were to transfer half the cost of £13·3 million for teachers' salaries in Glasgow to the Exchequer, we could cut our rates by 4s. This is a very substantial sum. I know for a fact that there are some people in my constituency—and I am sure that there are people in many other Scottish constituencies—who voted for the Labour Party because of this specific pledge which would have such a dramatic effect on the rates if it were put into operation.
The first question which the Minister of State must answer—and I appeal to him to ignore all the other questions, if necessary, but to answer this one—is: do the Government still hold to their pledge to restore the percentage grant and to transfer the larger part of the cost of teachers' salaries from the rates to the Exchequer?
Dr. Mabon: Before this newspaper headline goes further, would the hon. Gentleman recalculate what he has said? Is he aware that the Government give grants on education budgets? Is he aware that we cannot just make a straight calculation on teachers' salaries and to deduct it in this way to give 8s.? Would he think again and give us another figure?
Mr. Taylor: I have here all the details of the specific grants given by the Government. They do cover not teachers' salaries but things like the supply of milk. If the Minister is now saying that an adjustment would have to be made in the general grant if teachers' salaries were transferred to the Exchequer, the Government should have made that clear when they published this brash and cheap document. They should have said, "We will transfer the cost of teachers' salaries, but we shall have to make an adjustment in the general grant to cover other services".
Is the Minister of State saying, as has happened with many other promises, "We mean this but we shall have to cut something else"? Are the Government saying that this pledge should be clarified by saying that adjustment will have to be made in the general grant? If the hon. Gentleman is simply saying that this pledge means that instead of having a general grant covering all subjects, including education, the Government will take, perhaps, £100 million off the general grant and give it towards the cost of

993
transferring teachers' salaries to the Exchequer, then the Government have mislead not only the people of Scotland but the people of Britain as a whole.
What was said in the manifesto must have meant something, and I should like the Minister of State to say precisely what it meant. Do the Government still hold to this pledge? When will it be brought into effect, and what effect would it have on rates? I assume that when the Government said that they would transfer the cost of teachers' salaries there would be the minimum adjustment to the general grant.
The second promise made which the Minister may also wish to comment on was that more Government help would be given to local authorities. Unfortunately, we saw from the Rate Support Grant Order which was discussed a few days ago that this is not happening. Local authorities in Scotland estimate their future spending at £273 million. But the Government have done something rather like what is done by people who put advertisements in the newspaper saying that Mr. Bloggs will no longer be responsible for the debts incurred by anyone else except Mr. Bloggs. They have simply said to local authorities in the Order that they are prepared to underwrite expenditure of only £264 million. They do not say that this money will not be spent. I believe that they know that it will be spent. But there is a difference of £9 million between the amount on which the Government are prepared to base their grants and the amount which local authorities calculate will be spent. Does the Minister think that this £9 million will be spent? If it is spent, who will pay for the difference?
The third promise was to bring early relief to ratepayers. There was, unfortunately, no indication that the relief would be limited to a very small sector of the electorate and that other ratepayers would have to bear part of the cost. My constituents have been faced with a substantial increase in rates. Local authority rates production in Scotland this year has increased by over 16 per cent. People are still waiting for this relief.
This is a problem which affects domestic ratepayers, but it is also a substantial problem for industry and
994
commerce. There was complaint in the Press not long ago by the steel industry that local rates were such a burden for it that it had to allow as much as 12s. 6d. per ton for their cost. I do not say that this is something to worry about unduly, because two years ago Colvilles estimated that it had to allow 26s. 9d. per ton for the cost of rates. The situation may vary from industry to industry, but this is the one example I have. Even two years ago the cost per ton which the steel companies had to allow for rates alone was more than double in Scotland.
Bearing in mind the enormous contribution which the steel works make to Scottish local authorities, perhaps the Minister of State could answer a question which is worrying Scottish local authorities: what will be the arrangements for paying rates when steel is nationalised? If, like the other nationalised industries, the steel industry has to make a contribution in lieu of paying rates on their property, this could have an enormous impact, because the nationalised industries pay considerably less than they would have to pay if they paid rates normally simply because of the arrangement for making a payment in lieu. When we appreciate that half the rates in Motherwell—Wishaw come from the steel works, we realise what an enormous difference there would be if, on nationalisation, there were a change in the way in which the steel works paid their rates.
What about commerce? I do not know whether the Minister of State has any shares in Woolworth's, but I know that he will be very interested in the annual report which will be made to Woolworth's shareholders on Friday. At the meeting on Friday, the chairman, Mr. F.L. Chapman, will be making a statement, and at the beginning of this statement—this is not an advance copy since all shareholders get it; one of my wealthy friends is a shareholder—it states that for the first time in many years there will be a reduction in the profits of the company.
What are the reasons given for the reduction? Of course, one is the Selective Employment Tax introduced by the Government. We know about that. Another is increased National Insurance contributions, again the result of Government Policy. Another reason is the heavier charge for rates, particularly in Scotland.

995
This is a problem which is being experienced not merely by Woolworth's, but all over the country.
I have spoken a little about Scotland, but I come now to the particular problem of Glasgow. I am afraid that many people in Glasgow are asking themselves whether they can afford to live in Glasgow any longer. Many sectors of industry and commerce are asking whether they can afford to continue in Glasgow. Scotland can certainly not survive without a healthy and prosperous Glasgow, but Glasgow's financial problems are becoming so acute that many firms in industry and commerce and many people are thinking of going, and some are even moving away.
How can we compare the Glasgow burden with that of other places? The Minister of State and I have on other occasions discussed the difficulty of making a comparison. Let us take, however, the poundage rate, which in Glasgow this year after revaluation is 24s. 6d. in the £. In Edinburgh it is 17s. 4d., Birmingham 12s. 8d., Manchester 14s. 10d., Liverpool 14s. 7d. and Leeds 12s. 6d. These are not entirely meaningful comparisons because, obviously, the values vary from one place to another.
Mr. John Robertson: Will the hon. Member tell us the rate burden in Newton Mearns, for example, where so many of his people reside?
Mr. Taylor: I cannot do so without notice. I could give the hon. Member the figure for 1963–64 from a document which one of my hon. Friends has with him which shows the rates for Renfrewshire generally. I cannot give the 1966–67 figure without notice, but I understand that the hon. Member will be able to get it very soon.
I was saying that that is not necessarily a meaningful comparison. One could say that Birmingham has a rate poundage of 12s. 8d. and Glasgow 24s. 6d. and that Glasgow is, therefore, paying twice as much, but that would not be a fair comparison because rateable values in different places vary. We have had revaluation in Scotland but England and Wales have not.
A fairer way of comparison would be to compare rates per head of population: in other words, what it costs to provide
996
local government services as a whole—police, water, housing and everything else—and comparing one part of the country with another per head of population. Glasgow has a figure of £35 16s. per head of population in the year 1966–67. That is an appalling figure because it means that the average man, woman and child has to pay, directly or indirectly, £35 16s. for local rating services. They pay it either directly on their houses or indirectly through the firms for which they work or the shops in which they buy their goods. That is an enormous figure. It represents about £140 for the average family this year in Glasgow.
How does this compare with other cities? For Edinburgh we have a figure of £30 13s. 7d.; for Dundee, where the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has such an interest, £28 3s. 10d.; for Greenock, where the Minister of State is the Member of Parliament—that is probably part of the reason why it is so very low—£23 4s.; and Liverpool £24 13s. 9d. This means that for the same services Glasgow ratepayers have to pay one-sixth or 17 per cent. more than Edinburgh ratepayers, 25 per cent. more than Dundee, 50 per cent. more than Greenock and 45 per cent. more than Liverpool.
This has been a year of revaluation and some people have not noticed the dramatic jump in the cost of services per head of population in Glasgow of 24 per cent. Last year, the figure was £28 17s. 11d. This year it is £35 16s., a jump of 24 per cent., or almost one-quarter in a period of one year. The domestic ratepayers have not entirely noticed this because most of the increase has been in the valuations of commercial premises.
I would like to give the Minister a note of one or two of the commercial increases in Glasgow. I have a list of warehouses and the increases which they have suffered. If I had known that I would have the opportunity of raising this subject this morning, I would have endeavoured to get details of some of the retail premises. However, I found these particulars of warehouses in my file.
Before revaluation, the year before last, the rateable value of Arthur & Co was £20,746. The proposed new valuation is £58,080.
Mr. John Robertson: Perhaps the hon. Member can tell us the significant figure. What proportion of rates is paid by the various classes of ratepayer in Glasgow—for instance, domestic, commercial, shops and offices, industry and others? That information would be meaningful.
Mr. Taylor: Had I known at the weekend that I would be able to raise this matter, I would certainly have had the figures. All I can say is that I can get them for the hon. Member. If he is interested, I hope that on the basis of the figures which I give, he will be able to help me in this campaign which I am undertaking.
Take some of the warehouses. Arthur's valuation is up by 180 per cent. Gerber's, another big warehouse, is up from £6,000 to £17,400. an increase of—
Mr. Robertson: These figures are meaningless. They might mean one of two things. One is that in previous years these companies have been getting away with murder and not paying their adequate share of the rates. Without additional information, therefore, the figures are meaningless. My recollection is that in Glasgow industry and commerce were paying a share of the rates that was below the Scottish average. Consequently, they have been subsidised all the years by domestic ratepayers.
Mr. Taylor: I am glad that the hon. Member knows so much about the position in Glasgow. All I can tell him is that what he is saying is complete and utter nonsense.
There is no way adequately of comparing commercial and other property. The question is what percentage the various sectors bear. [Interruption.] I have given way seven times and I am holding up business. The hon. Member claims to be an expert on Glasgow. I do not claim to be an expert on Paisley, but I spent five years on the Glasgow Town Council. The hon. Member can discuss this matter with any of his colleagues from Glasgow, from whom he will get the information that commercial firms in Glasgow are facing disaster. If the hon. Member will not accept that he must ask his hon. Friends who represent the Labour Party from Glasgow. If he does not think that we have a problem and crisis in Glasgow, he should go there and try to find out something about it.
998
If he had a warehouse like Wolfson, he would know that its rateable value has gone up from £6,400 to £19,580, an increase of 201 per cent., with only a tiny fractional reduction in the poundage rate.
I would like to know how the hon. Member would face that if he were a businessman. The only way to face it is to try to be more efficient and to put up prices. That, unfortunately, is precisely what is happening in Glasgow. Commerce is being priced out. We have seen the results of this. We have seen the Colloseum, a major store in Glasgow, having to close. Does the hon. Member think that it wants to close simply to discredit the Labour Government or the Socialist-controlled town council?
Dr. Mabon: On a point of order. May I get this clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker? The Government in Scotland have no control whatever over valuation. How can a Minister be asked to answer this debate when the matter is one for the assessors, for the valuation system and the Court of Session? I agree that in England it is a matter for the Inland Revenue, but in Scotland it is not. It is a quasi-judicial system over which Ministers do not exercise administrative control.
Mr. Taylor: Further to that point of order. I was coming directly to the question of the rate burden and I ask the indulgence of the House to continue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that the subject which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is raising on the Adjournment is the alleged burden of high rates in Scotland. The scope of the debate should be confined to matters relating to that subject for which the Secretary of State for Scotland has some responsibility.
Mr. Taylor: I must apologise to the Minister if it seemed that I was going off course. As he will appreciate, his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) led me astray.
I was trying to make the point, which the Minister will surely accept, that in Glasgow we have had an increase of 24 per cent. in the amount raised by rates. It has been a year of revaluation and, therefore, the increase has been

999
largely unnoticed. The reason why it has been largely unnoticed is that most of the increase has been in respect of commercial properties. I have given the figures as evidence of how commercial properties are carrying a much larger share, and this substantial increase will be reflected in prices in Glasgow.
Rates in Scotland are extremely high, but in Glasgow we have the particular problem that for the same local authority services ratepayers pay 17 per cent. more than the ratepayers of Edinburgh, 25 per cent. more than those of Dundee and 45 per cent. more than those of Liverpool. The effect on industry can be substantial. Three years ago, I did a survey for the Clyde shipyards, comparing Glasgow with other shipbuilding towns, and I found that on average Glasgow was paying 16 per cent. more than the rest of Scotland, 35 per cent. more than Liverpool, 75 per cent. more than Birkenhead and Wallsend and 98 per cent. more than South Shields. Those are comparable shipbuilding towns and now we have a situation in which Glasgow is in danger of committing economic suicide unless something is done.
What have the Government done and what can they do? We know that the Cullingworth Report has called upon the Government to give Glasgow help to solve its unique housing problem, but we want to know what response the Government intend to make. They have introduced new formulae for the equalisation grant and the general support grant, but, unfortunately, the effect has been—using the basis of the figures provided in Facts and Figures, 1966, and the document provided by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, a document with which the Minister will be familiar—that Glasgow's equalisation grant has fallen from £3.5 million to £2 million. If those figures are incorrect, I hope that the Minister will take immediate steps to see that something is done about them, because these documents have always been regarded as extremely authoritative.
The Government themselves have added to costs by the imposition of the Selective Employment Tax and by increasing petrol tax and so on. They have always said that they would provide more money for housing, but the figures show
1000
that in the current year, 1966–67, Government assistance for housing, as shown by the Housing Statistics, in Glasgow has fallen to £3.2 million from £3.5 million last year, so that it is not even keeping pace with the increase in expenditure.
I call upon the Government to do several things. First, they should clearly say whether they intend to keep their promises, particularly their promise to transfer the cost of teachers' salaries to the Exchequer, a cost which for Glasgow, if there were not adjustments in the general grant, would amount to an increase in rates of 8s. in the £. Secondly, I would like to know whether their other promises about reducing rates will be kept.
Thirdly and most important, in view of the dangerous situation facing Glasgow industry, commerce and ratepayers, are the Government prepared to appoint a committee to conduct a full-scale inquiry into Glasgow local government finances? I would like such a committee to include representatives of the big industrialists, business efficiency experts and local government experts. Let them be charged with identifying the reasons for the much higher costs in Glasgow.
They might bring forward recommendations to say that a substantial amount of ratepayers' money could be paid. There may have been extravagance and waste. If so, we should know about it and something could then be done. But it may be that the problem is not the fault of Glasgow Corporation and that special help would be justified because of the special problems which Glasgow has to face.
Dr. Mabon: There is not much time left in which to reply.
Mr. Taylor: I have been constantly interrupted, but I will close as quickly as possible.
We want an outside inquiry to find out why there is this substantial differential. If the fault is the administration in Glasgow, let something be done about it. But if the fault is entirely beyond the control of Glasgow Corporation and if the differential arises because of the special problems of Glasgow, the Government should consider special help for Glasgow along the lines suggested by the Cullingworth Report for Glasgow's housing.

1001
The Minister must accept that the health of Scotland depends upon the health of Glasgow. Glasgow's financial problems are so acute that industry, commerce and the ratepayers generally look to the future with gloom and despondency. Something must be done and I hope that the Minister will tell us what he intends to do.
12.16 p.m.
Mr. Peter Doig: I listened to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) with great interest. In view of his record, I was convinced that he would do his best to make propaganda on behalf of the Tory Party in the Pollok by-election. I did him a grave injustice, for he did nothing of the kind. What he has done has been to show that he is far more concerned about those who own shares in the steelworks, or in Woolworths, or in the shipyards, than he is about Glasgow's ratepayers.
The hon. Member asked why revaluation in Scotland had not been postponed. He must be aware that the one effect of revaluation has been to shift a proportion of the burden of rates from domestic ratepayers to business and commercial ratepayers. I want to help him and I will tell him how this comes about. Assessors are instructed to base their revaluations of domestic premises on what a house would be likely to bring in the open market, if there were no shortage and no surplus of housing, but their revaluations of commercial premises solely on what the price would be in the open market. That is why revaluation acts against the owners of business and commercial premises. If it acts against them, it must act in favour of domestic ratepayers. The one thing which would have been harmful to Scottish ratepayers would have been the postponement of revaluation in Scotland.
It is clear that the hon. Member has been arguing not on behalf of the ratepayers of Glasgow, or any other Scottish local authority, but for those who, he says, pay too large a proportion of the rates—the owners of business or commercial premises.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman say that transferring an enormous proportion of rating costs to shopkeepers helps domestic ratepayers?
1002
Surely the only effect is higher prices in the shops.
Mr. Doig: The hon. Gentleman did not mention shopkeepers. He took his examples from the steelworks, Woolworth's and the shipyards. Those who have had the largest increases in rates have not been the shopkeepers, but the big business owners. If they are now paying a bigger share, ordinary householders in Glasgow are paying a smaller share. The fault is not that of the assessors, but of previous Governments, who laid down the formulae.
Rates are paid to pay for the services which the public wants and which are provided by a local authority. As an ex-member of a local authority, the hon. Gentleman must be well aware of this. What are these based on? By far the largest item is education. I have the Glasgow figures. The figure for education in Glasgow is £24 13s. 7d. per head of the population.
The only criticism which the hon. Gentleman made was not that money was being squandered by the Glasgow Corporation, but that the cost of paying for teachers' salaries ought to be borne by the taxpayer rather than the ratepayer. That was the basis of his criticism of education expenditure.
If the Government took it all over, as they may well do before long, what would be the main effect on those people whom the hon. Gentleman appears to be concerned about, such as the steel owners, the Woolworth's shareholders, and the rest? He must know that the directors of those companies and the larger shareholders in the companies would pay a greater amount if it were taken over by Government finance than by local government finance. The hon. Gentleman is not helping these people. Goodness knows whom he is helping, because he does not seem to be helping anybody.
We come to the question of housing, about which the hon. Member had a great deal to say. I said that £24 per head was spent on education. For housing, it is only £4 18s. 3d., which is not a great deal by comparison with the total. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that if only the local authority would increase the rents it could solve this problem. I once calculated that if we doubled the rents in Dundee and put them up to

1003
even the full economic rent, it would not have helped a great deal.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about economic rents. Does he know what an economic rent is? Is he suggesting that the citizens of Glasgow who occupy corporation houses should pay somewhere in the region of £6 a week plus rates? That is an economic rent. Let us be clear about that. Do not let us mince words. The economic rent for the most recently built local authority houses in my constituency is over £6 a week plus rates. Is this the sort of rate that he is advocating for the people of Glasgow?
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: That would be an average for Dundee if there were economic rents. I do not say that economic rents should be brought in tomorrow. I would also accept that in Glasgow the figure is considerably less than £2 to balance our housing accounts.
Mr. Doig: The hon. Gentleman said that housing rates were coping with roughly half of the cost of housing, but, in fact, they are coping with only about a third. He also said that the local authority could save about £6,000 if it charged economic rents. I am pointing out what economic rents are. It is no good the hon. Gentleman talking about something if he does not know what it means. We want to know, and the people of Glasgow want to know, exactly what the hon. Gentleman is advocating. If he is advocating an economic rent, the economic rent for the most recently-built houses is over £6 per week plus rates.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about economic comparisons between a number of other local authorities, comparison between what they pay, the rateable value. I have also made some comparisons. If we take Glasgow, the rateable value per head of population is £22 5s. In Edinburgh, which the hon. Gentleman gave as an example as paying lower rates for the same services, the rateable value per head of population is £26 15s. It is true that the rate poundage is lower in Edinburgh than in Glasgow, but the rateable value on which they pay rates is higher in Edinburgh than in Glasgow, or, for that matter, anywhere else in Scotland. We have to take the two figures together before we can get a fair comparison.
1004
The hon. Gentleman went on to compare a number of places in Scotland. It so happens that I have a brother who lives just outside London. He has a lower rate poundage. I asked his wife how much money she pays in rates per year and it was higher than we pay in Scotland. It was higher than I pay in Scotland, but it was a lower rate poundage. She has to pay more for rates than I do. This can be very misleading unless we look at the whole picture.
The Government are already giving—and we should not forget this—a very substantial amount of aid towards local rates. If we take Glasgow as an example—and the figures which I have are those before devaluation—the figure was £49 12s. 11d. per head. The Government were giving £34 9s. 8d. in Exchequer equalisation grant and another £15 18s. 6d. in general grant, making a total of £50 8s. 2d. per head. The Government were paying more than the Corporation of Glasgow towards keeping up the services for Glasgow people. So, already, there is a very considerable contribution being made from the central Government.
There may be good reasons why that should be increased. I would like to see it increased, because I believe that raising revenue through taxation is a fairer way than raising revenue through rates, but do not let us under-estimate the aid being given now by the central Government.
In all the hon. Gentleman's talk about services being provided and paid for out of rates, he did not give a single example of any waste that had taken place. He did not say that money was being wasted. He made the point that the local authority was not charging enough rent for corporation houses, but apart from this he gave no evidence of any waste. If these rates are used to pay for services which the people want, such as for providing education, houses, caring for old people, and for health services run by the corporation—and these are the sort of things it provides—does anyone begrudge these things?
Let us get down to working out how much it costs. I worked it out that for one year it cost 5d. for the use of the public parks in Dundee. I never found a single person who objected to that. If we take any one item covered by rates, we will not find one person in Glasgow or anywhere else who objects to paying for

1005
the services provided, because they get very good value.
It is quite obvious from what the hon. Gentleman said that the people he is concerned about are the shareholders and directors of the large firms. He is not concerned about the ratepayers. He had no criticism and no evidence of any taxpayers' money that was wasted by the corporation in Glasgow or anywhere else. His chief objections were directed against revaluation, which has helped ratepayers, and to the actual system, which he said was wrong. I told the hon. Gentleman where it went wrong so that he could put it right if he had enough energy to devote to it. It is a matter for the Government to put right and not a matter for anyone else. The hon. Gentleman has done a service to the whole of Glasgow by making his views quite clear for the first time for a very long time.
Dr. Mabon rose—
Mr. Hector Monro: I would be much obliged if I could intervene on a point of order. I have sat in the Chamber since ten past ten this morning, hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this very point about rates. We have heard from two hon. Gentlemen, one talking about Glasgow and the other talking mainly about Dundee. I think that we should have a word from those hon. Members representing rural areas in Scotland which are so important and are so heavily hit by rising rates. I feel sure that the Minister could make his apology in under half an hour.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not know whether the Minister can or cannot. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) spoke for 45 minutes, and presumably he wants a reply from the Minister. That is why the hon. Member raised the matter on the Adjournment, and as the Minister rose it was my duty to call him to reply.
12.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If my speech is shorter than I had intended it to be. I hope that the hon. Member will get an opportunity to take part in the debate.
1006
It is not often that I enjoy the luxury of having enough time to reply adequately to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). Usually I am rushed, as I was during the Adjournment debate on 27th May last year. On that occasion I had prepared a great deal to say, and was anxious to correct a number of points which had been made, but, unfortunately, I was denied the proper opportunity of making an adequate speech because of other business, although I must add that the hon. Gentleman was able to be very expansive. I do not, of course, complain about that; I merely envy him and wish that I had the same kind of opportunity.
A number of misapprehensions about rates continue to linger in the hon. Gentleman's mind. This is rather sad, because he devotes a lot of time to the study of this subject. If he had been a back bencher during the 1959–64 Parliament he would have had a good time criticising his Government for the way in which they handled this matter, and if he had been a back bencher in the in the 1955–59 Parliament he would have been in the glorious position of being able to rebel against the Rating and Valuation Bill, which is the foundation of the rating system in Scotland. This extremely important Bill was passed by the then Government, and in the words of the then Under-Secretary of State, Lord Craigton, it was to last for 100 years.
The fact is, however, that we have had to amend it. The party opposite had to reconsider some of its thoughts on the 1956 Act and introduce fresh local government legislation. For example, in 1958 right hon. Gentlemen opposite
"took a long look at local government finance and decided to make a major reform in local government finance based on the valuation system."
In 1963, they had to introduce another Bill to amend the original Measure, and it is all these Acts that we are talking about this morning.
The system of rating and valuation under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, is not primarily the responsibility of the Secretary of State. It is the responsibility of the valuers who are not appointed by the Secretary of State in dividuals. Nor is he responsible for their

1007
professional judgments. There is a valuation appeal system under which, if objections are raised, they are considered by the Court of Session. If objections are raised not on a matter of substance on the appeals, but on the way in which the appeals are conducted, again the Secretary of State does not come into it. The issue is considered by the Council on Tribunals in Scotland. If someone has a complaint on that score it goes to that tribunal. I therefore cannot answer for all the maters which have been raised. I want to stick as closely as I can to the local government aspect of the problem rather than to the operation of the valuation system.
It may be true that we should have had the Inland Revenue in Scotland. We then would not have had our valuations quite so much on schedule as we have, because I understand that in England valuations have had to be postponed because of the sheer volume of work falling on the Inland Revenue authorities. But it was the party opposite which insisted that valuations in Scotland should be based on assessors. It was hon. Gentlemen opposite who insisted on the quinquennial reviews in 1961 and 1966, and one can hardly blame this Government for what happened as a result of these reviews, or because we have a different system of valuation from the English one.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we should have postponed revaluation, they should complain not to us but to their hon. Friends. We are being blamed for what has happened, and during the hon. Gentleman's speech this morning he seemed to imply that somehow or other the present Secretary of State for Scotland was responsible for this state of affairs, and that as I was to answer the debate clearly I had some responsibility in the matter. This is not true.
The 1958 and 1963 Local Government Acts imposed what was virtually a straitjacket on local government finance in Scotland. When the hon. Gentleman complains about Glasgow he does a lot of disservice to the city by giving the impression, as he did this morning, that it is a fantastically high-rated city and that industry and commerce would do well to keep out of it. I concede that we ought to be examining this matter, and this is exactly what we are doing. The
1008
party opposite had 13 years in which to do it, but nothing was done.
The hon. Gentleman called for a high-powered Committee. What he wants is more of a political committee than an actuarial one, one which will denounce the corporation and the Government instead of looking for a solution to the problem. If it is true that there is a difference in the rate burden in Glasgow, something which is unique in the British Isles, we must find some solution within the present system to try to adjust the situation, and this is what the working party on local government finance concerning Glasgow is doing at the moment. No other Government has done this for Glasgow.
The working party to which I have referred was established as a result of meetings which I had with Glasgow concerning housing and land use. The working party is the result of discussions about rehousing Glasgow's population. The hon. Gentleman says that people are leaving Glasgow because of the high rates. This is sheer nonsense. We are trying desperately to get as many families as we can out of Glasgow into decent houses simply because we cannot rehouse all the Glasgow people in the city. It is physically impossible to put them into decent houses in the city and, therefore, we have to rehouse a large number of them outside.
The hon. Gentleman's Government had a poor record in housing Glasgow's population. We have to improve on it, and not merely on the figures which they left as a target, namely, 3,500 families a year to be rehoused outside the city. We have to go further, and for this reason, and the various other reasons which have been given from time to time, we have begun discussions with Glasgow, and there has been a special exercise in the Rate Support Grant Order system to see whether Glasgow is harshly treated.
The hon. Gentleman gave away his case about Glasgow being treated badly when he said that a survey had been carried out three years ago. It must be remembered that that was when his party was in power, and when the system of grants being operated was that laid down by his Government. Incidentally, I would be very glad to be able to read the survey in full. If the hon. Gentleman could provide me with it all, rather than

1009
merely with extracts, I think that it would be a great help to the review being carried out by the working party.
I appreciate that this survey was commissioned by the shipbuilding interests on the Clyde. It was perfectly in order and correct for such a survey to be carried out to enable a comparison to be made with other shipbuilding centres, and I would welcome the information obtained by it. It might help us to decide whether additional steps ought to be taken to help Glasgow which has been treated unfairly, not because of bad government, but because of the rating system and because of the way in which various Acts of Parliament have worked—the Exchequer equalisation grant formula and for that matter the general grant formula.
This is the first Government to meet Glasgow on this matter. Glasgow has been saying, not for three years, not even for six years, but for many years, that because of its immense housing obligations, which were highlighted in the Cullingworth Report, which the Government commissioned, she has been unfairly treated, and has had to bear a heavy burden. The previous Government made no attempt to deal with the problem. They wound up the Committee and refused to let it meet. We restarted the Committee, and from it we have received some useful and important information.
When Glasgow was in difficulties during the decade or so when the party opposite was in power, the city received no help from the then Government. No inquiry was carried out by the Government, and no discussions were held with the local authority to see how the city could get a better deal. We are doing just this because, unlike the previous Acts, under which there was a straitjacket system such as in the general grant and the amending Act of 1963, we now have a rate support grant whose formula which, by consent of both sides, is alive, the Rate Support Grant Order. It can be varied in accordance with whatever agreements local authorities can come to with the Secretary of State.
We have a completely open system, as I mentioned in the debate on the Rate Support Grant Order last month, when we were discussing the first and second years. I gave due notice to the local authority associations that, while we stood
1010
by the distribution formula for the first year, we might have to import into our discussions an additional factor resulting from the discussions with the working party in Glasgow, which might alter the position in respect of the Rate Support Grant Order in the second year.
Scottish local authorities other than Glasgow are willing to co-operate in this, even though they may be placed at a slight disadvantage. The Government can help in other ways. They may take this as their option rather than the Rate Support Grant Order, but even if there had been good will in the minds of the Ministers of the Conservative Government, they did not have the legislative means to do this. It can, therefore, be fairly stated that, the 1963 Act having been passed by them, they did not want the means or, alternatively, did not have the will, to re-examine the Glasgow position.
We have the means. The Local Government (Scotland) Act, which received the Royal Assent on 21st December, 1966, gave us the means to make an adjustment. We have demonstrated our good will by taking part in the operation of this working party.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the position has been made slightly more serious because of the reduction in the Exchequer equalisation grant, which appears to be £1½ million? Could that be restored immediately?
Dr. Mabon: Either the hon. Member does not understand the system, or he is being quite mischievous. I have been at pains to make clear, for the benefit of English Members, that the valuation system in Scotland is not the responsibility of the Inland Revenue, but depends upon a system which is quasi-judicial in character, in which Ministers do not exercise day-to-day control. The reason why Glasgow has lost this amount of Exchequer equalisation grant this year is not because of the Secretary of State, or of the Government, but because of the valuation.
The valuation judged by the city assessor was £2 million more than he allowed for in his earlier figures, which meant an adjustment under the Exchequer equalisation grant formula which the party opposite had introduced, as a modification of the formula that the Labour Party

1011
first adopted when in power. No one can claim that the existence of the formula was our fault, or that the valuation mistake—if it can be called that—was a mistake by the Government; it was a mistake by the city assessor.
That being the case, the grant could not be restored without bringing in a special Act of Parliament. That would have been in complete defiance of the rules laid down in the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, and subsequent statutes passed by the party opposite. That would have been quite wrong.
We are proceeding on the correct lines, which is to have a working party examine the situation to see whether, within the present system, we can arrive at an adjustment which will place Glasgow in as fair a position as other authorities.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I apologise for not being here earlier. It is one more argument for the building of another runway at Turnhouse Airport—which has often been the cause of delay during the past month.
Is my hon. Friend basically happy about the present Exchequer equalisation grant formula? Has he said anything about it earlier? This question concerns not only Glasgow, but many other authorities which have close relations with Glasgow.
Dr. Mabon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was delayed. If Edinburgh Corporation will look at the matter again—it has been doing so under both Governments—we might get an extra runway at Turnhouse. That is not the responsibility of the Government; it is Edinburgh's responsibility. I hope that Edinburgh will do as well in the East of Scotland as Glasgow and the Government have done in the West.
I acknowledge the force of my hon. Friend's question. The Exchequer equalisation grant formula finishes this May. This is the last of the financial years in which it will operate. The new formula relating to the resources element of the rate support grant will begin to operate in the next financial year. If my hon. Friend has any points to make to me on the matter, I hope that he will do so, and I hope, also, that his county is aware of the procedure. It can raise
1012
these matters in the discussions with the working party, which is now meeting in connection with the rate support grant in order to examine a number of the consequences of the way in which the resources element is being worked out.
We cannot make judgments about the Rate Support Grant Order until we are through the first financial year and can see what the out-turn is. Too many suppositions are being made by treasurers—in quite good faith—which may lead some hon. Members to believe this, or that, or the other will turn out to be the case. A great deal of concern has been expressed on the question of the roads element. That cannot be defined precisely until the Secretary of State collects the voices of the local authorities and studies their advice on the principal roads, because to a large extent that will determine the way in which the roads element will affect the needs part of the Rate Support Grant Order. People must have a long look at the figures before coming to conclusions as to what should be done about the formula.
If something were wrong with the existing formula it could be changed administratively. That is very useful. Local authorities have every right to make their case, and the Government have every opportunity to listen to them and to do something about the situation. Under the procedure laid down the House has the right to comment upon and reject the Order. That opportunity was denied to the House when the party opposite was in power. They wrote into their Acts rigid formulae which did not allow for changes without new legislation.
Our discussions of Glasgow difficulties with the working party amount to a real and living thing. They are something upon which definite conclusions can be based and recommendations can be made to the Government. These recommendations can be carried out without the need for a new Act of Parliament.
I have dealt at considerable length with the point made by the hon. Member for Cathcart about valuation in Glasgow. I have been in close liaison both with the city treasurer and the city chamberlain about the need for special treatment. I saw them on Friday. This matter is one of active concern on the part of the Government, and when the report is available, in June, I propose to discuss it again,

1013
at length, with the corporation when I meet it in connection with other matters.
We are continually reminded of the heavy housing burden that falls on Glasgow. One of its heavy burdens arises because of the high interest rates that it has been paying on loans made by the previous Government. The money which is being used to build many Glasgow houses was borrowed at the existing 4 per cent. rate. The Housing Subsidies Bill will receive the Royal Assent reasonably soon, and under it the Government have pledged themselves to pay Glasgow back to 25th November, 1965—which means that it will include many houses under construction—and we are paying additional subsidies on houses approved on 1st January, 1965. They are getting the benefit of the 4 per cent. interest rate.
The hon. Member for Cathcart says that interest rates are a heavy burden. That was not the view of the Under-Secretary of State on 22nd November, 1961, when a number of Glasgow Members complained of the heavy burdens that Glasgow was carrying through high interest rates, which meant that they had to borrow heavily to keep their housing programmes going. The Under-Secretary said:
"the high interest rate is no deterrent to continued building. It is simply tilting at windmills to suggest that the level of interest rates is a serious deterrent. … That is exactly what I am saying. Interest rates have nothing whatever to do with the biggest housing problem of all in Scotland, and the hon. Gentleman might have admitted that instead of talking of interest rates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November 1961; Vol. 649, c. 1465.]
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), is not here, because he would have a row with his hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, who is quite right in saying that interest rates are important to local authorities, and interest rates on housing, in particular, are important to Glasgow. We have very good improvement grants in Scotland and I hope that more of them can be used.
These grants come within the ambit of local government finance, and one has to approach this with caution. One does not want to spend money on the scale of Birmingham in Scotland, when Birmingham was in a much better position. I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows Birmingham well enough to real-
1014
ise that our tenemental properties in Glasgow present great problems. I believe it was his late right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove, Mr. Walter Elliot, who called them
"castles of misery, magnificent sandstone tenements."
They absolutely defy modern plumbing.
Simply to introduce a toilet for each home in these tenements costs a great deal of money. I hope that people will hesitate before they urge local authorities in Scotland to spend a lot of money on the improvement of these tenements.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend has said that he hoped that conditions would be created whereby more improvement grants could be used. This seems to be a very important statement. What are the difficulties in the way of improvement grants being used to their fullest extent? Are there any difficulties that we could help to remove?
Dr. Mabon: I doubt whether we could remove them, because they are difficulties in structure and in staff. One would have to turn an architect away from building new houses to redesign the old houses. This is one of the reasons put forward by many authorities for not going ahead with improvement grants. It is not finance. I have discussed this with many councils, Paisley, Barrhead, Glasgow, Johnstone. They have done very well with the present grants, and they decided not to go ahead with other schemes because it was not worth the money.
May I turn now to the promises mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. In May, we shall see introduced for the first time a domestic element in the rate support grant, which means that the domestic ratepayer in Scotland will receive an immediate reduction of 10d. in the £. No matter what the rate is fixed at, there will be this automatic reduction of 10d. in the first year and 1s. 8d. in the succeeding year. This is a novel and revolutionary step forward. It is not just a promise—it has been carried into legislative force and taken to the point of reality. I hope that the domestic ratepayers will appreciate this.
The domestic ratepayers were not so well off under the party opposite because they received very little relief, most of it preferentially or individually. In Scotland, in the financial year up to

1015
November, 120,000 ratepayers received rating relief under the Rating Act, an Act which we wanted to pass many years ago but which the party opposite refused. It brought in a Rating (Interim Relief) Act as a deathbed repentance in 1964, and we got about £1 million out of that, spread over a number of years. That was the last desperate dying effort of the party opposite to try to square itself with the ratepayers.
The Rating Act is giving relief to 120,000 ratepayers in Scotland and that is a figure worthy of note. It is not as many as we would like; we believe that there are about 160,000 to 170,000 ratepayers in Scotland who ought to be receiving rating relief under the Labour Government's Act, but how do who do not know about it or who have not come forward. I hope that every hon. Member will do his best to encourage those ratepayers with small incomes to benefit from this Measure. We have had a good response in the east of Scotland, not so good I regret to say in the City of Glasgow when I last examined the figures.
The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the teachers' salaries and the promises in the Labour Party manifesto in 1964. He can do this if he wants, but events have moved much more rapidly. The hon. Gentleman has to recognise that we have had time to examine the rating system, and with no preparation, to take action where none was taken before. The only thing done was the setting up of the Allen Committee, from which the hon. Gentleman quoted inaccurately. We did not get the Report of the Committee until February, 1965. Therefore, we had to do something when we came into power, and the first thing that we did was to add to the existing grants the sum of £2 million. In the General Grant Order of 1964–65–66 which I had the privilege of moving in December, 1964, in this House, the English equivalent was something like £18 million to £20 million. I am speaking off the cuff now.
Our Order was to provide for £2 million more in expenditure and something like £1·2 million in direct Government loan. That was our first step. When we had the Report of the Allen Committee in 1965 we had to examine much
1016
more deeply than had been done before, using an inter-Departmental Committee, the possible alternatives to a rating system. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is perfectly right when he says that we on these benches very much favour a closer form of direct taxation, such as local income tax. Before we can have this we will need various reforms in local government, particularly territorial reforms.
The Royal Commission may produce these in both countries in reasonably good time. The Commissions are enjoined to recognise the problem of finance even though they are not expected to provide a solution, and the Government acknowledge that once the recommendations are made, they may be in a more favourable position to tackle the whole problem of local government finance much more fundamentally. We gave an extra £1·2 million in order to increase local government expenditure up to £2 million in the second financial year. After the Allen Committee, we had to have a deep examination of local government and we introduced as a stop-gap measure, a Local Government (Scotland) Act, which modified the present rating system.
I have touched on a number of points in my reference to the domestic element, the 10d. and 8d., which domestic ratepayers will receive in May, 1967, and 1968, in the resources element grant which I have mentioned in relation to the reformation of the Exchequer equalisation grant. The party opposite witnessed successive reformations of local government finance when they were in power, which began at a relatively high figure of Government percentage as opposed to local government percentage in the makeup of local government expenditure. It was about 55 per cent., then it would fall off, and be raised again up to perhaps 57 per cent. and fall again down to 51 per cent. or 52 per cent.
I recall these figures from memory, as a result of the nature of this debate. It is enjoined in the Local Government Finance Act that the Government portion of the expenditure will rise 1 per cent. each year. This is happening. When I moved the Rate Support Grant Order I gave the figure of 62½ per cent., rising to 63½ per cent. It is the Government's intention that we should gradually take over the burden until such time as we

1017
reform the whole structure of local government finance.
The hon. Gentleman is a revolutionary. He is not at one with his party about the rating system. He does not believe in a rating system left with local authorities or in the present system which his party supports. He believes in a system which sees the scrapping of the rating system, and local governments made into regional authorities, financed entirely from the Exchequer, like regional hospital boards. I have discussed this with many local authorities and they regard it as death. They would regard this as being agents of the Minister, like regional hospital boards.
In striving to find a solution to local government finance the hon. Gentleman
1018
ought not to slit the throat of local government in the process. Local government in England and Scotland has done a great service to modem 20th century democracy, and it would be foolish for us, because of our despair over rising rates, to believe that we ought not to have any local people serving the community on local instruments of modern government. This would be a great mistake, and I urge the hon. Gentleman in studying this matter further not to kill local government because he wants to kill the rate demand notice.
The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.
Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Edinburgh Corporation, presented by Mr. Ross (under Section 8 of the Act); read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 14th March, and to be printed. [Bill 203.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

    Foreign Office (Rebuilding)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give an assurance that no final decision on the rebuilding of the Foreign Office and the buildings adjacent to it will be taken until Her Majesty's Government has received, and Parliament has discussed, the report of the tribunal of three judges which is to consider the question of the legal ownership of the India Office building, since such a decision must tend to prejudice the tribunal's deliberations.
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Reginald Prentice): No, Sir. The decision to rebuild the Foreign Office was taken by the previous Government, and has been confirmed by the present Government.
    Mr. Driberg: If that is so, can my right hon. Friend say how it is that I was told on 17th January by the Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs that correspondence is continuing with India and Pakistan on a tribunal to investigate the legal ownership of the India Office? If we do not yet know who owns it, how can my right hon. Friend pull it down?
    Mr. Prentice: When the decision was made to demolish the Foreign Office, the Governments of India and Pakistan were informed, and they raised no objections. The removal of the library should take place before the end of this year, and that will not prejudice any future decision about the ownership of it.

    Industrial Circular 2/67
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Public Building and Works, (1) what steps he is taking to amend the provisions of industrial circular 2/67 (EE 317/2/2/4);
    (2) how many leading men have been interviewed under the provisions of industrial circular 2/67 (EE 317/2/2/4); and how many of them have failed to gain recognition in technical grade III.
    Mr. Prentice: I have had correspondence with my hon. Friend on this subject, but I am not aware that any amendments to the circular are necessary. The boards concerned have the task of interviewing at least 700 men; they have not yet reported but I will let my hon. Friend have the information he seeks as soon as it becomes available.
    Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer, but does not he agree that there are some serious misgivings among the men concerned and there is great need for clarification of the circular? Would this be possible?
    Mr. Prentice: Before being issued, the circular was discussed with the joint industrial council, which had no objection to it. In so far as my hon. Friend has found misgivings and I have been able to explain some of the policy to him, he may be of help to us in getting it better understood. If there are steps which my Department can take, I shall consider them and, in particular, any suggestions from my hon. Friend.

    Bricks
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what consideration he is giving to the provision of bridging finance to brick makers on the lines of that recommended for private builders by Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prentice: I have been examining the matter of credit for the brick industry and I am satisfied that there is no bar to the granting of normal facilities to credit-worthy applicants from the brick industry, whether for manufacturing or for stock holding.
    Mr. Body: Does the Minister realise that stocks are now at an all-time record

    1021
    level since the war—nearly 1,000 million bricks despite the best weather we have had in any winter since the war? Is it not a disgrace that there should be this level of brick stocks, caused entirely by the exhortations of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor? Is not the least he can do to give the same kind of help to the brick maker as to the private builder?
    Mr. Prentice: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "Yes, Sir"; I know that stocks are at a very high level. I do not agree that this is due to the exhortations of my predecessor. Indeed, the extra capacity was planned and to a large extent laid down before the present Government came into office. There are later Questions about brick production.
    Sir G. Nabarro: At the end of December the stock of bricks was 886 million. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the stock of bricks was at the end of February? Is my hon. Friend correct in speculating that the figure has now risen above 1,000 million?
    Mr. Prentice: I have Questions on that later, but the answers will not include the February figure, which I do not have.
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works by how much deliveries of bricks in Great Britain declined in 1966 as compared with 1964 and for what reason; and what proposals he has for arresting this decline.
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) whether he will state the numbers of bricks presently in stock and how this compares with the forecasts made by his department since October, 1964;
    (2) in what year since the cessation of hostilities in 1945 the stock of bricks has reached 886 million at the end of the month of December.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on the current stockpiles of bricks.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement about
    1022
    the present supply of and demand for bricks.
    Mr. Prentice: Between 1964 and 1966, brick deliveries fell by 17 per cent. Brick stocks at the end of January, 1967, were provisionally estimated at 971 million. The total stock in December, 1966, was exceeded in December, 1945, when it stood at 990 million. My Department makes no forecast of stocks but co-operates with the industry in assessing future demand. The Government have taken steps to stimulate private house-building, which is the most important factor in the demand for bricks.
    Mr. Body: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that about 70,000 more couples could have had houses from these stocks of bricks? Is it not absolutely disgraceful that there should be that situation?
    Mr. Prentice: I agree that couples could have had houses if the bricks had been used. The bricks were there to be used, but the private builders did not build the houses.
    Sir J. Eden: Does not the fact that brick stocks in 1966 and now were and are so high show the complete collapse of the Government's housing policy? Why is the right hon. Gentleman so complacent? Is this a record of which he is proud? When will he resign?
    Mr. Prentice: I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman's last suggestion, particularly in view of the housing figures. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that last year we completed 385,000 houses, which was an all-time record; but there was a decline in the starts of new housing in the private sector, not in the public sector. This was a major factor in the size of brick stocks.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if only his target of 400,000 houses in 1966 had been reached, the brick industry would not have had to mortgage its future by financing such vast stocks. In view of the disappointing house-building record for January, does the right hon. Gentleman think that stocks are over 1,000 million?
    Mr. Prentice: It was never a stated target that 400,000 houses should be completed in 1966. The target which has been announced is 500,000 for 1970. The

    1023
    hon. Gentleman asks whether brick stocks may now be over 1,000 million. This may be so, but the latest figures I have are the ones which I gave in my original Answer.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not the Minister and his Department in a complete muddle, and is not the whole situation utterly scandalous? Having missed the previous targets by something like 1,500 million, how much must we aim off for future Government interference? Supposing that there is a sudden upsurge of private building, where shall we find the labour to meet the demand?
    Mr. Prentice: The answer to all the polemical parts of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No, Sir". I am getting a little tired of this mock indignation. The number of houses completed last year was considerably higher than was ever achieved under the previous Government.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is not the Minister aware that the target of 400,000 houses by this year was adumbrated in this House by the Minister of Housing and Local Government in March, 1965? Will he, therefore, withdraw what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is over-working the word "target". One has to see the matter in perspective, and I do not think that we need exchange debating points about it. The only target ever published in a Government statement was 500,000. But, here again, I do not think that it matters: what matters is the achievement of houses built. I agree that the achievement is not good enough. The achievement has never been good enough under either Government, and we ought to be exchanging constructive ideas about how to improve it instead of making these rather juvenile points at Question Time.
    Mr. Pymasked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what is the decline in brick production in 1966 over 1964; and whether he will make a statement;
    (2) in which year since the end of the Second World War the largest number of bricks was produced; what was the total production figure in that year; how
    1024
    this compares with 1966; and what is the estimated production for 1967.
    Mr. Moreasked the Minister of Public Building and Works in which year he expects the total number of bricks produced to rise again to the level achieved in 1964.
    Mr. Prentice: Output reached its peak in 1964, when 7,954 million bricks were produced. This compares with 7,071 million in 1966. I can give no estimate for production in 1967 or future years.
    Mr. Pym: Is this nose-dive of 900 million bricks between 1964 and 1966, coupled with the enormous rise in stocks, the fulfilment of Labour's pledge to plan the bricks?
    Mr. Prentice: The important thing is that there was a decline in demand, partly, because of a falling-off in starts in the private sector of house-building, and partly because some other programmes were cut back for economic reasons. It was certainly our main pledge that we would clear up the economic mess left by hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. More: How does the Minister expect to avoid a shortage of bricks next year if the Government decide to reflate the building industry after the decline in production which must have been brought about as a result of the measures taken this year by the Government?
    Mr. Prentice: This is an interesting question. There is in the brick industry the perpetual problem that its stocks can easily slide into either shortage or glut because of the nature of the industry and the size of the product. What I hope is that, despite the disappointing demand in recent months, the brick industry will not close down plant permanently and that the capacity will be there when required.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Reverting to the target of 400,000 houses, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that what his senior colleague says in the House does not matter? Second, has not the brick situation now reached, even for this Government, the proportions of a national scandal? Can the brick makers come to No.10 and put their case at the summit as so many other industralists do?
    Mr. Prentice: I have already dealt with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On the latter part,

    1025
    I do not at all agree that the situation has reached the proportions of a national scandal. I have explained—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman already knows it—that this is an industry which produces for quick sale. It carries a stock of about three weeks' supply, and it can be financially embarrassed if that stock goes over five or six weeks' supply. This is the sort of thing which happened last year. The reasons leading up to that situation certainly cannot be described in the extravagant language which the hon. Gentleman has used.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Underground Services (Common Trenches)
    Mr. Channonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made in research into the possibilities of a common trench of all services such as water, telephones and electricity.
    Mr. Prentice: The Committee which I recently set up to examine ways of co-ordinating the installation of underground services on building sites will be studying, amongst other possible solutions, the use of common trenches; but it is too early to report on progress.
    Mr. Channon: Would the Minister agree that that would be a very important step forward? Can he give us a likely date when we may get the report so that we may judge the matter a little further?
    Mr. Prentice: It would be an important step forward but it is only one of the steps being studied by the Committee. There are many other problems of coordinating services on building sites. I cannot yet give the date when the Committee will report as it was appointed only at the end of last year. It has now met twice and is beginning a very important task. I realise the urgency of the matter, but at the same time the whole House would want the Committee to do a thorough job.
    Mr. Manuel: If my right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of a common trench, would he make certain that research is developed into the safety of
    1026
    workers? We read almost weekly in the Press of far too many cases of trenches collapsing and workers being suffocated or badly injured.
    Mr. Prentice: Various public utilities, trade unions and others are represented on the Committee and they will be doing research to support the Committee's work. The safety aspect will not be overlooked.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the Minister arrange to study what the Dutch are doing in Eindhoven, where a tremendous amount of research into modern methods is going on?
    Mr. Prentice: I am grateful for that suggestion. I shall draw it to the attention of Sir Donald Gibson, the chairman of the Committee.

    Building and Construction Programme
    Mr. Channonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has formed of the likely increase in the building and construction programme during 1967 as a result of increased credit facilities recently announced.
    Mr. Prentice: The increased credit facilities are intended to stimulate demand. It is not possible to isolate their effects from other factors in the situation.
    Mr. Channon: Would not the Minister agree that while everyone welcomes those credit facilities they are hardly a dramatic and generous new initiative, since he so misguidedly withdrew them first and in spite of that still expected to reach the target of 400,000 houses in 1965–66?
    Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member must get away from the idea that there was a target. Certainly the credit facilities should not be regarded in isolation but should be seen alongside the extra finance available from building societies, which should reach an all-time record this year, and in the context of the general state of the economy, which is growing in strength because of the Government's measures.
    Mr. Allason: Would the Minister agree that if he could persuade his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing to stop giving such warm encouragement to direct labour organisations a considerable improvement in the industry's productivity would result?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I believe that both private enterprise and public enterprise have a contribution to make towards meeting our targets in housing and other forms of building.

    Public Architectural Commissions
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will institute discussions with representatives of the architectural profession to bring about a release of public architectural commissions in advance of future reflation of the economy.
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. Public authorities phase the placing of their commissions in accordance with the programmes authorised from time to time.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would the Minister agree that the suggestion about bringing future public work at least to a stage of working drawings would have the merit that it would prevent first-class design teams from being broken up and might be a considerable help? After all, is there not to be some reflation around 1969 and 1970?
    Mr. Prentice: Work in the public sector, both in housing and other programmes, has been on a steadily rising curve and therefore I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's question is strictly relevant.

    Building Industry (Representations)
    Mr. Moreasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the building industry regarding difficulties currently facing that industry; and what reply he has given.
    Mr. Eyreasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has received from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers regarding the building programme from 1967 to 1970; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers regarding the current state of trade in the building industry; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prentice: No formal representations have been received, but I am in constant touch with representatives of all sides of the construction industry.
    Mr. More: What improvements have taken place in the private sector of housing as a result of those building controls which, in the Prime Minister's election phrase, were designed to "put housing before the excrescences of the dolce vita society"?
    Mr. Prentice: The completions of houses, both public and private, were up last year to the figure of 385,000, which was higher than in any previous year. The starts of houses in the public sector have also been on a rising curve; in the private sector they have not. That is the disappointing situation to which I referred, and the Government have taken the steps of which I spoke in reply to a question just now to help to stimulate starts in that sector.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister aware that the industry's view is that the housing target for 1970 must be revised? In the light of that, does it remain the Government's policy that 250,000 houses should be built by private enterprise for sale in 1970? If that is still the Government's policy—and I apologise for mentioning the dirty word "target" again—how will it be achieved in the light of the drastic fall in private house building which has taken place since 1964?
    Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member need not apologise for using the word "target" in relation to 1970. The previous reference was to a target for last year which is alleged by hon. Members opposite. The public part of the programme has been increasing at a pace to reach the 250,000 target in 1970. The number started in the private part of the programme in the early part of last year was disappointing. That is why we have taken the steps to which I referred in reply to another Question.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister aware that builders throughout Britain are in a state of despair at the Government's policies in this respect? In spite of the complacency he has shown this afternoon, is it not a fact that the sagging confidence in the building industry at present must be reflected in falling house production

    1029
    and even more broken promises by the party opposite?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The total output of the building industry in 1966 was almost exactly the same as in 1965. On the present trend, it would again be about the same figure in 1967. That is not good enough, and I want to see it rising. But that does not justify talking about despair. That is a silly exaggeration and would encourage builders who might pay attention to the hon. Member's remarks to get themselves into a worse state than they need be in.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: But in view of the manifest lack of co-ordination between no fewer than 10 Ministers responsible for housing and building in this Government, will not the Minister take the initiative in bringing them together and pressing upon them the need to abolish the greatest single enemy of confidence among private builders, the Land Commission?
    Mr. Prentice: The case for the Land Commission has been made many times from this Dispatch Box, and hon. Members opposite completely failed to answer it.
    Mr. More: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Malta (Building Expenditure)
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how much money his Department spent on construction in Malta in 1965 and 1966.
    Mr. Prentice: My Department spent £486,000 on construction in Malta in 1965–66 and expenditure is estimated at £400,000 in the current financial year.
    Mr. Goodhart: When we run out of accommodation in this country for the troops returning from Aden, the Far East and Germany, will the Minister remember that we have excellent barracks standing empty in Malta?
    Mr. Prentice: I think that that is an attempt to turn a serious subject into a
    1030
    rather cheap debating point. The problems in Malta are very serious and are being discussed at the moment between the British and the Maltese Governments I do not think that the situation is helped by that sort of question.

    British Museum (Internal Reconstruction)
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give an assurance that the 10-year programme of internal reconstruction in the British Museum designed to be completed by 1970 will be carried out.
    Mr. Prentice: On present plans, the programme of work outlined in 1961 will be completed by the end of 1971. No undertaking has ever been given that it would be completed by the end of 1970.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is the Minister aware that I was merely giving him the opportunity of chopping a year off? Is he not rather silly not to be able simply to say "Yes" for once?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I think that as a programme was agreed with the British Museum and as the programme is up to date, there is no reason for the line taken by the hon. Lady in her supplementary question.

    National Library
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give an assurance that there will be no delay in the completion of the plans necessary to ensure that the building of the projected national library will be commenced in 1970.
    Mr. Prentice: The scheme approved in principle in 1964 was subject to consultations with interested authorities, and was agreed on the basis of work starting in the early 1970s. Objections to the scheme have been received and are being considered. Progress so far is not incompatible with a start in the early 1970s.
    Dame Irene Ward: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether for once he approves of what I say?
    Mr. Prentice: I often approve of what the hon. Lady says, especially when she

    1031
    shows independence from the line taken by her own Front Bench.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Woof, woof.
    Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) should not reprove the hon. Lady. I can tell her that we are giving careful consideration to the views of Camden Borough Council and of the people who have objected to the scheme on the site, but this process is not incompatible with making a start in the early 1970s, which was the original programme of the previous Government.
    Mr. Strauss: In view of the grave backlog and of the necessity to make repairs and extensions, may we have an assurance that there will be no unreasonable delay and that the work will be done as soon as possible?
    Mr. Prentice: The reply to both questions is that there will be no delay in the programmes announced.

    Construction Industry (Manpower)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what change there has been since 20th July, 1966, in the manpower of the construction industry; what steps he is taking to expand the manpower of this industry; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made towards the attainment of an increase of 100,000 workers, compared with 1964, in the construction industries.
    Mr. Prentice: Since 1964 there has been a small reduction in manpower, but there has also been a rise in productivity. Compared with July, 1966, the latest manpower figures show a fall of 73,000, or 32,000 if seasonably adjusted.
    The industry's future expansion must depend on growing productivity rather than on an extra share of the labour force, but I expect the work of the Construction Industry Training Board to lead to an improvement in the supply of trained manpower.
    Mr. Allason: What on earth has happened to the Prime Minister's expressed intention on 20th July that redeployment should involve an additional
    1032
    number of men going into the construction industry, now that we have just learned that there are far fewer? Is it a fact that the Prime Minister's intentions have been frustrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer who applied the Selective Employment Tax, thereby driving people out of the construction industry?
    Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. The measures announced by the Prime Minister on 20th July are going rather well. The passage in the National Plan on manpower in the construction industry expressed the view that the biggest increase should be among administrative, technical and clerical personnel as production methods became more sophisticated. This process has been going ahead and is up to target.
    Mr. Hunt: Does not that dismal and depressing reply illustrate the absurdity of the targets fixed in the National Plan? Is not the greatest step forward which the right hon. Gentleman should take to assist the construction industry that he should advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon the Selective Employment Tax as from next month?
    Mr. Prentice: No, I do not think the hon. Member could have listened to my reply to his hon. Friend. The analyses in the National Plan suggested that there had to be some shift towards professional administrative and clerical personnel as improvements in design and construction methods were introduced. There has been an increase in these categories which now stand at about 230,000. They are increasing more or less at the rate indicated in the National Plan.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In order to get these men, should not the right hon. Gentleman try to restore confidence in the industry? To do that, will he see that private contractors can compete on equal terms with direct labour? May we have a pledge from the Government to this effect?
    Mr. Prentice: I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has got the balance between direct labour departments and private contractors about right. As I said, both have a contribution to make to the productivity of the industry.
    Mr. Channon: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us clearly, does he want

    1033
    manpower in the construction industries to go up or to go down further? Was not Selective Employment Tax brought in to discourage employment in certain industries? Does he want this to happen in the construction industry?
    Mr. Prentice: I want to see employers in the industry making a more efficient and effective use of manpower of all kinds.

    Self-Employed Draughtsmen
    Mr. Boothasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many self-employed draughtsmen are engaged by his Department.
    Mr. Prentice: None is directly engaged. We use about 350 draughtsmen supplied by agencies and I am taking steps to ensure that each of these is a bona fide employee. It is not my policy to use self-employed draughtsmen.
    Mr. Booth: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that it is not the intention of his Ministry to employ self-employed draughtsmen in drawing offices in view of the fact that this practice is disrupting normal salary arrangements made in certain offices?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, I can give that assurance. Each agency is being asked by letter to confirm that the people involved are bona fide employees. If we discover that some are not, the services of those people will be terminated as soon as possible without jeopardising the work they are doing at the moment.
    Dame Irene Ward: Am I right in assuming from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman is not against self-employed people, because I believe in self-employed people as well as others?
    Mr. Prentice: I think we all approve of self-employment in the real sense of the term. What I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House would not approve of is any bogus form of self-employment designed to dodge tax, National Insurance and other liabilities.
    Mr. Orme: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome this statement he has made, which is a refutation of what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was advocating in Salford last Friday?
    Mr. Allason: Before the Minister gives way to this pressure to have a closed shop within his Ministry, will he consult the Minister of Labour about his known views regarding a compulsory closed shop? Has he noticed that there are threats of industrial action against firms by the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association to enforce a closed shop? Has he been under any such pressure himself?
    Mr. Prentice: I made no reference to a closed shop. I take a closed shop to mean compulsory trade union membership, which is something entirely different. It is not my policy to engage people who are self-employed and using the cloak of self-employment as a method of avoiding their social obligations.

    Fort George (Improvements)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the expenditure on improvements to Fort George in 1960–61, 1961–62, 1962–63, 1963–64 and 1964–65, respectively.
    Mr. Prentice: Information about the earlier years is not available, but since the financial year 1963–64, my Department has spent about £7,000 a year on maintenance of the Fort and associated accommodation. In 1964–65, a further £22,000 was spent as part of a separate service to preserve the Fort itself as an historic building.
    Mr. Allason: My Question refers to improvements. The Minister appears to have answered about normal maintenance. Could we know the figure for improvements?
    Mr. Prentice: Yes, Sir. I gave an Answer geared to the actual years mentioned in the Question. There is a current programme of renovation and adaptation for troops returning from abroad, which started in January this year at an estimated cost of £160,000, and it will be completed in about a year's time.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Non-Insurable Handicapped People (Funeral Expenses)
    Miss J. Lestorasked the Minister of Social Security whether, in view of the hardship caused to the families of non-insurable handicapped people who are

    1035
    disqualified from claiming funeral expenses, she will amend the regulations so as to enable them to claim.
    The Minister of Social Security (Miss Margaret Herbison): We have considered this problem with sympathy but, I regret, without finding a solution within the framework of our contributory scheme of National Insurance. We shall continue to bear the matter in mind in connection with our general review of the social security provisions.
    Miss Lestor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Could she also bear in mind that when the deaths of some of these people take place they take place a long distance from home and the expenses involved are very much greater than those in the death of a person who has been living at home?
    Miss Herbison: I accept that. Many of them are at home and have never worked, while others are in institutions and extra expenses can be caused.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does the Minister remember my writing to her quite recently about a constituent of mine who has been maintaining an aged relative for many years at considerable expense? In view of the large number of cases of this kind, would it not be better for the funeral benefit to depend on the contribution record of the person maintaining the old person than the record of the old person concerned?
    Miss Herbison: That is another question altogether. If the hon. Member wishes to put down a Question on that matter, I will answer it.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Social Security what effects British memship of the European Economic Community would have upon the United Kingdom's National Insurance and Industrial Injuries scheme.
    Miss Herbison: The only immediately likely effect which I can foresee at present would be that the Regulations of the Community on social security for migrant workers would take the place of the reciprocal agreements which are in force between the United Kingdom and the members of the Community.
    Mr. Dean: I thank the right hon. Lady for that information. In the review of the scheme which is now taking place, is she bearing in mind the desirability of harmonising our arrangements with those of the European countries in the event of our joining the Common Market?
    Miss Herbison: All these things have to be taken into account. The hon. Member may know that the Treaty of Rome has no compulsory provisions which would affect our social security arrangements, but, of course, the aim is harmonisation.

  HOSPITALS

    New Hospital, Barking (Casualty Facilities)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Health why the new hospital at Barking has no provision for dealing with casualties; and if he is aware that a number of people seriously injured in accidents near this hospital have had to be taken to other hospitals five or six miles away.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): The North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board have decided that casualties in the Barking area should be treated at King George Hospital, Ilford which is some three and a half miles away by road.
    Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend say at what date and at what level it would have been decided not to have a casualty ward in this very large and expensive new hospital? Would the decision have been taken by the regional hospital board?
    Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. The planning of the hospital began in 1957. There was never any intention to include a casualty centre, because it was the board's policy to continue to provide those services at King George Hospital, Ilford, the idea being to have a really well-equipped place rather than several units which were not so well-equipped.

    Drugs (Form E.C. 10 H.P.)
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Minister of Health to what extent the increased use of forms E.C. 10 H.P. has added to the

    1037
    cost of drugs within National Health Service hospitals.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Wallace: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this situation is placing an increasingly heavy burden on hospital finances and is very closely related to the shortage of pharmacists? I know of one hospital facing increased costs of more than £2,000.
    Mr. Robinson: There was a sharp increase in the use of this form in the last financial year, following a fall in one year of about 4 per cent. in the number of hospital pharmacists. In the first six months of this financial year there continued to be a comparatively small increase in the use of form E.C.10 H.P., but the number of hospital pharmacists increased by nearly 3 per cent. in the year to September last.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this falling off in the number of pharmacists was very largely due to the fact that the Whitley machinery took so long to adjust itself to salaries outside? What steps is he taking to see that this does not occur again, not only among pharmacists but among other grades in the hospital service?
    Mr. Robinson: As I said, the situation has been rectified to some extent in the year up to last September. I am aware that in some circumstances the Whitley machinery moves rather more slowly than I would wish, and we constantly have in mind ways and means of speeding it up.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Catering
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Lord President of the Council when the report into the losses suffered by the catering department will be presented to the House.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I hope that the report will be available to the House in the very near future.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Surely the House ought to be allowed to see where these losses have been sustained and what chance there is, either by raising prices or other means, to improve the conditions of the staff.
    Mr. Crossman: Of course the House will have it all made available to it. The Committee felt that we should make a careful study and make some practical recommendations in addition to presenting the report.
    Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that when complete the report will be presented to the House as a White Paper?
    Mr. Crossman: The report will be presented to the House in the normal way.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the report show the losses incurred by the catering department in the sale of dog food?

    Royal Shakespeare Company
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Lord President of the Council if he will state the reason for refusing, under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, to ask the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to consider the terms of the Charter of the Royal Shakespeare Company with a view to determining whether or not they are acting legally in producing the play "US" in London.
    Mr. Crossman: The practice is to advise Her Majesty to refer to the Judicial Committee under this Section only cases of constitutional importance in which an advisory opinion is required by the Government or this House on a point which cannot be effectively decided in the ordinary courts. The issue raised by the hon. and learned Member satisfies none of these conditions.
    Moreover, as my right hon. and learned Friend told the honourable and learned Member, in answer to a Question on 13th July last, in his view no infringement of the Charter had taken place. The Government therefore see no useful purpose in seeking an advisory opinion from the Judicial Committee on precisely the same question.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Would not the Lord President of the Council agree that the view of his right hon. and learned Friend is not necessarily the last word?

    1039
    Surely this is not a political, but purely a legal matter. Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that whether or not a Royal company is in breach of its Royal Charter is sufficiently important to be decided by the Judicial Committee?
    Mr. Crossman: No. I have given the hon. and learned Gentleman a full and detailed answer to his Question, and if he is not content he has to try to convince my right hon. and learned Friend that there has been a breach of the Charter grave enough to justify proceedings for forfeiture. So far he has failed to do it, but if he continues he might possibly succeed.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer will receive widespread support and that there is little support in the country for the rather peculiar attitude of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) in this matter?
    Mr. Crossman: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. There are many people outside the House who will strongly agree with him.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a company of which we can be justly proud, as it sets a very high standard, and that any attempt to censor its choice of plays would be bitterly resented by the general public.
    Mr. Crossman: I do not want to enter into that on the precise legal point which the hon. and learned Gentleman has raised and to which I have given a full and, I think, basically satisfactory answer.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at an early date.

    Morning Sittings
    Mr. Boyd Carpenterasked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of the inconvenience caused to honourable Members and the loss of time for interventions by back-bench Members in major debates resulting from bringing proceedings on the main business of the day on Mondays and Wednesdays to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m., he will now
    1040
    move to amend the Sessional Order so as to end such business at 10 o'clock on those days on all occasions when the suspension of the rule is not moved.
    Mr. Crossman: No, Sir.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what justification there is—quite apart from the different issues raised by my succeeding Question—for depriving hon. Members of the half-hour's time which they could very usefully employ during the course of major debates?
    Mr. Crossman: I would not put it quite in that way. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have saved a certain amount of time for the afternoon debates by taking some of our Ten-Minute Rule speeches and Ministerial statements in the morning. For the convenience of hon. Members we have sought to see that we rise at 10 p.m. each day.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that, whatever he has done in other ways, by adopting the suggestion of this Question and finishing main debates at the same time as we do on other days, two or three more hon. Members would get in on major debates on Mondays and Wednesdays?
    Mr. Crossman: On all these things we have to balance convenience and we felt that it was for the convenience of the House to rise at 10 p.m. on each day of the week.
    Mr. Rankin: Would it not be possible to start very important debates in the forenoon, as the forenoon sitting is part of the day's business and just as important as the afternoon sitting?
    Mr. Crossman: Whatever I think, I doubt whether that would satisfy the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I hope to make a report about short speeches in the near future.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that since the date on which the House began to sit in the mornings it has on average risen later on the days on which it has sat in the mornings than on days on which it has not so sat; and whether he will therefore now move to amend the Sessional Order so as to

    1041
    abandon the experiment of morning sittings.
    Mr. Crossman: I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. We have not tried to relate early risings to the days of morning sittings. The intention has been to relieve late sittings over the week as a whole, and this we are doing.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, that, anticipating a lapse of memory on his part, I have with me the OFFICIAL REPORT for 14th December in which he specifically says that the success or failure of the experiment of morning sittings will be judged on whether the House rises earlier or later on those two nights? Will the right hon. Gentleman now look at the matter again and not display the same obstinacy which he showed on Thursday?
    Mr. Crossman: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wants a serious answer to his Question. I have said this time after time, and I will repeat it again. Our aim is to see that we have early rising as often as possible during the week. I pointed out that it is impossible, particularly when the Opposition makes it impossible, to see that the early rising is always on the same day as the morning sitting.
    For the right hon. Gentleman's convenience I made a calculation about last week. The House sat for 2 hours and 31 minutes after 10 p.m. last week. For the same week last year it sat for 4 hours and 34 minutes. The real test is the amount of time that we spend after 10 p.m., and we have spent considerably less time after 10 p.m. in recent weeks than we did a year ago.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Answers must be reasonably brief.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that since the introduction of morning sittings, out of the 18 whole days' business we have had, we have adjourned before 11 p.m. on nine of those days? Is he aware that many of his hon. Friends on this side of the House welcome this experiment? Would he further consider moving the whole of Friday's business forward by one hour so that it starts at 10 o'clock and adds to the convenience of those hon.
    1042
    Members who have long distances to go to their constituencies at weekends?
    Mr. Crossman: I will certainly consider that proposal. I am thankful to my hon. Friend for his calculation on the first matter. I think that the House is gradually becoming convinced of the purpose of this change.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that none of the difficulties pronounced in these two Questions would arise if Privy Councillors would limit the length of their speeches, making them of reasonable length instead of hogging the Floor of the House to the detriment of most back-benchers?
    Mr. Crossman: It is with great pleasure that I have the hon. Gentleman on my side, for once.
    Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that there has been a slow and tentative start to morning sittings, but that the experiment is worth while? Is he further aware that what we would like to see is the abandonment of Monday morning, replaced by Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and for the business to be rolled back to start properly at 10 o'clock?
    Mr. Crossman: I will certainly bear in mind the suggestions of my hon. Friends, and those from the other side of the House.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a twelve-hour day is quite long enough, and that exempted business should not be taken on any day on which there is a morning sitting? Secondly, could he say why it is that the tradition of the House is that we always have a two-hour extension on the Service Estimates? Are there not other things just as important which should be given this additional time?
    Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that the second part of that question was beyond the original Question. As for the first part of it, I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL (QUESTIONS)
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make better arrangements for the

  1043
  Attorney-General to answer oral Questions.
  Mr. Crossman: I am certainly ready to consider what can be done.
  Mr. Whitaker: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that Answer, because Questions to the learned Attorney have not been reached for many months now, despite the fact that several of the Questions are of great importance.
  Mr. Crossman: This is a point which is appreciated and, as my hon. Friend knows, it is something that we have discussed. Usually we reach a satisfactory outcome through the usual channels.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    General Practitioners (Expenses)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health what is the estimate of the total of expenses to be reimbursed to general practitioners in 1967–68 and the quotient for each practitioner.
    The Minister of Heath (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): About £42 million in Great Britain. This, divided by the estimated number of doctors, gives a quotient of about £1,850.
    Mr. Pavitt: Can my right hon. Friend say why it is no longer possible to give a breakdown of the balance which make up the £5,600 gross for the average general practitioner, and what arrangements he is making to have a continuous review in the medical profession on the way that the new payments are working out?
    Mr. Robinson: We are conducting a continuous review of the working out of the new payments. As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I should point out to him that, because the new arrangements provide for varying payments to recognise differences in the experience and the commitments and in the practice arrangements of different practitioners, the concept of an average net income which we have used in the past is no longer very meaningful. The figure which can be arrived at by the answers to these two questions of my hon. Friend is not directly comparable to the average net income for 1965–66.
    Mr. Dean: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to keep a close watch on the new payments? Would he agree that there is already some evidence that some G.P.s, particularly the more senior, will do rather badly out of the new arrangements?
    Mr. Robinson: No, Sir, I do not think that there is any general evidence of that kind so far, but we are certainly keeping a close watch on the matter.
    Mr. Rankin: My right hon. Friend has said that £42 million went to G.P.s in Great Britain. Can he say how much of that sum went to Scottish general practitioners?
    Mr. Robinson: What I said was that £42 million was estimated to go during the next financial year. I do not know offhand the proportion applicable to Scotland. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  MINISTRY OF LABOUR

    Motor Industry (Industrial Relations)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Labour what improvement has now taken place in industrial relations in the motor industry, especially as a result of the activities of Mr. Scamp; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Since its appointment in November, 1965, intervention by the Motor Industry Joint Labour Council has helped to resolve a number of serious disputes affecting the industry. In 1966 as a whole, there were fewer strikes and less working time lost than in 1965. However, as Mr. Scamp's recent report points out, there is continuing cause for concern with the state of relations in the industry. My right hon. Friend discussed the report with the industry on 6th February and it was agreed that the Council should give closer attention to the longer term problems.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that trades unions have now expressed lack of confidence in Mr. Scamp and have said that they do not wish him to continue to arbitrate in this unofficial

    1045
    fashion? As scant result has occurred in two years, what can we expect for the future, if his plans are not revised?
    Mr. Hattersley: The scant result to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a reduction in time lost between 1965 and 1966. I very much hope that that pattern will be repeated over the next year.

    Unemployment
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Labour how many and what percentage of those who are now unemployed were unemployed on 1st December, 1966; and to what extent re-deployment activities by his Department are succeeding.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough): Counts of the unemployed register are normally made on the second Monday of each month, and once a quarter they are analysed according to the number of complete weeks of the current spell of unemployment. Of the total number registered on 9th January, 1967, 51 per cent. (306,042 persons) had been unemployed continuously since Monday, 28th November, 1966.
    Unemployment is at its highest in mid-winter, but on the whole satisfactory progress has been made with the redeployment of redundant workers.
    Sir G. Nabarro: The figure of 51 per cent. is a malignant hard-core of unemployed—four months on the dole—out of a total of 602,000, being the last published figures on unemployment. Does this not represent an unduly high percentage, and does it not connote that the policy of the Government is now to keep a large permanent pool of unemployed men to draw upon with a view to trying to improve the stability of prices?
    Mr. Fernyhough: It denotes nothing of the kind—
    Sir G. Nabarro: Why not?
    Mr. Fernyhough: —and if it did, I would not want to be in this position.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Resign.

    Pollard Bearings Factory, Ferrybridge (Dispute)
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in the efforts he has been making to settle the strike which has been going on for four months at Pollard Bearings factory at Ferrybridge.
    Mr. Hattersley: Until early February neither party wanted our intervention. Since then, our officers have been trying by discussions with all concerned to find a solution to this difficult dispute. Arbitration has been suggested, but the company does not consider that the issue is appropriate for decision by arbitration.
    Mr. George Jeger: In view of that statement, is the Minister prepared to take any action of any other kind, or to send in his official arbitrator, or someone who could carry out some conciliation work between the two organisations?
    Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Ministry of Labour has been officially involved in this dispute for only a little more than three weeks. I am sure that the answer at this moment is to continue the sort of negotiations which are going on with the assistance of my Ministry's officials.

    Northern Region (Traditional Industries)
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Minister of Labour what is the expected contraction of employment in the Northern Region's traditional industries during 1967 to 1969.
    Mr. Fernyhough: I have no estimates for these years, but the Northern Economic Planning Council's recently published study contained employment estimates for the period up to 1971. These included a further substantial decline in coalmining, a small decline in metal manufacture and no change in shipbuilding and marine engineering. The study emphasised that the estimates were provisional and would be revised in the light of later developments.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Northern Economic Planning Council has estimated that there will be a provision of 40,000 new jobs, arising out of the building of new

    1047
    authorised industrial buildings in the next four years? Is he aware that it is the opinion of some of my hon. Friends that this is not sufficient to take up the unemployment which will take place in this region? Will he undertake to watch this matter very carefully?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I will readily give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he will appreciate, I have a personal vested interest in the area.

    Self-Employed Draughtsmen
    Mr. Boothasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the practice of engaging self-employed draughtsmen constitutes a threat to the previously established conditions relating to hours of work, sickness benefit, holiday pay and redundancy payments; and whether he will discuss the matter with the appropriate trade unions with a view to discontinuing the practice.
    Mr. Hattersley: Officials of the Ministry have had a full discussion of this matter with representatives of the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians Association, and of the Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians. The Ministry is examining with the other Departments concerned the unions' suggestion that the position might he improved by more effective enforcement of existing policies and legislation. The inquiry which my right hon. Friend announced on 20th February will be looking into the related matter of labour-only sub-contracting in construction.
    Mr. Booth: Would my hon. Friend accept that the widespread practice of self-employment among draughtsmen is wholly incompatible with a proper system of training leading to the drawing office in the engineering industry, and therefore that it is urgent that this matter be dealt with now?
    Mr. Hattersley: I certainly accept that there are some inherent disadvantages in labour-only sub-contractors in some of the practices in this industry. That is why my Answer made it clear that the Ministry is keeping the position under review.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the growth of these practices
    1048
    is almost entirely due to the Selective Employment Tax and that the Government were warned, both from their own side and from this side of the House, that this would happen when the tax was introduced? Is not the remedy to abolish the tax?
    Mr. Hattersley: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that one of the compelling factors is a desire to avoid the Selective Employment Tax. If that is the motivation, there are other things which self-employment might be said to avoid, like the levy to the Industrial Training Board. Therefore, at worst, the Selective Employment Tax could be said to be only part of the reason for this.
    Mr. Orme: Is my hon. Friend aware that this practice was growing long before the introduction of Selective Employment Tax and that it is widening its grasp in industry? It is threatening holidays and safety. Income Tax is being avoided. It is jeopardising genuine trade union negotiations and organisation within industry. Will my hon. Friend's Department do something about it?
    Mr. Hattersley: I accept virtually all the disadvantages which my hon. Friend outlines. I reiterate that it is for these reasons that my Department is examining the position.
    Mr. R. Carr: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that provided—and I emphasise the proviso—the rules for defining self-employment are properly drawn and properly fulfilled every man and woman in this country has the right to be self-employed if they wish to be?
    Mr. Hattersley: There are two points inherent in the right hon. Gentleman's question. The first is that the Ministry needs to be convinced that people described as self-employed are self-employed within the rules he mentions. Secondly, irrespective of those rules, there are considerable disadvantages from other aspects of labour policy. I take as an example the industrial training provisions, about which the right hon. Gentleman knows a good deal more than I do, which are vitiated by the increase of self-employment. This matter, too, must be examined in some detail.

  ADEN
  Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will ask the United Nations to provide a token force in Aden after British forces leave in 1968.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. William Rodgers): The composition of a United Nations Special Mission to South Arabia has now been announced. It would be for the Mission in the first place to consider a suggestion such as that put forward by my hon. Friend. Its implementation would, of course, require the consent of the independent South Arabian Government, and the authority of the United Nations.
  Mr. Allaun: While warmly welcoming my hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him whether he could arrange that the United Nations mission, during its present welcome visit to Aden, should be asked to consider this proposal and also to find out the reaction of those likely to form the future independent Government of Aden?
  Mr. Rodgers: I think that the United Nations mission is quite competent to reach its own conclusions and to take an initiative and to conduct such inquiries as it may feel to be necessary.
  Mr. Powell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at present the United Nations mission has nothing to do with the future defence of the independent Federation? Is he also aware that at present there are no firm signs of the Federation being able to defend itself after independence?
  Mr. Rodgers: The important thing now is for the mission to get there and for us to await its recommendations.
  Mr. Whitaker: Would the Government also support in a similar fashion the United Nations being responsible for the defence of the Persian Gulf?
  Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that that arises from the Question.
  Mr. Doughty: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Arabian Agreement was arrived at it included a defence agreement together with an independence agreement? Those two things have to be
  1050
  negotiated at the same time. The defence agreement is the support by this country of the independence of the Federation of Arabia.
  Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of this issue and of the points which were discussed more fully in the House last week. On this particular point, it is for the mission to get there and for us to hear its recommendations.

  COMMERCIAL IRREGULARITIES (EXAMINATION)
  Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Attorney-General what steps he is taking to speed up the examination by the Director of Public Prosecutions of cases involving commercial irregularities.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The time taken to examine complicated commercial irregularities continues to cause anxiety and is now under active consideration by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade and myself. However, I am satisfied that the time taken in the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions in examining these cases is not a significant factor.
  Mr. Mills: Is the Attorney-General aware of the great public concern at the delay which takes place, often many years, in bringing those responsible for commercial irregularities before the courts? I recognise that the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions is only partly responsible, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that there are sufficient full-time staff specialised in these fields available in the Department?
  The Attorney-General: I am aware of that anxiety, and that is why my right hon. Friends and I are now looking at the problem. I think that the staffing of the Director's Department is reasonably adequate for the purposes of these inquiries. One of the difficulties is the immense complexity and the wide range of some of the "commercial irregularities", as they are so genially called in the Question.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Would the Attorney-General distinguish the commercial irregularities which occur in

  1051
  Northern Ireland from those which occur in the rest of Britain and give us the figures?
  The Attorney-General: Happily, I am not responsible for the conduct of prosecutions in Northern Ireland.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. John Leeasked the Attorney-General how many offences against the State since the rebellion in Rhodesia have been reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions; how many prosecutions have taken place; and if he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions has looked into a number of matters arising from the rebellion in Rhodesia. No prosecutions have taken place.
  Mr. Lee: Is not this rather extraordinary? Several Ministers have referred many times to there having been an illegal declaration of independence. There have been numerous to-ings and fro-ings from Rhodesia by various people giving aid and comfort to the illegal réegime since 1965. Would my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that in future such actions are visited with prosecution?
  The Attorney-General: If any case is referred to me with appropriate evidence which would support the taking of proceedings, of course the taking of such proceedings will be considered. As yet, no evidence to support a prosecution has been forthcoming.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman remember his own phrase in the House about the "dogs of rebellion" breaking loose? In all the circumstances, does he really say that nothing is being done about this matter?
  The Attorney-General: I confirm the dangers which result when dogs of rebellion break loose. Perhaps a canine metaphor is a little delicate to raise at the moment, but I would withdraw nothing whatsoever from the statement which I apparently so eloquently made in a debate a long time ago.

  ROADS

    Old Oxted By-Pass
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morganasked the Minister of Transport when she expects construction to begin on the Old Oxted by-pass.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): Early next year. It is understood that Surrey County Council, the highway authority, has met certain difficulties in respect of land acquisition which have yet to be overcome.

  TRANSPORT

    British Transport Advertising Limited (Charges)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Transport what representations she has received, since the publication of the White Paper on Prices and Incomes, concerning increased charges by British Transport Advertising Limited; what discussions she has had with British Transport Advertising Limited on this subject; and with what result.
    Mr. Swingler: After receiving some representations the Department discussed with the Company the policy to be pursued both during the prices standstill and during the present period of severe restraint. I am assured of its complete willingness to conform with the Government's prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Onslow: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say how much business he expects British Transport Advertising to lose as a result?
    Mr. Swingler: I do not expect it to lose any great amount. In fact, satisfactory arrangements have been made whereby the contracts which were in abeyance up to 1st January are being continued at the old prices until 1st July, and the company has waived the increases until 1st July in other cases.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Imported Rag Dolls (Inflammability)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children's rag dolls of the type

    1053
    known to be dangerously inflammable have been imported into the United Kingdom; how many of these have been sold; how long they have been on sale; how many accidents involving such dolls have been reported to his Department; and when the first such accident was reported.
    The Minister of State, Home Department (Miss Alice Bacon): I have no precise information on the first three parts of this Question, but some thousands of these dolls have been on sale in this country during the last few months. On the last two parts of the Question, there have so far been no reports of accidents but the celluloid used for the dolls' faces, and the material used for their hair, are highly inflammable and make them dangerous to children.
    Mr. Onslow: Is the right hon. Lady aware that if I had known that this Question would have been reached I would certainly have had one of my children's dolls to produce here? Is she now satisfied that there is no danger of a recurrence of things of this kind coming into this country? If not, what steps is she going to take to prevent the danger of this recurring?
    Miss Bacon: Yes, the British Standards code makes it almost impossible for dolls of this kind made of celluloid to be manufactured in this country, but we hope very shortly to put before the House safety regulations which would have the effect of completely banning the sale of anything made of celluloid.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her prompt action in banning these dolls and the publicity given to this in the Press were very warmly welcomed by parents who were particularly concerned that such dolls could still be on sale despite all the publicity given to the need for safety in toys and the request to manufacturers to take great care in this respect?
    Miss Bacon: Yes. I should like to thank my hon. Friend, and I would emphasise again that those dolls were not made in this country. They were imported into this country and they were not made by any British manufacturer.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we are not
    1054
    only delighted at the prompt publication of the facts but also at the enormous amount of work being done by her Department in its approach to manufacturers in other countries to get them to discontinue this sort of manufacture?
    Miss Bacon: I thank my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. May I respectfully congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the House on having very nearly got to the end of all the Questions on the Paper? We have lost by only a short head.

RAILWAYS (ACCIDENT, CONINGTON)
Mr. Edward M. Taylor (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Transport if she will make a statement on the derailment accident on the London to Scotland railway line late last night.
The Minister of Transport (Mrs. Barbara Castle): Yes, Sir. It is with deep distress that I have to tell the House about another tragic accident that occurred last night. At about 23.40, the 22.30 express passenger train from King's Cross to Edinburgh was travelling at about 80 m.p.h. when the rear six coaches became derailed near Conington, nine miles south of Peterborough. The four rearmost coaches turned over on their side on the adjacent down goods line and became detached from the rest of the train, which stopped about half a mile further on.
I regret to say that five passengers lost their lives; 18 were injured and taken to hospital in Peterborough, where eight were detained. The Peterborough emergency services were called without delay and arrived at the site, within half an hour of the accident, despite the remoteness of the spot. I am sure that we would all wish to commend them for their prompt and effective actions.
The cause of the accident is not yet known, but it was of an entirely different type from the one at Stechford last week. An inspecting officer of railways visited the site in the early hours of this morning. An official inquiry will, of course, be held.
The House will, I know, join with me in expressing deep sympathy with the

1055
relatives of the deceased and with those who were injured.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Taylor: As British Railways have an excellent record of passenger safety, will the Minister make a statement to the House when her inquiries into this tragic accident are complete, so that the confidence which the public have in the Scottish express services can be fully maintained?
Mrs. Castle: I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but the report will, of course, be published.
Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Lady aware that all of us on this side of the House wish to be associated with the remarks which she has made? Is she also aware that we are most anxious lest the unfortunate coincidence of two accidents in a week should in any way detract from the overall confidence in the safety of British Railways? I think that I am right in saying that there was not one fatal accident of any description during the whole of last year on British Railways.
In view of the reports which have been made that during the last six years there have been three accidents on this particular stretch of railroad, could the right hon. Lady arrange for a statement at the earliest opportunity by British Railways clarifying the fact that there is nothing dangerous about this particular sector of the railway itself?
Mrs. Castle: I am sure that the Railways Board will be very grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I certainly endorse what he has said about the very fine safety record of British Railways. There has been a second accident, as he said, but it is a pure coincidence, and the second was of a completely different type from that which took place at Stechford last week.
The inquiry, of course, will go very thoroughly into any possible relationship between this accident and the much less serious one which took place earlier on this line. I would suggest that we await the report.
Sir D. Renton: As this accident took place in my constituency may I, on behalf
1056
of my constituents, associate them and myself with the sympathy which the right hon. Lady has expressed?
May I ask, in view of this accident and the other accident to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) referred, whether the right hon. Lady will ask British Railways to consider the possibility of a temporary slow-down over this particular stretch of line till the findings of the inquiry have been announced?
Mrs. Castle: There is no evidence, either from the previous accident or from the present one, that the track was at fault. While I will convey the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion to the Railways Board, I do not think that there is any need for the action which he suggests. I think that we must await the report of the inquiry. Of course, if there were to be any possible association between this and the previous accident we would take action.
Mr. Dalyell: As one who travels very frequently on this line, may I add a comment? Safety on this line has hitherto been been very good. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to say that she will hurry up the report on this accident? It seems to some of us that these inquiries do take a rather long time.
Mrs. Castle: We shall start the inquiry at the earliest possible moment and the report will be produced as soon as is compatible with the thoroughness, which we all equally wish to see, of the inquiry.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware that I had the good fortune not to be on that train? Would she say whether the inquiry will be in public and whether those who were killed and injured will be professionally represented?
Mrs. Castle: I cannot say, without notice, whether the inquiry will be in public but the report will be published.
Sir R. Russell: Is is not a fact that a large number of other expresses had gone over that same track at the same speed in the previous 24 hours?
Mrs. Castle: Yes, I think that that is true. As I say, there is as yet no evidence that the track was at fault.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [12TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.

  DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1967–68, VOTE A
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 237,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1968.
  3.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): The total of Army Votes for 1967–68 is £586 million, an increase of about £22 million over the comparable Votes of 1966–67. However, there is a Supplementary Estimate before the House amounting to about £18 million to cover increased production of ammunition, delays in completing sales of redundant properties, pay increases and Selective Employment Tax. When this Supplementary Estimate is taken into account, the increased provision needed for 1967–68 compared with 1966–67 amounts to about £4 million.
  This small increase is satisfactory since within the final figures are absorbed the costs of the Services Emergency Housing Programme, more expenditure on vehicles and equipment, compensation for military and civilian redundancies and price increases. Real economies for the nation are being effected in the reduced cost of the reserve forces, increased receipts from the sale of redundant properties, the lower cost of overseas allowances and more recoveries from other Governments. I hope that other economies now being made will show even greater effects later.
  During the past year the Army has carried out an immensely wide variety of tasks with courage, fortitude and good humour. We are all aware of the Army's rôle in B.A.O.R., Aden and Borneo, but the lesser rôles show the troops in an equally favourable light. During the year our troops were in Guyana training the new Guyana Defence Force. In June, our small garrison in British Honduras
  1058
  helped to maintain order in Belize City. In fact, 20 per cent. of the total number of troops with the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Cyprus are British. The Royal Engineers are helping to build roads in North-East Thailand. In Hong Kong, British troops were in April quelling riots and in June helping with flood damage. More recently, the Army came to the assistance of the civil authorities in Laos and North-East Malaya during severe flooding.
  At home, in addition to their normal duties, the Army has helped the civil Power in many ways. At Aberfan it helped with both men and equipment. Army helicopters helped with the search for escaped prisoners on Dartmoor. It was a young soldier who finally apprehended an escaped prisoner in Wales.
  In the three main theatres the Army has had a variety of difficult tasks. B.A.O.R.'s deterrent rôle is in a sense the most difficult kind of soldiering of all. To remain highly trained, combat-ready with sophisticated equipment and yet, we trust, never to fight, inevitably taxes the skill of even the most highly professional of troops. And let there be no mistake, the British Army is the most highly professional of any in the world. It is a tribute to all in the British Army of the Rhine that they succeed so well in their difficult task.
  In Borneo, together with the Malaysian forces, we had the task of containing the campaign of confrontation, a form of aggression by armed infiltration by both Regular and irregular forces across the Indonesian border. The Army carried out its share of the task by patrolling the border areas from forward strong points, creating the basis of security for the civil population of Borneo on which it was possible to gain their support. I need hardly stress the difficulties in operating for three years along 1,000 miles of jungle frontier. By its presence the Army was able to give both protection and medical aid to the villagers and so to achieve the two objects of securing the sources of intelligence on which the success of the campaign against armed infiltrators depended and winning the hearts and minds of the kampong dwellers.
  I do not think that I can do better than to quote from a letter from the Governor of Sarawak to the Commander,

  1059
  British Forces Borneo, about our troops. He said:
  "The friendliness and good comradeship which have existed between them and the people of Sarawak augur well for the future and the help given, particularly to the people in the rural areas, will long be remembered in the villages and long-houses throughout the length and breadth of Sarawak."
  In this difficult campaign, in which the Gurkhas played a prominent part, our troops maintained their usual high standard of morale. It is easy to forget what confrontation meant to our soldiers. The infantry, in particular, were already fully committed in other parts of the world when it all began. Battalions from this country or from peace-time exercises in B.A.O.R. had to adapt themselves to operations in the jungle with only a very short time for special training and acclimatisation. They were faced with separation from their families: unfamiliar and forbidding surroundings; long and arduous patrols and ambushes; monotonous guards requiring constant alertness; and primitive living conditions.
  It is easy to dramatise, but hard to exaggerate, the way in which they accepted the challenge. Their adaptability was highlighted by the manner in which they won and held the confidence of the local inhabitants. In many ways this campaign was a model of the controlled use of force, and the lessons learnt will be lasting ones. At all levels, from corporal to commander, the Army carried out its task with a clear understanding of the object of the operations and with great courage and patience in unfavourable conditions.
  In Southern Arabia and Aden our troops have been under continuous pressure throughout the year. Their job of maintaining internal security has been difficult not only because of the increasing expertise of the enemy, but also because of the fear of reprisals on the local population. The terrorists have introduced new methods of attack in recent months. They are now using home-made mortar bombs fired by delayed-action mechanism. It is easy to see how difficult it is to combat such devices.
  Another difficulty is that in a situation in which the security forces must rely to a very great extent on the co-operation of the local population, this co-operation is hindered enormously by the fear of ter-
  1060
  rorist reprisals. The task of our troops is not helped by unfounded allegations of torture and brutal methods. British troops have conducted themselves in Southern Arabia with skill and honour in a situation of extreme provocation, and I am sure that the House would wish to join me in recognising this achievement for what it is. We all tend to take for granted, perhaps, the efficiency and forbearance that British troops display in the course of their duties.
  In all their work in Southern Arabia, our troops work in close conjunction with the local security forces. Our efforts to expand and train up these local forces have shown encouraging progress during the last year and the local forces are taking on an increasing share of the internal security rôle.
  In asking the House to pay tribute to the excellent way in which British troops have carried out their duties in the last year, I hope that special recognition will be given to those who have served with such courage and patience in Borneo and Aden.
  The House will, I know, be glad to see from the White Paper on Defence Estimates that, in spite of all this activity, the overstretch of the Army as measured by the number of men sent abroad on emergency tours has been reduced. In 1966, this number was one-third less than in 1965. This relief is especially welcome to the families of Servicemen because it means that units do not have to spend so much time abroad on unaccompanied service. Even so, the overstretch on the Army last year obliged us to make some temporary withdrawals from B.A.O.R. to enable us to meet our commitments elsewhere. We expect the favourable trend of reducing overstretch will continue in 1967 as a result of the planned redeployment of forces in accordance with Defence Review decisions.
  In the future as the House knows, we shall have a higher proportion of Army units stationed in Britain. They will carry out training to meet reinforcement tasks or sudden contingencies for which they may be needed overseas and to sustain the normal rotation of units at home and abroad. In considering what provision should be made for the unforseeable contingencies we shall no doubt continue to find that the infantry battalions

  1061
  in the modern Regular Army—and here I include the Parachute and the Special Air Service units—give us as outstanding value for money as any other category of expenditure in the Defence budget.
  Now as to the implications of having a greater proportion of Army units in Britain. The need for strategic mobility will continue to increase if we are to be capable of reacting quickly and efficiently. We need the means of rapid strategic movement—that is the R.A.F. —and the ability to make use of that capability for rapid movement by being correctly organised, trained and equipped. The House knows from the White Paper that we are putting all teeth units in this country under the operational command of a new strategic command so that their training and deployment can be most effectively directed to rapid movement overseas. We must give units in the strategic command opportunities for training overseas if they are to keep up-to-date in their operational rôles and maintain their efficiency.
  But it is no use having units organised and trained for rapid deployment overseas if they cannot take their essential equipment with them. Air portability is, therefore, of first importance in considering our future equipment plans. We are producing the new low-level air defence guided missile system known as Rapier or ET316, the new wheeled combat reconnaissance vehicle—the first of a new family of vehicles—and the new Class 16 airportable bridge. These are all equipments due in service over the next few years which have been deliberately designed to be fully airportable. As the House will realise, we are talking of equipment of some substance and sophistication—an air defence system, armoured vehicles and bridging equipment.
  The presence of a larger proportion of the Army in this country also means that we must pay special attention to the relationship between the Army and the civil community. As the House will have seen from the White Paper, we are studying the scope for developing further the peaceful use of military forces. I myself am taking a keen personal interest in this study and would like to make two points quite clear.
  There is no question of keeping units specifically for what, for want of a better
  1062
  term, I might term civil work. The Army's order of battle will be decided on military grounds alone. Nor is there any question of taking work away from civilians. What we have in mind is fostering close collaboration between the military and the civil authorities when there is a community of interest. It is because there are many difficulties in the way of doing more that we are studying the whole question in detail, and I stress that no decisions have yet been taken on what kind of developments might prove to be possible.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Will not the hon. Gentleman elaborate on that a little more? It is a suggestion which brings doubt to the minds of those who are most anxious that we should continue to recruit for the Army. The idea that soldiers will in future be recruited to help in civilian work instead of what they ordinarily joined the Army to do in the past is not likely to be very popular. Can the hon. Gentleman say a little more about this?
  Mr. Boyden: They are not recruited to do civilian work, as I thought I made clear in the announcement of principle. There is a two-way traffic between the Army and the civil population. The civil population is interested in the Army. Very often, in times of emergency, there are things which the Army is requested to do to support the civil population. These are the things we want to encourage, with a training side for Army work.
  I stress the two-way side of this. For example, when soldiers retire and come to live in the civil community, it is not every authority which is particularly helpful in finding them houses. I would like to think of the Army helping when it can, without interfering with the civil population, and the civil population reacting helpfully towards the Army. I could gladly go on for 10 minutes about this, but I have a rather long speech to make.
  Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton): This is an important point. The only intervention in the civil field with which one has been familiar with the Army is strike-breaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  That is a light in which people are inclined to look at this matter. Can my hon. Friend say something about this?
  Mr. Boyden: I should have thought that strike-breaking was one of the least things that the Army does. Generally speaking, the Army is called in for emergencies, for rescuing people and for a great many tasks which often the civil community either cannot cope with immediately or sometimes does not want to handle.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The Army is, of course, frequently called to help when a disaster has occurred.
  Mr. Boyden: Yes. This is a matter with which I would gladly deal on the Adjournment. It is a matter in which I am very much interested, but I ought to press on with my speech.
  The Army's equipment programme continues to go well. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the British Army is better equipped than it has ever been—and this is equipment which is now in the hands of troops, not promised this year or the next year. In the future, tactical mobility on the battlefield will be just as vital as strategic mobility for rapid deployment from Britain. In Europe, the Chieftain tank is now coming into the hands of the troops in ever-increasing numbers, and the Abbott self-propelled gun, the FV432 armoured personnel carrier and a new family of bridging equipment are all improving the tactical mobility of our ground forces. In the Far East, the formation later this year of the first Army hovercraft unit will see us moving into a whole new field of battlefield mobility.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking): Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many tank regiments are being equipped with the Chieftain and the cost of equipping each regiment?
  Mr. Boyden: As the hon. Member will appreciate, that is a detailed question of which I should have notice. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to give the answer when he winds up the debate.
  Everywhere the second phase of a programme for the expansion and reorganisation of Army aviation is taking effect.
  The expansion of Army aviation, particularly the increase in the use of organic Army helicopters, goes a long way towards meeting the requirement of
  1064
  mobility, reconnaissance, liaison by commanders and small-scale troop and logistic movement when R.A.F. support helicopters are not available. These needs have been highlighted in the operations in Borneo and Southern Arabia, where much has been learned by Army aviation. Further study is being given to other possible uses for the helicopters in all types of warfare. There are now about 250 helicopters in service with the Army.
  At the end of this month, the Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve cease to exist and the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve will be born. The House will, I know, wish to join me in words of appreciation to all those who have so selflessly given their services to the Territorial Army and Army Emergency Reserve. Theirs is a proud history and no one who fought in the two world wars alongside Territorials can under-estimate what a debt we all owe to them. But the needs of the future are different from the needs of the past; we no longer need to be able to raise a large Army for continental service and keep a framework in being against that contingency.
  The need of today and tomorrow is for a smaller, better equipped volunteer reserve to support the Regular Army and to provide certain support to the civil authorities in time of general war, and this is what the new Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve is designed to provide. Sections I and II of the Reserve— "the Volunteers"—are to support the Regular Army; Section III—"the Territorials"—are to contribute home defence assistance to the civil authorities.
  During the last year's camping season members of the Territorials and the Reserves were asked to sign declarations of intent to join the new Reserve Army. The response indicated that recruiting for the volunteers will not fall far short of the establishment and will be reasonably satisfactory for the Territorials. In the spring we propose to follow up this encouraging beginning by a campaign to attract new recruits
  I welcome the new Reserve Army and ask members of the old order who have not already signed undertakings to join the new, to do so whenever they can. I am confident that we shall have a new

  1065
  volunteer Reserve Army that we can be as proud of as we were of the old.
  Like other great organisations in both industry and Government, the Army is responding in many different ways to the need to discard old ways of doing things and adopt new ones. Not only is its organisation vast and complex, but its management tasks are made that much more difficult by the operational demands put upon it. Failure to have the right equipment or the right spares delivered to the right place at the right time can mean not a lost order and disappointment, but death and tragedy.
  The most modern management techniques are all in use and a management services organisation has been developed to meet the need for specialised advice in such fields as management accountancy, work study, systems analysis, statistical services and other related techniques. Wide ranging though the Army's resources are, full use has also been made of outside resources and experts.
  In particular, the Army has had outside advice on costing and advanced budgetary control systems, and these are being introduced into the Army's supply and repair organisations. They will in the future enable us to exercise much more sophisticated control. The scale of the task is well illustrated by the holdings of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps—well over half a million items, worth hundreds of millions of pounds. This is big business by any standard. A directorate of costing and management accounts has been established in our Management Services Division and it will assist the R.A.O.C. and R.E.M.E. in their task of applying the new budgetary costing control systems in ordnance depots and workshops.
  We are anxious that, as far as is possible, managers at all levels should be held responsible for the costs of all the resources they directly control and new studies have, therefore, been put in hand by our Management Services Division to see how far we can delegate greater responsibility to our local depot and workshop managers. This kind of exercise—and we must recognise that there are particular problems for it in the public service—cannot, of course, be a once-and-for-all affair, but must be part of a continuing search to find the
  1066
  best modern methods and the best management structure.
  I will give an account of our progress in computer installation and planning because it is largely by the use of computers that the more advanced management techniques are brought into operation. We are developing our use of computers for personnel management purposes. During the past year we have extended the equipment at Worthy Down. Further staff savings can now be made by using the extended machinery to deal with the pay of officers and of soldiers serving overseas. A study is also well advanced which aims to create a single computer service to handle both the pay and records of service of Army personnel. This should lead to more streamlined and efficient administration, as well as staff and financial savings.
  Concerning stores, computers already installed and working efficiently at the Central Ordnance Depots at Chilwell and Donnington will shortly be joined by a new computer at the other Central Ordnance Depot at Bicester. Initially, this computer will be used for stock control of clothing and general stores and then will handle data on ammunition stocks at the central ammunition depots. Technical details of ammunition will also be held on the computer and all reports of defects discovered during use or inspection will be analysed, thus helping us to take early remedial action to improve reliability and safety.
  Last week, I was at the Central Ordnance Depot at Chilwell and they had just had a visit from a senior representative of the Management Consultants' Association. He reported that the degree of sophistication in the use of techniques at top management level was to be commended. As a layman going round the depot, I was able to confirm that for myself. Another very good thing about a large and efficient establishment like this is the considerable and good cooperation that exists between the local council, the Army and the civilian staff.
  R.E.M.E. is about to take delivery of a computer to be used for the analysis of information about the repair of Army equipment. This will enable information to be fed back to the stores computers so that more accurate assessments can

  1067
  be made of the spares required for repair work. The computer will also—and perhaps this is even more important—be able to analyse the incidence and cause of failure in equipment.
  Production control is another sphere offering immense scope for computer application; we are making efforts similar to those in outside industry to use computers to increase efficiency in this way. A computer is coming into operation at the Royal Ordnance factory at Blackburn whereby the constant matching of manpower, machine tools and materials against orders placed at the factory will help to ensure that we obtain the maximum utilisation of resources.
  I have so far described only the computers we already possess or have on order, but my account of what the Army is doing in this important field would be incomplete if I did not allow myself a modest attempt at crystal-gazing. Although we well know that we shall be breaking new ground and that no promise of early or easy success can be given, this is worth mentioning, if only as an earnest of how forward looking the Army is in the use of the most modern techniques. The crystal and prophecy I have in mind concerns military operations. In any future land conflict the commander will have to respond to a great multiplicity of rapidly developing situations and decision-making will have to take account of this great complexity and rapid change.
  The gathering, sifting and acting upon a great quantity of information so essential to the modern Army Commander is fast outstripping the capability of staffs limited by manual methods. The Army is, therefore, studying the possible application of computers in the forward battle situation and although we have a long way to go before any firm conclusions are likely to be reached, the task is undoubtedly one of great importance and absorbing interest. It is interesting to note that the initiative for this kind of study comes from the operational soldiers as much as from the scientists. Gone are the days when the military officers neither knew nor cared about technical and scientific problems.
  1068
  Whatever efficient equipment or techniques the Army as a modern management organisation may use, it is the men who come first. Since assuming Ministerial responsibility of the Army's affairs, I have been most impressed with the care and sympathy given to all matters affecting the individual, whether he be officer, soldier, civilian employee or member of a family. Of course, there are mistakes. Of course, bad decisions are sometimes taken; I have yet to meet a large organisation where this is not so. And it is the bad decisions and mistakes which hit the headlines. The overwhelming majority of cases in which the individual's problems are dealt with swiftly, compassionately and justly are rarely reported because the normal is not news.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian): While agreeing with a great deal of what he has just been saying, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would not agree that there is a continuing problem arising from what I can only describe as the awful situation which arises when bodies are brought home? I am referring to men who have been killed, perhaps accidentally, while on active service. Would my hon. Friend comment on this aspect?
  Mr. Boyden: An announcement will be made on this subject during the Air Force debate next week.
  It is a far cry from the days when the Army was looked upon by some as the haven of the uneducated and the misfit. Today, more than ever before, the Army realises the importance of offering good careers if it is to attract the high grade men needed to fill the senior N.C.O. and technical posts. A comprehensive review of soldiers' careers is at present in hand and the results are expected shortly.
  In technical training we, like industry, are faced with the problem of preparing an increasing number of skilled tradesmen to meet the demands of developing technology. Our policy is constantly to seek improvements in our job analysis, course planning and methods of instruction by every modern expedient. Moreover, in training Army tradesmen, we try where it is practicable to arrange the courses to give the soldier a qualification which could later be of help to him in industry. For example, the electronic artificers' courses at the

  1069
  School of Electronic Engineering now lead to the award of the Higher National Certificate. This kind of arrangement not only ultimately benefits the community, but the Army as well as the soldier when he returns to civil life. The trade unions are most co-operative and recognise all of the skilled Army trades which have direct civilian equivalents, and these number well over100.
  Perhaps I could refer also to the importance we attach to the junior soldiers' units in recruitment and training for the Army. We shall be setting up at Shorncliffe later this year a new unit to be known as the junior infantrymen's battalion. In future, nearly all junior soldiers for the infantry who up till now have gone to their regimental depots will be trained centrally at Shorncliffe. We hope that the attraction of this new junior battalion will help in maintaining the recruitment of junior soldiers.
  One aspect of training which is very popular is adventure training which is designed to develop qualities of initiative, self-reliance, endurance and discipline, and to enliven peacetime military training by providing challenges and hazards against which small groups of men can test their mettle under skilled guidance. In view of certain Press controversy, I should point out that this is taking place all the time and hardly anybody notices it.
  Mr. James Ramsden (Harrogate): Regarding the junior battalions which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, will the recruits be able to decide which unit they go to afterwards? Would it be to a unit of their own choice?
  Mr. Boyden: I do not think that it will be entirely like that. I would prefer to write to the right hon. Gentleman about it. Adventure training includes long-range patrolling, Arctic survival, escape and evasion exercises. Whenever possible it is linked with sailing, canoeing, skiing, mountaineering, and rock climbing. All units at home and overseas take part, always in small detachments, so that the group spirit can be encouraged.
  In last week's Defence debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence (Administration) spoke about the new arrangements we are to introduce for officer training and education. These arrange-
  1070
  ments will help to make certain that we shall have in the future a continued supply of well educated and well trained officers fit to lead the soldiers for whom they will be responsible. The policy of employment to the age of 55 for officers was adopted several years ago and new rules for promotion are being brought in which will offer greater opportunities for early promotion to officers of outstanding merit.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of the education of officers, he will be aware that there are Members on both sides of the House who are worried by the Government's decision to locate the new Royal Defence College at Shrivenham instead of at Greenwich. The reason given last week was the difficulty in expanding the site at Greenwich. If hon. Members submit to the hon. Gentleman some constructive suggestions to cover this point, will the Government keep an open mind on the location of the Royal Defence College?
  Mr. Boyden: I am a very reasonable man and will always consider any constructive suggestions.
  To supplement the Regular officer cadre the Army relies upon short service commission officers. It is most important that we attract sufficient officers of the right quality into this category and we are making strenuous efforts to do so.
  One of the problems regarding the less outstanding officers is their return to civil employment. I could perhaps mention a small scheme whereby an officer under training to become a Regular officer could transfer to the Civil Service. At the same time as an officer goes before the Regular Commission Board, he can go before the Civil Service Commissioners and, if accepted for the executive class of the Civil Service, will receive a certificate entitling him, when he leaves the Army, to enter the Civil Service in the executive grade. There are no strings attached. If he feels that he does not want to enter the Civil Service, he need not do so.
  Whether for Regular or short service commissions, ability is the sole criterion for selection and we have, as I am sure the House is aware, been trying to increase the number of officers recruited from the non-traditional areas. We are, I am pleased to say, having some success.

  1071
  The percentage of boys entering Sandhurst from non-Headmasters' Conference schools has risen from 40 per cent. to 48 per cent. in the past five years. I would like to see this percentage rise still further, but this can only be so if more boys come forward from schools where the Army is not traditionally regarded as a suitable career.
  Efforts have increased to recruit as many officers as possible from the ranks, and soldiers with leadership qualities are actively encouraged to try for a commission. The Adjutant General has drawn attention throughout the Army to the opportunities that exist for soldiers to reach commissioned rank and suitable candidates are encouraged to come forward. Not only is this policy helping to produce good officers, but it also encourages men to join as soldiers by showing them that the way to the top in the Army is genuinely open to all. Anybody who wishes to rise to the top can do so. In addition to the 100 or so men who go to Sandhurst each year from service in the ranks to take a regular commission, 70 soldiers were last year granted special short service and limited service Regular commissions. These are quite apart from the 120 or so quartermaster commissions granted each year.
  This year, we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Women's Services. In 1917, women serving with the Army formed an Auxiliary Corps known later as Queen Mary's Auxiliary Army Corps. Today they have full military status and form an integral part of the Army. They are employed by all arms and services and in 27 trades. They serve both at home and overseas and release male soldiers for more active tasks. Recruiting is good and the House will, I know, join me in congratulating them on being 50 years old and wish them well for the future. It is not often that we congratulate the ladies for being 50 years old.
  In conclusion, I would say that, like all living things, the Army must change and adapt itself to new situations. I am confident that the British Army will meet whatever new challenges are offered it with courage and ability. Let us not forget that about 1,600 British soldiers have given their lives since the end of the war. I regard one of my tasks as ensuring that the Army of the future will
  1072
  be such as to inspire the same loyalty and devotion to duty as led these men to be prepared to die in its service. Another task is to ensure that the wishes of the House are known to the Army in terms which the Army can understand and carry out.
  I hope that I shall have the full support of the House of Commons in fulfilling these duties and that Vote A will have universal approval.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud): I should like to thank and congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the sincere way in which he introduced the vote. It is an important debate and the first time we have had one for two years because of the election. I should like to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tributes which he so rightly paid to the Army for the work it has done over the past year.
  I personally felt special satisfaction in what the hon. Gentleman said about the Territorial Army. We are very glad to hear that volunteers are coming forward. The next two years will be a crucial time and the volunteers will stay if they feel that they are wanted and if they have the proper kit and training which they demand. I associate myself also with the tribute paid to the W.R.A.C.
  We have had the defence debate, when we discussed the strategic purposes of the Forces. I propose to concentrate upon the nuts and bolts side as it affects the Army.
  Before turning to detailed questions, there are one or two subjects of broader scope upon which I should like to touch. The first is the problem of over-stretch.
  Last year the Government complained, not without justice, that our forces were over-stretched for the tasks which they had before them. With the end of confrontation in the Far East, we might have hoped that this problem would be alleviated. I was glad to hear what the Under-Secretary of State said about that, but little has been done to solve the problem of overstretch so far. Basically all our commitments have been kept, but it is the troops who have been thinned out, and that will make it more, not less, difficult for those remaining to

  1073
  fulfil their tasks. That is general criticism which I think it is fair to make.
  Secondly, I refer to B.A.O.R. The Secretary of State has made it very clear in the Defence Statement that he regards N.A.T.O. as being in a position radically to reduce the number of troops in West Germany. In this view, it is widely held that he is not followed by his defence colleagues in N.A.T.O., or perhaps he would prefer me to put it that he is at least the pathfinder towards a strategy which envisages a thinning out of our admittedly already thin forces on the Western frontier. As I understand it, he does so because he thinks that a war in Europe would escalate so quickly to nuclear war that large masses of troops are a needless expense.
  I shall leave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), if he gets an opportunity later, the argument how far one can pronounce with absolute precision on the certainty of nations choosing within 48 hours genocide rather than anticipated defeat. In all wars uncertainty has made fools of prophets, and the only sure thing is that war will be different from what was anticipated.
  Secondly, I would remind the Secretary of State that in any war in Europe the initiative will lie with the enemy, for I suppose that we do not intend to start a war. Before the Battle of Waterloo, Lord Uxbridge, who commanded the cavalry, asked the Duke of Wellington what his plans would be. The Duke answered, "Who will start the battle?". "Bonaparte," replied Uxbridge. "Then how the devil do I know what I shall do?" replied the Duke. I suggest that in strategic terms matters have not changed too much since those simpler days.
  Mr. Healey: Think again.
  Mr. Kershaw: I only hope that the Secretary of State is wiser than the Duke of Wellington.
  It may be that the enemy will not provoke a contest in the way that we expect. It may be that we should shrink from inflicting on ourselves and the world the instant annihilation which orthodox military planning seems now to envisage. In such case, in what sort of posture are we today to remake our
  1074
  strategy? How far does this White Paper leave open to us that flexibility in response which ought to be basic to our planning?
  Perhaps, first, I should say that it is at least doubtful whether our troops, even at their present strength, are in a position to make effective the resistance required by present planning, namely, a few days only. These doubts are shared by the Commander-in-Chief, B.A.O.R. Speaking on television on 9th February, he said that he estimated his present means permitted a 48-hour resistance, and the Secretary of State, in answer to a Question of mine last week, said that he did not differ very greatly from that reply. So even now we are on a knife edge. We may or may not be able to carry out our aim, but yet it is proposed to reduce our troops further.
  Mr. Healey: Will the hon. Gentleman help the House and his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), too? The forces which we now have in Germany are the level planned by the previous Government and maintained by them over about 10 years. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we should have a lot more forces, will he say so, because I think the country as well as the House will know what conclusions to draw from that?
  Mr. Kershaw: The right hon. Gentleman was not listening with his usual attention. I said that we were poised on a knife edge. I do not think that anybody says we are rich with troops out there. I do not think that anybody considers we have far too many. I am certain that we have the minimum required to carry out our task, and the Commander-in-Chief, B.A.O.R. thinks so, too. So does the Secretary of State, and so do I. I do not think that we have any quarrel on that, nor, finally, do I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West needs any help from me.
  Mr. Healey: The Commander-in-Chief said that he had not enough troops to carry out the mission that he had been given, and this is the point which I have been making to the Alliance for the last 2½ years. This means that we must either change the mission or increase the number of troops, and it is about time that

  1075
  the Opposition said which of these alternatives they prefer.
  Mr. Kershaw: Now we are getting it a little clearer. We are agreed that with the troops that are there the mission is only just fulfillable, and this is what I have ben saying. It might not be fulfillable, or it might be. This is the position, and I imagine it has been for some time.
  The proposal now is that we should take some of these troops away. Whatever the position now, we are to reduce the number of our forces. This means that we will not be able to react against aggression even for the 48 hours about which the Commander-in-Chief spoke. It means, as I understand it, and as I think the logic of the matter shows, a return to the doctrine of massive retaliation. In the Dulles era that was almost credible, because, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) once rather unkindly put it, it was just possible to imagine that Mr. Dulles was crazy enough to mean it. But nobody imagines that our amiable Secretary of State really means to pull the plug and blow up the world merely because the pins on his maps in Whitehall are getting a little displaced.
  The Commander-in-Chief, B.A.O.R. does not mean it either. On the same programme on 9th February he was asked whether he was confident that he would be given permission to use atomic weapons within the period he considered to be essential, and he said, "No, far from it. It is very difficult to suppose that there would be sufficient agreement between Governments", and I do not think that any reasonable man could differ from that. I do not think that the Secretary of State would. I do not think that the Secretary of State's proposed strategy is the accepted strategy in N.A.T.O. today.
  The Commander-in-Chief also said on that occasion that the old trip-wire approach was now out of date. The aim now was to contain the enemy, yet it seems to me that we are going back to the trip-wire approach at full speed, and if it is out of date the Secretary of State is out of date, too.
  Let us assume that the concept of a conventional 48-hour war is reasonable.
  1076
  Let us assume also that about half our troops come home from the B.A.O.R., as we are told is a possibility. We are told that they will be available to N.A.T.O.—although there is a little doubt about that after last week's debate—and that they will if necessary be moved back to Germany. But does anyone imagine that they could be transported, equipped and deployed back to Germany in time to take part in a battle which will last only 48 hours? Of course not.
  No doubt the Secretary of State will say, as I think he has, that there will be plenty of warning. Is he sure that he is right about that? Are not we assuming a most co-operative enemy? Are not we assuming an enemy who, after giving us plenty of warning, enough for us to get all our regular forces and reserve reinforcements from the T. and A.V.R. back to Germany, will thereupon launch a conventional attack which he will continue for 48 hours, and no longer, and then proceed quietly back to his quarters? What an amazing war that would be. What a wonderful victory for an armchair strategist. And what absolute nonsense. It seems that that is what the Secretary of State is banking on, and if anything else happens he is done for, and so are we.
  Let us assume, nevertheless, that we get political warning. The right hon. Gentleman may be right about that. Will we not then be up against another difficulty? Will not the gradual reinforcement of the B.A.O.R. as the political situation worsens add greatly to tension, and might we not trigger off the very crisis against which we are seeking to guard ourselves?
  One of the arts of war is to find out what one does not know by what one does. What we know is that Russia has 22 divisions at a few hours' notice a few kilometres from the frontier, that these divisions are magnificently equipped for mobile, conventional warfare without necessary recourse to nuclear weapons, that there are 60 further divisions not far away in terms of time and space, and that whilst no doubt eschewing recourse to massive attack she has renounced none of her ambitions, and lies in wait for weakness and disintegration.
  If the Secretary of State believes implicitly in Russia's good intentions, he

  1077
  should renounce all military defence. What he has done is to maintain at vast expense a defence whose only capability will be to unleash utter and complete destruction or to capitulate after 48 hours. I do not believe that the Secretary of State really thinks that this is a sound policy. I think he knows that he is talking military nonsense. When in opposition he was very clear about the need for conventional forces and the danger of reliance on the nuclear.
  The voice is that of the Secretary of State, but the will, as usual, is that of the Treasury. All the way through, even from the first paragraph, the Statement on Defence emphasises that it is about finance and not about defence, and the Government's Motion last Tuesday carried on the theme.
  Our fear is that B.A.O.R. is barely adequate to carry out the rôle it has at present, and that the threatened reductions will make it clearly impossible for it to do so; that these decisions have been made not on military but on financial grounds; that our allies do not agree with our concept of defence and that this divergence of view is dangerous to N.A.T.O. and damaging to the morale and the capacity of the British Army, and, finally, that this euphoria about there being hardly any need for military defence in Europe any longer is not shared by the Russians.
  I furthermore doubt whether savings will be achieved, even across the exchanges, by the policy of withdrawing troops which is so damaging to our European policy and to our Army. If our troops are to remain available to N.A.T.O., as we hope, it will be necessary for them to train in the United Kingdom. How are they to train in this country for their rôle in Germany'? Even infantry battalions in these days have heavy tracked vehicles. I suppose that those vehicles will have to be left in Germany, which will mean double kit. What will be the cost of that? My hon. Friend has already asked what will be the cost of a Chieftain tank; and the cost of an A.P.C. How much does it cost to equip a brigade group twice over?
  Then there is the problem of battle practice and battle training. The troops must be trained to deploy at short notice into their previously reconnoitred positions and according to strategy agreed
  1078
  by their allies. How many times a year will they practise that? How much will it cost them to do so, and how long will it take? How large will be the parties guarding and maintaining the vehicles and equipment left behind in Germany, waiting to be picked up? It will be very expensive. One asks whether there will be much saving unless we disband the troops and thus let down our allies and decimate our Army.
  I have referred to the apprehensions caused by the ways in which Ministers have been talking on the question wheher the troops coming home from Germany will remain in support of N.A.T.O. In the debate on 27th February the Minister of Defence (Administration) seemed to call in question the idea that these troops would remain in support of N.A.T.O.—
  The Minister of Defence (Administration) (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)The Minister of Defence (Administration) (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Kershaw: I am glad to see the Minister shaking his head. In the debate on 27th February he said:
  "If it is necessary—of course, decisions have not yet been taken—to bring troops back from Germany, and if as my right hon. Friend said, such troops remain assigned to N.A.T.O., they will have to be trained."
  and so on.
  Further on, when he said:
  "However, if the troops come back but remain assigned to N.A.T.O.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 216.]
  he seemed to raise the question whether they would remain assigned. Speaking the next day, evidently to correct a possibly false impression, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "The consequence of any ill-considered withdrawal of our forces from the mainland of Europe would be disastrous. We cannot leave Central European countries to face by themselves the problems they have had to face before. So long as we and the United States are there in sufficient strength, some of the things which we all of us think dangerous—even disastrous—will not happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 288.]
  One of the things that we hope to get from this debate is a clear statement of the Government's position, because there is a divergence of view.
  Mr. Reynolds: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain this

  1079
  point a little further. I cannot see any divergence. I said that it depended on if decisions were taken, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said the same thing.
  Mr. Kershaw: It is not as simple as that. When the hon. Gentleman goes on saying "if" twice in the same speech in an important debate he raises the possibility that the troops might not be kept assigned.
  Mr. Reynolds: The first "if" was in the phrase "if we withdrew" and the other "if" was in the phrase "if they remain assigned". I was stating two possibilities.
  Mr. Kershaw: Not quite. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has it the wrong way round. He said,
  "If it is necessary … to bring troops back from Germany, and if as my right hon. Friend said, such troops remain assigned to N.A.T.O."
  That is as clear as a pikestaff. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman did not mean "if" but meant that they would be assigned to N.A.T.O.
  Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West): Did he?
  Mr. Kershaw: Where will these troops train in this country? The Minister of State used to be complacent about training land. He used any excuse that came into his head. On one occasion he said that he had enough land and on another that the T.A. had made lots of room, and then that the Army had long had cross-country vehicles and therefore did not need to take a new look at the matter. He is referring to three-tonners, and if he thinks that they are cross-country vehicles he is the only man alive who does.
  Back in 1964 he was singing a different song. Then he said that training land, especially for tracked vehicles, was desperately short and the problem would have to be tackled. He said that it was due to the political cowardice of the Tories that nothing had been done. Nothing has been done since. Far from acquiring more land his Department has sold land. It has sold 1,400 acres and is prepared to sell 42,000 more. Up till 10th February it had no plan for acquiring fresh areas, although the papers say otherwise. I taxed the Minister on his
  1080
  idleness in this matter, and he said that the reduction in the Reserve Army had so relieved the training land problem that no more was needed. Surely he was just jesting.
  Can he mean that the T.A.s tracked vehicles took up all that land, and that the perhaps 50,000—certainly 25,000—Regular troops coming back would be able to fit their training on to the area vacated by the T.A.?
  Mr. Reynolds Mr. Reynolds indicated dissent.
  Mr. Kershaw: The Minister shakes his head, but that is what he said.
  What has been the reduction in tracked vehicles of the T.A.? It has been exactly 69—one armoured regiment's worth. So all the Regular troops coming home to Britain—including the infantry—will be able to train with their tracked vehicles in areas left by one T.A. regiment. I ask the Minister to come off it and stop trying to pretend that everything is all right, for party political purposes.
  Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member must be aware that I was referring to the fact that under the Defence Review the units coming back will be able to use the land vacated by the T.A. He knows that they are not equipped with tracked vehicles. They are all in Germany.
  Mr. Kershaw: This idea about troops coming back from Germany seems to have hit the Ministry of Defence a slap in the eye. It never said anything about it before 10th February. Did not it read the newspapers. Does it not know that the infantry is equipped with A.P.C.s, and has as many tracked vehicles as armoured units have? Did not it direct its mind to what would be available for these units when they were brought back for training? And time is now short. It is no good acquiring areas in general. All sorts of things have to be done to them. We read in the newspapers this morning that the Army is thinking of taking land near Hexham. That may be true. I warn the Minister—if he needs a warning—that land in the north country is often boggy and is no good for tracked vehicles, as I have cause to remember.
  This is not a political matter. Of course, it is very difficult to find good training land in this small country. I am sure that the House will back up the Minister in any sensible proposals, but

  1081
  that equally it will rightly condemn him if he does not now set his hand to the job.
  We know that 25,000 troops—less 6,C00 who will be in married quarters—will return to this country this year. Many of them will be leaving good barracks and accommodation. We know that almost as many, or perhaps even more, will be suddenly added if negotiations about German support costs go awry. Where will these troops go? To go into barracks there are 25,000 troops, less 6,000 who will presumably be in married quarters. That is about 19,000. There probably will be another 25,000 from B.A.O.R., of whom it can reasonably be assumed 6,000 will be married. That means about another 19,000 or 20,000. So there will therefore be about 40,000 troops requiring accommodation.
  We know from a Written Answer that the rate of completion of barrack places has over the past three years been 10,000 a year. Therefore, to provide 40,000 places is four years' work. As we also know that the cost is £2,000 per head, this means that the task is about £80 million in value, mitigated, I presume, by the 14 barracks kept on a care and maintenance basis, although in what sort of condition they are, I do not know.
  On 21st November last we were 29,000 married quarters short for the troops then in the United Kingdom. To this figure must be added at least one, probably two lots, of 6,000, which means that we shall be between 30,000 and 40,000 married quarters short. Over the past three years the rate of completion of married quarters has been 3,600 a year. We are now told that in the next three years we shall have 20,000 married quarters of one sort or another, including expedients. This figure of 20,000 is encouraging, until one realises that in the Statement we were promised 18,300; and only in the defence debate did the figure become 20,000. May I, without irony, say that 18,300 paper houses and 1,700 imaginary houses have so far been built? Will the Secretary of State realise that even his new figure will not catch up over the three years with an admitted deficiency of 29,000 which already existed on 21st November last?
  In due course, no doubt, all the married quarters will be built—as I have said, about 30,000 to 40,000. As the cost of each married quarter is £4,600, that will be a final cost of £140 million to £180
  1082
  million. In this year, so far as I can make out, but it is not too easy to tell from the accounts, we are providing only about £38 at home, which is not much of a bite into this problem, plus £13 million under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, which is tucked away on page 76, and which conveniently does not come into the current account.
  How can we face this expenditure of £80 million for barracks and about £150 million for married quarters? At least it can be said that it will be some time before the economies start to appear. Or is it really that we are not going to face it? Again I ask: is it really the case that these troops in fact will be disbanded when they come home, or a number of them?
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's argument with interest. Is the conclusion he draws from the argument he has advanced that troops should not be brought home or that the provision of married quarters and barracks should be speeded up? Which conclusion is he inviting the House to draw?
  Mr. Kershaw: The conclusion I am inviting the House to draw is that this defence budget purports to save a lot of money by bringing troops home. My argument is that it will not in fact save any money. It will not save it over the exchange costs, because of the training difficulties and because it introduces a strategic weakness into our planning. It will not save it on married quarters and barracks, because it will be immensely expensive to provide in the short term for these troops coming home. The Labour Government, who say that they are saving money and that this is the object of their defence policy, will not be doing so at all.
  Turning to other details, I have said that one cannot exclude the possibility of an enemy which has the initiative acting in an unexpected way—indeed, the virtual certainty. One way in which an enemy could act would be by the use of bacteriological and chemical weapons. How are we equipped to counter this threat? There is very good evidence to show that the Russians attach very unusual importance to chemical warfare and to training and equipment in this field. They have spent far more than

  1083
  the U.S.A. and of course very much more than us.
  The Secretary of State will be aware of the remarkable strides which have been made in chemical warfare. There are non-toxic gases today which could paralyse the process of command and other gases which could inflict terrible casualties and from which there is no practical protection at present. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that enough is being done in this field. There is hardly anything in the Estimates about it—quite rightly: I make no complaint about that. However, the Secretary of State must, if he can, reassure the House that all reasonable precautions are being taken and research kept going. Can we, in particular, be assured that the B.A.O.R. has all the equipment it needs for chemical warfare?
  In the sphere of bacteriological warfare, in many cases no defence whatever is possible. Therefore, it might be as well if the Secretary of State or the Minister of State could say publicly at some time that we have adequate means of retaliation in order to deter any possible aggressor.
  Is the Secretary of State satisfied that our heavy artillery equipment is adequate in quality and numbers? What about our tactical nuclear capacity? At one time the Secretary of State was adamant that all such weapons should be removed from front line troops. Is this still his thinking? What about the weapons themselves? Are our weapons up-to-date? What are our intentions about replacing them? The Under-Secretary touched on this matter earlier, but we should like to have as much information as we can. Are we going to buy the United States replacement which exists; and, if so, when?
  I have a query about anti-tank weapons. No doubt the best anti-tank weapon is a tank. I have no doubt that the Chieftain tank is all that it is claimed to be, namely, the best tank in the world. I am glad that it is now coming off the production lines and that B.A.O.R. is receiving it in important numbers. In the absence of tanks, is the Secretary of State satisfied with the anti-tank equipment of the infantry? The Vigilant is not suitable. I take it that Swingfire is too heavy and too expensive. Has the
  1084
  Carl Gustav adequate hitting power? There seems to be a bit of a gap here. Can we be told?
  In the sphere of communications, I still hear complaints that our systems are too heavy and that the newest equipment is slow in coming along. I realise the problems of cost involved if things come along too quickly. This is a query to which we should like to have an answer.
  The Under-Secretary said something about computers in the forward areas—notably, I suppose, for the artillery, but also to enable the general staff to have better field information. Reliance upon irreplaceable, sophisticated equipment puts operations at mercy if the equipment gets knocked out. Has this factor been borne in mind?
  In general, however, apart from these queries, I am sure that the Under-Secretary was right in saying that our Army is the best equipped in the world. All these weapons were ordered during the 13 years of Tory Government and the Army is now reaping the fruits.
  Therefore, it is not the equipment that we are worried about. It is the men.
  I wish I did not have to say that I believe that morale in the Army today is lower than at any time since conscription ended. After all, this is not surprising. Changes are in the air. Everyone knows that the Army is to be cut down still further, but no one knows by how much. The Territorial Army has been reduced to less than half and would have almost entirely disappeared if it had not been for the efforts of the Opposition and of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), whom I am glad to see in his place.
  This feeling of uncertainty is reflected in the gaps which there are in the junior ranks. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West gave some very alarming figures the other day, which were not denied, about some of the gaps in junior ranks. We should like to hear how this is going on. The senior ranks find that a great many avenues to promotion are now being closed because of the cut-down and the abolition of the T.A.
  The morale of the Army has also been affected, I believe, by the Government's conduct towards the medical and dental

  1085
  branches and towards the Territorial Army civilian employees. The first episode seemed to portend a breach of the Grigg Committee's recommendations, which did so much to alleviate anxieties about the pay of the Army. The second indicates that the Treasury is determined to pare down redundancy pay far more than ever before. This is very alarming to men who must leave the Army at the age of 55, an age at which it is almost impossible to get a job. Many wish to go while there is still time to get a job, but they are being held back.
  I have a cutting from The Times of 21st February which emphasised that men, having been at one time asked to apply as soon as possible to retire from the Army, now feel that they are not allowed to do so. The report says that,
  "The delay has caused some confusion within the Army because, when the redundancy scheme was first announced last month the Defence Ministry sent out instructions urging officers to signal their applications as soon as possible. Since then it has become clear that the Treasury and the Army Department are unable to agree over terms for redundancy payments."
  In fact, the little exercise about T.A. civilian employees was, as it were, a pilot battle to see how far they could get away with how little.
  The Under-Secretary of State allowed one phrase to drop from his lips, which I thought a little unfortunate, when he spoke on the Estimates. He spoke about the less outstanding officers who would have to retire. Is this the way it works in fact? Does it not depend on how many posts there are? When posts are being cut down, two outstanding officers go for the same post. They cannot both be employed, so one has to go. It is not a question of capacity. It is a question of the ground being cut from under people's feet. So people want reassurance. They want to know as soon as possible where they stand.
  The Army is coming home. In future, the slogan will be, "Join the Army and see Salisbury Plain". At 6 o'clock on a February morning, Salisbury Plain is not all that it could be, as many hon. and gallant Members will know. Barracks will be crowded, and married quarters scattered and hard to come by. The contrast with civilian life will be tempting. What will become of recruiting? I wonder whether civilian ways of using
  1086
  troops—we had an exchange about this this afternoon—will really cheer them up. We should like to know a little more about this. The Parliamentary Secretary was, I thought, a little waffly on it, and all he could do was to offer an Adjournment debate later on. One wonders whether he said that thinking that he would find out what to say or whether he knows already and will not tell us. I think that he should tell us.
  At this time also, when so many thousands of troops are coming home, it seems odd to reduce the number of commands so drastically. Scottish Command is to go, at a time when there will be, probably, more troops in Scotland than ever before since the Civil War. I hope that the Secretary of State will not underrate the part played by the pageantry and so on at Edinburgh Castle. If he does, it will not be the first time that this Government have shown indifference to the martial enthusiasm of Scotland.
  Mr. Dalyell: We will leave Scotland alone. May we be told what the argument is? Is it argued that we must have foreign commitments if only to keep up recruiting?
  Mr. Kershaw: Certainly not, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if troops are living at home, if they are short of training land, short of quarters, and living in uncomfortable barracks, recruiting is not likely to boom. This is a fact which must be faced, and we want to know what the Government's proposals are.
  From the highest to the lowest ranks, the Army is at present in a state of uncertainty for which the Secretary of State's policy is responsible. If I may say so, the Service Ministers as a whole are individuals whose abilities are outstanding—I think it fair to say that of this Government they are the best of a bad lot—but their party has a policy which is inimical to the Army. Furthermore, we cannot but reflect on this side of the House and, indeed, everywhere else, on the consequences of the vote in the defence debate. The Government hardly survived and, clearly, would not have survived but for the 110 Ministers and 75 placemen who keep them going. The Left wing of the Labour Party is cock-a-hoop, if four-legged people can be

  1087
  cock-a-hoop. Left-wing Members reckon that, by this time next year, their policy will have triumphed in the party. Who is to say that they are wrong?
  I doubt very much, in spite of his fierce attack upon his followers last week, that the Prime Minister is the sort of man who likes swimming against the tide. I doubt whether he is a man of the calibre to say that he will "Fight, fight and fight again" for a defence policy which he thinks right.
  The country and the Army look to the future with misgiving. It would not be the first time in peacetime, unfortunately, when the Army was cut down below danger point. It would, however, be the first time that it had been so cut without the trained reserves upon which to build. This is why we are so anxious. In this imperfect world, it is necessary for there to be a certain amount of party-political manoeuvering. This is inevitable. But let Ministers reflect that they are for the time being, and against the backcloth of history only for a short time, responsible for the well-being of an Army which, over the centuries, has been part of our national personality, which has been a faithful servant of the State, and which has known more often than any army of any country the glory and the heartbreak of victory. In sustaining that Army, Ministers will have the support of this side of the House and of all men of goodwill in the country.
  4.55 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton): We have just heard a most interesting speech from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), on which I congratulate him. The hon. Gentleman has spoken today from the Dispatch Box, and he has spoken on this subject over a great many years from the back benches.
  I take up one point which the hon. Gentleman made. Surely, it does not lie in the mouth of the Conservative Opposition to complain today of the posting of forces in Germany. They posted them there when in Government, and they maintained them in those postings for a great many years. This is not our policy. It is theirs.
  For the last 10 years—I have said this before—those troops have not been placed as a force to defend Germany against aggression. They have been posted there
  1088
  as a military presence. Their postings are governed not by strategic needs, but by the chance position of barracks. They are placed so that they are at least 24 hours further from their deployment positions than the Russians are. If there were a war situation, we should not be able to move our deployment areas because to do so would provoke a crisis.
  From the positioning of those troops, the choice, the initiative, would be with the enemy all the time. The enemy could occupy our deployment positions before we got there; they could turn the position before we could fight. I do not myself believe that we could, in practice, use nuclear weapons because the troops would be too intermingled before any nuclear concentration target had been brought about.
  I drew attention to this situation, which has existed for 10 years, when I spoke from the Opposition Dispatch Box in past years. It is a situation which the Conservative Government accepted, and, on second thoughts, I think, probably rightly accepted. What we need in Germany today is a military presence rather than a defence force.
  The occupation of that trans-European frontier is really a two-sided affair. I profoundly believe in the importance of N.A.T.O. I believe equally profoundly in the importance of the Warsaw Pact. I want to see those two instruments of unity, to call them that, remaining in operation on the two sides. I look today on the safest Europe which I have seen, safer than my father or my grandfather saw. Because of the two sides here, we have built up that which is the essence of unity, the first task of any unity, a common defence. It is far more important than a common market or the removal of trade barriers.
  That is a common task, recognised as a common task open to us all, in which we are all involved. While one has that, one has a unity. I am very much opposed to detracting from or weakening that unity. I want the feeling of Europe to be that those are the troops of Europe available and posted not nationally, but internationally, within that European grouping. I am in no way opposed to an equal kind of grouping on the other side, because so long as there are international forces upon that frontier I think that the danger of a clash is very remote.

  1089
  I now come to another aspect which worries me greatly. That is the question of concentrating the Army back in England, which has never happened in its history. The danger to political institutions of professional armies is one which we once recognised. We had the experience in Cromwellian times, and we took the most elaborate steps to avoid it ever happening again. We legalised the Army for only a single year, and we took a good deal more practical steps than that. Not only this country, but a good many others, fearing that sort of danger from a professional Army, kept the Army so rigidly class-divided that it was impotent to intervene in any class conflict. For instance, even in the Curragh mutiny the Army was too socially divided for anything to be threatened beyond officer resignation.
  The fact that one continually kept the major part of one's Army on foreign station was very important in order to keep it occupied as an Army instead of looking for political tasks. It felt important; it felt employed; there were always tasks for it to look for. But those tasks are beginning to disappear. Lastly, there was a Government here of great power, prestige and repute, and a Parliament of great respect. Sad as I find it to say so, that has decayed.
  What do we see now? We are to concentrate back in England those forces from abroad. We shall bring back an army from Aden and it will be a very angry Army. I have been in touch with a good many of our soldiers in Aden. They see their people being shot and murdered, and they feel that their hands are being tied behind their backs. They feel that Parliament—and, I am afraid, particularly the Government supporters—are primarily interested in the crimes which Amnesty International says that they are committing in trying to defend themselves from Egyptian assassination, and are uninterested in what they are suffering.
  Above all, they will return feeling a defeated Army that has been driven out because it was not allowed to protect itself, knowing full well that the Egyptians who are the cause of those things, and are known to be the cause, were utterly at their mercy in the Yemen. They know that we could cut their communications and order them out of the Yemen at any
  1090
  time. It will not be a very happy Army; it will not be in a good mood when it gets back here.
  Nor do I think that the people who return from the Far East or Germany to far worse conditions here will be any happier. They will find themselves asked to live in caravans. The will compete with a civil population hungry for houses.
  I am told that the Government are trying to buy 4,000 houses in the very inadequate housing market, and are in competition with people who desperately need a home.
  That does not bode well for a happy relationship with the Army that will be brought back and concentrated here, and given little sense of purpose, with its career structure imperilled. It has been pointed out that very good men must go when there is only one job for two men. That goes all the way down. With the present sort of mood of parsimony and crisis I do not see a second "golden bowler" policy.
  Behind those men are their older relations, because the Army tends very much to be a family affair. Many of their older relations have been living on National Assistance, as the pensions which they earned are being paid in bad money, hopelessly depreciated money. That is the sort of situation they must face. They are being pushed out of a career halfway through. I am not optimistic that the terms will be attractive. At least, the men concerned will not think that they are.
  That Army, brought here without an obvious job, is told that its job will be civil employment. When I asked about that civil employment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence told me that a Signals section had been used in the Aberfan disaster. That hardly adds up to the purpose of an Army. For years and years one has tried to get a sane prison policy under which prisoners could work and produce for the national product. Trades unionism has made that impossible. One finds that it cannot be done, and if one imagines that it will be easier for an Army one is labouring under a great delusion. In practice, civil employment will mean only one thing—strike-breaking. If there is conflict with the trade unions, which looks only too likely at present, there may be quite a

  1091
  lot of trouble, quite a few strikes to break.
  The concentration of the Army in these circumstances is not a recipe for a politically docile Army. It may be that the parties have earned their destruction. It may be that Gaullism is what we need. 1 hope not. That is the sort of regimé I would loathe, but the Government's policy is the kind that asks for it.
  Why are we doing it? In B.A.O.R. we have troops with barracks and married quarters, taking part in the defence of Europe where we want them. They are living as Army units, not mixed up with the day-to-day difficulties of housing and Labour problems at home. We are told that we are bringing them home not for a strategic reason, but because of an alleged balance of payments difficulty. There seem to me to be astonishing priorities here in the things which we must sacrifice to maintain an exchange rate of 2.80 dollars to the £—the idea that rather than have a currency in trouble one must sacrifice one's production, one's employment, one's foreign policy, the postings of one's Army. In all conscience, what an undignified position in which to find ourselves! The amount of foreign exchange involved is a great deal less than Rhodesian sanctions are costing us.
  What kind of priorities are these? They are ones which I think we are all led to forget. I find it an undignified argument that someone else has to pay for our Army where it rests for the needs, not only of us, but of Europe. Are the Americans protesting about support costs for their troops here? How much are we receiving? Are we receiving substantially less than we are paying out to the Germans?
  I come to what seems the craziest of all, which is Malta. There is a place which is longing to welcome an army of ours. We are told that the troops are being brought here as a strategic reserve. Why in the world should we not station a part of our strategic reserve in Malta? We have the barracks there, we have the houses and we have the welcome and we have the service there. Across in Libya we have the exercise grounds.
  If it were not for the kind of interdepartmental trouble which we run into, the Ministry of Defence having nailed its
  1092
  flag to the mast of £2,000 million at 1964 prices, given that this may be an economy on their books it is going to be an awful extravagance on the books of some other Department which has to deal with the Malta problem when it comes.
  There is a dismal pattern in the decadence of affairs. We find political institutions losing respect and we find a law losing respect. We find the arrogance of an Executive building up and the Prime Minister describing the members of the majority party in this House as dogs requiring his licence. Within this mounting arrogance we find the pattern of history linked with the mounting impotence, the impotence we see in Rhodesia, the impotence we see in Aden and the Common Market—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. and learned Member is getting a little far from the Army Estimates.
  Mr. Paget: I am closing very shortly indeed, but I feel that the position and the future of the Army and its morale does concern the morale and future of the nation. I see this unhappy pattern in the decadence of empires being repeated here and I see a point at which the man with a sword intervenes, occasionally for benefit but more often, unhappily, disastrously. I ask the Government to look again at this. We are drifting, not riding, not steering but just drifting, into most dangerous waters.
  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. James Ramsden: With a great deal of what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said I find myself in entire agreement. I agree particularly with his analysis of the character of the rôle that our forces in Germany are being and for some years have been called upon to play. I can make my speech the shorter because many of the arguments he put before the House so ably were arguments which I would otherwise have felt moved to try to put.
  The speech of the Under Secretary who opened the debate I certainly enjoyed. I liked particularly the bit about "computers in forward battle situations." I was reminded of a favourite quotation from, I think, Colonel Bramble, to the effect that a soldier's life is well known

  1093
  to be a hard one, sometimes involving periods of actual danger. I hope that the computers in forward battle situations will come along, but I shall believe that when I see it.
  The speech of the hon. Gentleman followed the normal pattern on these occasions. He told us a great deal of what had happened and proudly referred to items of equipment which had been produced, and so on. What he did not do—this is no exception on these occasions— and what the White Paper does not do, at any rate explicitly, was to give us much idea of what is to happen, what is in the mind of the Government about the future size and strength and deployment of the Army.
  On this, I should like to probe a little in my speech. I think that there are clues even in this White Paper and that it has not been proved entirely possible to deny all information to the House. Chapter I, paragraph 44, refers to the fact that
  "A wide-ranging examination of the long-term structure of the Army is being carried out."
  I imagine that structure must include size.
  In Chapter I, paragraph 46, we read:
  "We intend to cut supporting services, wherever practicable, as reductions are made in the combat forces."
  In paragraph 13 of Chapter 10, on page 73, we read:
  "Work will continue on the renovation of various temporary camps required in the short-term to accommodate troops returning home as a consequence of Defence Review decisions."
  Why only "short-term" unless the numbers of troops to be withdrawn are to be systematically reduced? It looks as though considerable reductions in force levels, to say the least, are under study by the Government at present.
  Everyone knows the unsettling effects upon an Army of such a prospect. I think that we are entitled to ask the Government whether they are justified at this time in the light of the commitments as they exist in embarking upon an exercise which will inevitably cause as much unsettlement and as much heart-searching as this one will. Is an exercise in the direction of much reduced force levels justified by the commitments of the Army as they exist round the world today? Is it justified by the facts of life? Unless the Gov-
  1094
  ernment can show that they have managed to bring about a real, as opposed to a paper, diminution in the number of commitments, they ought not to be thinking in terms of much smaller forces.
  Let us look at the principal areas involved and begin with the Far East. is there any actual reduction in commitments in the Far East? I doubt it. We have been given figures for the numbers of soldiers and other members of the Services who are to be brought home and we have been told of the contemplated reduction in the number of the Brigade of Gurkhas. These are withdrawals, certainly. The men will be coming home, but they are not coming home, it seems, because of any alteration in our commitments in that theatre. They are coming home because they have successfully waged a campaign and brought it to a conclusion and smaller numbers are therefore now required on the spot.
  The real test of the Government's ability to fulfil its claim to make any reduction in the force levels of the forces is a comparison between preconfrontation force levels and those that are appearing as they are now. I am not aware that these figures have been given and it would be very instructive if the Minister could say something about them when he winds up. I do not believe that these commitments have been reduced. We still have our commitments to S.E.A.T.O. and we still have our defence agreements and our responsibilities for internal security in various places in the Far East. The Government cannot claim actually to have reduced commitments in that theatre.
  I come next to Aden. I do not propose to enter today on the question whether the Government's policy in Aden constitutes a breach of faith. We can debate that later.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: There is no question but that it does.
  Mr. Ramsden: I agree, but I do not want to debate that now.
  I refer to Aden because here, at any rate on paper, is a commitment which the Government may claim that they have been able to cut. But will that

  1095
  prove to be so in practice? With the present state of affairs, the process of handover between now and 1968, or whenever it occurs, will be a long and difficult and, I am afraid, a bloody business. The Government must be prepared for the probability of having to send reinforcements and will have to remain in the position to take what steps are necessary to preserve law and order and to stand behind their policy for a period which at the moment it is difficult to estimate.
  I next come to the British Army of the Rhine. It must be clear to the House from both the White Paper and what was said in the defence debate that substantial withdrawals from the Rhine Army have been planned. I cannot forbear from reminding the House of the sort of things which hon. Members opposite used to say about the Rhine Army when they were the Opposition and we were in office. The number of speeches condemning the Rhine Army's overdependence on nuclear weapons and urging a better balance of conventional forces and deprecating the fact that we were not up to treaty strength must be legion, and quotations of that kind are so numerous that it would be boring to look them up and even more boring to repeat them, which I shall not do. The fact remains that hon. Members opposite now subscribe to all the policies which they criticised when we held responsibility.
  I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that it would be a great mistake to withdraw any troops, and certainly any substantial number of troops, from the Rhine Army at present. This is not just a matter of being engaged in the exercise of trying to get ourselves into Europe when a withdrawal of this sort would not give any great impression of sincerity in that regard. It is not just that it is distasteful and undignified to get ourselves into the position of making our contributions to N.A.T.O. dependent not even on the actual cost, but on some sort of calculation involving offset costs.
  The Foreign Secretary gave the strongest and best of all reasons for maintaining our contribution to N.A.T.O. at its present level when he spoke in the second day of the defence debate. Cer-
  1096
  tainly, he spoke for me when, speaking of the rôle of our forces there, he said:
  "They bind the United States to the defence of Western Europe, which was, perhaps, the missing link between the two world wars, and they enable Germany, firmly embraced within a system of collective security, to play her part in the defence of Western Europe."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February,1967; Vol. 742, c. 288.]
  I cannot think of a better set of reasons.
  Having said that, I also believe that there are great practical difficulties and objections to a policy of withdrawing troops from the mainland of Europe in large numbers. If the Government pursue that policy, they will run into a grave shortage of accommodation in this country, and there can be no doubt about that, for with 25,000 troops coming here from overseas, with, in addition, one or two brigade groups from Europe, would mean that there would not be the places to put them, or, at any rate, satisfactory places to put them.
  At Question Time I ragged the Minister about Fort George and he rather brushed me off. We can pursue that later. The point about Fort George is not the standard of accommodation, but the fact that on military advice it was discarded about five years ago as being located in a part of the world totally unsuited to the stationing of troops, far too far away. It is good officer country, perhaps, with grouse moors and salmon rivers, but it is not the place to put the "Jocks" from Glasgow. But that is the sort of situation in which the Government will find themselves if they pursue a policy of withdrawal from the Rhine Army.
  There would be a similar difficulty with training areas. At present, the bulk of the British Army's armoured regiments are in Germany where they have plenty of room to train. If they were brought back here, they would not have that room to train, for that room does not exist in this country. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that on Salisbury Plain, with good firm going underfoot, one can train about a brigade group, not much more, and a tight fit at that. But the training of two or three brigade groups not only with tanks, but with their attendant armoured personnel carriers on tracks, does not begin to be a starter in terms of the land available for training in this country.

  1097
  I believe that the Government know this perfectly well and that they are not so naive as not to take these facts into their calculations. I am, therefore, driven to the conclusion that what they really intend is to make these withdrawals and then disband a large number of the units. The situation towards which they are moving is one in which there is a strategic reserve located, as now, in the south of England, but whose rôle, in addition to the reinforcement of other worldwide garrisons, will be the reinforcement of the British Army of the Rhine. In other words, the two commitments will be lumped together and made the responsibility of smaller forces, the remainder being disbanded.
  There is the further possibility which was mentioned in connection with the Minister's reference to training areas and to our assigning of armour to N.A.T.O. I will not pursue that, because I think that the Minister will wish to clear that up at the end of the debate. The logic of what the Government intend seems to point in the direction of much reduced forces. That is a mistake, because withdrawal from Germany on the scale contemplated would be a mistake.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) has made an extremely important statement. He has left with me with the impression that if there were a departure by the West German Government from the guarantee given by the previous Government about foreign exchange costs he would find that quite acceptable and would take the view that this country should accept it humbly. Is that his view?
  Mr. Ramsden: I have deliberately refrained from becoming involved in these negotiations about foreign exchange costs. I am all for making the Germans help us as much as they can, but to have the size of the military contribution that we make to N.A.T.O., and stationed on the mainland of Germany, determined by this squalid argument about offset foreign exchange costs is an intolerably undignified position for this country.
  I have criticised the Government for what I take to be implicit in its White Paper, that is to say, having plans for the substantial reduction of our force
  1098
  levels. The Government have been forced into this position by having deliberately subjected themselves to this phoney ceiling of £2,000 million expenditure. If they are to get anywhere near this ceiling, the Government will be obliged to make substantial reductions in our forces in Germany, and this is against our national interest, and against the best interests of the long-term security of Europe. If we pursue this policy we shall fall into courses which would be not only dishonourable to us, but dangerous and unwise.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), a former War Minister, has criticised the Government for their arms reductions. My feelings are exactly contrary. I feel that the ruinous spending will go still higher and that arms have not been cut sufficiently. My aim is to press for big troop reductions east of Salford, to use the Prime Minister's much reported phrase, and for far bigger troop reductions east of Scarborough—
  Mr. Alfred Morris: And west of Salford.
  Mr. Allaun: We have no fewer than 225,000 Servicemen east of that latter point, Scarborough. The Government propose to bring home 25,000 and I warmly applaud that decision. It will still leave 200,000 of our forces overseas. It would be far better for our country if the majority of these men were brought home and demobilised.
  This is exactly contrary to what the right hon. Member for Harrogate has said. Not only would this relieve our balance of payments, which is a factor so airily dismissed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would expand our industrial production. In particular, I urge a drastic reduction of our two main concentrations of troops, in West Germany and the Far East. I am not alone in this. A total of 62 Labour M.P.s who signed last week's Amendment, and the 60 who abstained from voting, also want this. So does the Labour Party. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that the Amendment contained the precise wording of the resolution carried out by a half million majority at the annual conference of the Labour Party.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This cannot be a general defence debate. It must be upon the Army Estimates, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come closer to them.
  Mr. Allaun: My point is that the Army Estimates account for £651 million, and 237,000 men, which is the majority of our expenditure and manpower involved in all the Services and it is therefore necessary for me to say what I have just said.
  Public opinion is very strongly in support of this reduction in manpower and expenditure, both in the Army and the other Services. I would like to quote some evidence to that effect. Last week, the Gallup Poll reported that in the public's opinion
  "The Government is spending too much on arming and too little on old people, rates and education. Criticism of Government spending on arms is at the highest level ever recorded by the Gallup Poll."
  These were the main findings of the Gallup Poll in the Daily Telegraph. They were the result of a survey completed between 10th and 13th February. No fewer than 58 per cent. of those interviewed thought that the Government were spending too much on armaments and defence, and only 5 per cent. thought they were spending too little.
  Mr. Hooson rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman intervenes, I ought to point out to the hon. Member that he is getting into a general debate. What we are concerned with is the general administration of the Army, and its rôle within the defence programme, set in the debate that we had last week. We can only concern ourselves with the Army Estimates today.
  Mr. Allaun: I hate to be awkward, I am not an awkward beggar, but I think that you will agree that before your predecessor left the Chair a few minutes ago, this was a fairly wide-ranging debate. It is very difficult to discriminate between Army spending and defence spending as a whole, particularly since the three Services have been amalgamated in this way.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would accept that if the hon. Gentleman is
  1100
  adducing arguments which are incidental and limited in reference to make his point on the Army Estimates he would be perfectly in order, but I was of the opinion that he was going into a much more general debate on defence.
  Mr. Allaun: I will try to follow your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The fact is that Army spending has also increased to the extent of £25 million upon the preceding year. I think that I am in order in pointing out that, as regards pensions, for instance, 2 per cent. of those interviewed for the Gallup Poll thought that the Government were spending too much and 71 per cent. too little. On education, 15 per cent. believed that too much was being spent as against 39 per cent. who believed that too little was being spent.
  Mr. Hooson: While I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the level of defence expenditure, is he not embarking upon a rather dangerous argument if he is taking Gallup Polls as the media for deciding that one should spend a lot? Before the war, a majority of people in this country were in favour of appeasement, and no one can say that that was the right policy.
  Mr. Allaun: I am not taking the view that because the public think that a thing is right, it is necessarily so. I am proving the point, I hope, that this is what the general public wants. Public opinion has moved very rapidly in the last two years, because the Gallup Poll shows that
  "Complaint about heavy arms expenditure is now 15 points up on the 43 per cent. recorded when this question was last asked in March, 1965."
  It has risen from 43 per cent. to 58 per cent. The Government are lagging behind public opinion and I am sure that the public is right. It is commonsense.
  Mr. Goodhew: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it possible that the public have been taken in by all this talk about a runaway train which was proved only last week to have been quite inaccurate?
  Mr. Allaun: The figures I have just quoted were taken before any references to statements made last week.
  Far from expenditure falling, it has actually risen by £100 million a year.

  1101
  This happened regularly under Conservative Governments, but, unfortunately, it is also happening under the Labour Government—unless the policy is drastically changed. That is what the present vital controversy within the Labour movement is about. I think that the Opposition can be ignored in this debate since they did not press for arms cuts while in office and are not doing so now.
  It is no use denying that arms expenditure is going up. I have here the official figures from the Estimates. For the six financial years from 1954, expenditure remained stable at £1,400 million a year. Since then, it has mounted annually, and fairly regularly, by £100 million. In the financial year beginning April, 1959, the total was £1,475 million; in 1960 it was £1,595 million; in 1961 it was £1,688 million; in 1962 it was £1,766 million; in 1963 it was £1,791 million; in 1964 it was £1,909 million; in 1965 it was £2,055 million; in 1966 it was £2,172 million; in 1967 it is estimated at £2,200 million. It will be seen that in the last three years, since April, 1964, there has been an increase of £296 million, or £99 million a year.
  That is all that I wished to say on arms expenditure, but as the Army is the major factor in this expenditure I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, feel that I was entitled to say it.
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: To get the matter in perspective, during the period which my hon. Friend mentioned, 1963–66, the gross national product rose by 50 per cent.
  Mr. Allaun: It is not rising at present.
  Mr. Boyden: My hon. Friend's argument about the Army is not correct. The maximum increase is £22 million. This is not a very much smaller percentage increase than the whole. As I said in my opening remarks, it covers some real economies, like Territorial Army saving and compensation for redundancy, which are helping to make economies for the future. Therefore, it is not the major increase in cost.
  Mr. Allaun: Nevertheless, I must repeat that Army expenditure has increased in this estimate by £25 million
  1102
  compared with last year. If this is a cut, it is an Irishman's cut, because expenditure is increasing.
  Drastic arms reductions are the master key to the problems facing our country. It would unlock the door not merely to one room, but to many.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman is making the speech which he should have made during the defence debate. I understand his anxieties about the problem and his wish to make such a speech, but I am afraid that he cannot make it on the Army Estimates. All that he must concern himself with today is the administration of the Army within the rôle already set for it.
  Mr. Allaun: I hate to quarrel with the Chair—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot quarrel with the Chair. I am endeavouring to help him as much as possible, but this is a limited debate.
  Mr. Allaun: Very good, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I wish to show that by saving on Army expenditure by bringing home our troops from abroad we could end most of the difficulties facing our country. Surely this is in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will proceed, I shall endeavour to tell him from time to time whether he is in order.
  Mr. Allaun: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  This involves vast sums of foreign exchange and, as has been pointed out, the deficit on our balance of payments. It is this which is causing the deflationary measures which have led to our having 640,000 unemployed. Hon. Members opposite can advocate great measures for expanding the Army, but they must bear these other factors in mind which are equally important and, in the view of many of us, even more important.
  We are spending 25 per cent. of all Government revenue on military preparations, or 5s. in the £ of all taxation. It is not good enough to say that this is only 6½ per cent. of the gross national product. Put in that way, it does not sound

  1103
  too bad, but compared with other countries in Western Europe which are spending only 4 per cent. of their gross national product in this way it means a very heavy loss to us of nearly £700 million a year, and it is this which is involving us in our economic difficulties.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into general considerations relating to defence policy and not to the administration of the Army. He must return to the Army Estimates, Vote A.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. As one who went through a similar experience in the debate on the Navy Estimates, may I respectfully suggest that there is some synchronisation of the Armed Forces and the Chair on this matter, because when the Chair has a different occupant rather different rules apply.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair must rule as he sees the matter. I am endeavouring to do that with the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun).
  Mr. Allaun: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Government propose to bring home 25,000 soldiers. The majority of them are single men who could return to their parents homes. Many of them are married men who would return to the homes of their wives and children.
  In addition there could and should be a drastic reduction of recruiting. Surely it is absurd that we should continue to spend nearly £10 million a year on full-page advertisements in the "glossies" and the national Press. If we were to cut down on the 440,000 men and women in the Services, the need to buy houses and build new ones would not be so great.
  It might be asked: if these soldiers are demobilished, would not they add to the number already unemployed? Not at all. The 640,000 unemployed are out of work because of the deflationary measures caused by the balance of payments deficit. If we ended that deficit by ending our overseas military spending, the need for the squeeze and the resultant unemployment disappears. Until that
  1104
  disastrous day, 20th July, there were 350,000 people out of work. The Government should get back to that figure fast.
  The increase in arms spending is not solely the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. If we are to cut our arms expenditure, it is necessary to cut our overseas commitments both east of Suez and in Germany. That is what the resolution carried at the Labour Party conference sought to achieve. Why are not the Government doing what common sense and our commitments to the British people require? Why are we maintaining vast numbers of soldiers in the East and the West? It is because America is telling us to do so. Three Cabinet Ministers told the country both before and on 20th July that if the Bonn Government did not cover the foreign exchange costs of our troops on the Rhine—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is hardly concerned with the administration of the Army. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. Allaun: Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have had long speeches on this point by hon. Members opposite this afternoon. This has been a matter which has largely dominated this debate. I think that it is not fair to discriminate between what has gone before and what is taking place now.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Further to that point of order. Are you ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that only matters of administration can be discussed, or that, since we are on Vote A, we can discuss the size of the Army which it is proposed to keep up and the justification for keeping up an Army of that size?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a very difficult matter to rule on with any precision, as I think the right hon. Gentleman is only too well aware. We can discuss the size and the rôle of the Army, and considerations relating to that, but to enter now into a debate on defence generally is out of order.
  Mr. Allaun: A case has been put on this issue of our troops in West Germany, and I think that it is right that I should continue—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If, in fact, an argument has in this debate been put and

  1105
  has not been ruled out of order I think that it would be fair of the Chair to allow the hon. Member to answer it. If I am assured that he is answering a statement which has already been made, and which has been admissible, I will allow him to answer it.
  Mr. Allaun: I accept that. I think that is very generous of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I assure you that I will deal with points which have been made during the course of this debate.
  The point has been made that we should retain all our troops in West Germany, and I think that this is utterly wrong, and, indeed, out of conformity with the commitments given by three Cabinet Ministers both before and after 20th July. And then what happened? Our representative went to America and the announcement was made, "No withdrawals before July, 1967". As the Washington correspondent of The Times put it:
  "This is a notable diplomatic success for Washington."
  Well, he can say that again. Similarly, as regards troops from the Far East, Mr. McNamara told the Daily Express reporter, Rene MacColl:
  "You British are doing an excellent job in the Far East, and it is essential that you go right on doing it."
  So now we know.
  I repeat that if we are to end our subservience to American foreign policies we must immediately and unconditionally end our overseas military expense.
  5.52 p.m.
  Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West): I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) in his circumnavigating of the somewhat narrow waters confining this debate. I immediately invite his sympathy in return, lest I, too, experience some of the same difficulties in the course of my own remarks.
  I was most interested by the contrast between the last two speeches we have heard from the Labour benches. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was a most impressive performance, in its tremendous grasp of the feeling for the rôle of the Armed Forces, and the rôle of the British Army in particu-
  1106
  lar, throughout the history of this country. I would just add my small echo to the powerful plea which he advanced from his own sturdily independent position, that the Government should think again and again before taking, for short-term economic reasons, steps which may prove disastrous to our military and economic position in the long run. I thought that part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was one which should be read and read again by every hon. Member of this House who cares at all for the future of this country.
  I should like also to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) on his magnificent opening case deployed from the Front Bench. This was such a powerful and penetrating series of observations as effectively to silence the Secretary of State. I have always noticed that when he is put on the spot the Secretary of State can do little more than snigger and sneer, and this was the position in which he found himself today when confronted by the strong arguments advanced by my hon. Friend. I shall listen with a great deal of interest to hear whether whoever is to reply for the Government to the debate is able to answer some of the questions put to them by my hon. Friend.
  I have no doubt at all, having listened to the case that he put forward, that the Government are in a state of complete confusion as to which troops they are bringing back, as to what are the circumstances in which they will bring them back, where they will put them if they bring them back, how they will house them when they do come back, and in what rôle they will employ them when they are here. It is high time, since the Government have produced a document which they have the audacity to call a "Statement on the Defence Estimates", that they should have answers to at least some of the questions put to them.
  I was amazed that the Under-Secretary of State was not able to answer some of the questions put to him by my hon. Friends in interventions during his speech. They were questions to which, I should have thought, he would have had the answers at his finger tips. I hope the Government are taking this debate as seriously as the gravity of the world situation warrants. I hope very much that we

  1107
  shall get some full and comprehensive statement in reply from them.
  Those who were in the House not so very long ago will recollect that during debates on Service Estimates and on defence they heard speeches from Sir John Smyth, V.C., on the rôle of the Brigade of Gurkhas and I want to say a few words about the Brigade of Gurkhas in view of the decisions which have been announced in the White Paper, and in view of the steps which are being taken to reduce the total strength of the Brigade itself.
  In opening the Defence Debate on 27th February the Secretary of State told us how he had managed to arrive at firm plans for the withdrawal from the Far East of a total of 11,000 men. He went on to say:
  "More than 5,000 were already home by the beginning of the New Year. Nearly 10,000 will be home by Easter, and the remaining number will come home during the few months following."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 103.]
  That is to say, within a few months 11,000 men will be coming home from the Far East. I should like to hear, as I am certain would every hon. Member, exactly where those men are to go and what units they represent and what tasks they will fulfil when they are back in this country.
  In addition to the 11,000 men the strength of Her Majesty's Forces currently deployed in the Far East will, over the next 12 months, be further reduced by 2,000 serving soldiers of the Brigade of Gurkhas who will be returned to Nepal. Thus, over the next 12 months we have, in the words of the Secretary of State, a firmly planned reduction of our Far Eastern military strength by 13,000 men.
  Looking at the Estimates, I find it hard to see exactly where the savings come in. Let me remind hon. Members that we have had the statement that 11,000 will be back within a few months. I cannot see where this will achieve substantial cost savings. Apart from this, if we look at Vote A we see that the number of "Commonwealth, Colonial &c. troops abroad and Gurkhas" is to be reduced by 600 other ranks. The number of officers is to be increased by 100. If we look at Subhead E of Vote 1, we see that the total "pay &c." of the Gurkha troops
  1108
  in the British Army is to be reduced by £195,000.
  First, I want to know how many of the 600 men are from the Brigade of Gurkhas. Secondly, I must express some suprise that Subhead E of Vote 1 shows a reduction. I should have thought that the reductions in manpower might be higher and the reductions in pay would be considerably less. I say this because of the statement which was made about the amount of gratuities and specially calculated increments or pensions which the redundant troops from the Brigade of Gurkhas are to receive.
  There is a reference on page 73 of the Defence White Paper:
  "Those who are declared redundant will receive additional gratuities, varying according to rank and service. Special pensions will be granted to redundant soldiers who have completed ten years' service".
  In the circumstances, since I am certain that the Government mean what they say in that regard, I thought that the savings would not have been immediately apparent. I am certain that the Government are most anxious to ensure that the compensatory element of the payments made to those serving men of the Brigade of Gurkhas who, as a result of Government decisions, are to be returned to Nepal is as generous as they can possibly make it.
  I am glad that the run-down is to be phased forward over a period of two-and-a-half years. I am certain that this is the correct decision. I ask the Government to ensure that as far as possible it takes place as a result of natural wastage and does not import any special measures to cut the strength of the Brigade far in excess of that which might normally happen as a result of holding back the rate of recruitment.
  What will be the effect on recruitment? What will be the impact within the State of Nepal? This requires a little further probing. If we are considering the Government's decision to cut the strength of the Brigade of Gurkhas, we must be certain that the Government are not by this action taking steps which are likely to dry up altogether the source of recruitment of that most important and valuable element in the British fighting force. This is particularly important because of the economic and political impact which a decision of this nature could

  1109
  have in Nepal. Nepal occupies a most important strategic key position between China and India.
  In this context, the payments which we make for serving Gurkha soldiers constitute a most valuable form of aid to Nepal. In terms of value for money, we could not get a better investment than we get from expenditure on the Brigade of Gurkhas. In the Brigade of Gurkhas we have a fighting force which has borne the brunt of our cold-war operations in the Far East. At the same time, as a result of the training, education and money which these men get in the Brigade of Gurkhas, we have a most important element of stability in Nepal, which is a vital bulwark against the spread of Communism in the Far East.
  Dr. Hugh Gray: Does not the hon. Member think that it would be better to give assistance to Nepal from the Ministry of Overseas Development to replace the foreign exchange which would be lost by the reduction in the number of Gurkhas? Does he not see the future of this country being in Europe rather than east of Suez? Does he not welcome this reduction in the number of troops provided that the financial loss to Nepal is made good in other ways?
  Sir J. Eden: I will endeavour to answer that point during the remainder of my speech as I touch upon these questions. It might be better for me to follow my own speech through and then, at the end of it, if I have omitted a point which the hon. Member wishes to press, perhaps he will have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of catching your eye.
  For over 150 years this country and, in a direct and personal way, the British Crown have received unstinting loyalty from the people and from the serving soldiers recruited from Nepal. The Gurkhas have displayed their own special and magnificent qualities, not merely as recited by the Secretary of State in answer to my Question on 7th December, as reported in column 1357 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, not merely as being unsurpassed as jungle fighters, but in a wide range of employment. They have shown how amazingly versatile they can be. They have seen service in Europe and in Africa. They have taken part in nuclear warfare exercises in the United Kingdom. They have served not in the British Army but
  1110
  in the Indian Army in United Nations operations in the Congo. I suggest that were they now to be present in Aden they would contribute to a great extent to a restoration of law and order there.
  The Gurkha is more than just an infantryman. The Brigade is extremely well self-contained. The Gurkhas are also engineers, signallers and parachutists. In a variety of ways they have shown their ready facility for learning new trades and mastering new weapons systems. They are now even being trained for making the fullest and most effective use of helicopters within the Brigade's operations.
  As any hon. Member who has seen them in action or who has had the privilege of serving with them at any time will know, their chief asset as fighting forces is their tremendous sense of discipline, their unquestioning obedience and their unswerving loyalty. In addition, wherever they have been employed on internal security operations, as the Under-Secretary of State today made clear, their wisdom, their humanity and their naturally cheerful disposition have won over the hearts and minds of the local populations. In any sort of conflict in which British military forces are likely to be engaged in the future, the Brigade of Gurkhas have a unique and invaluable contribution to make, and nothing which has been announced about the Government's plans to cut the strength of the Brigade will, I hope, in any way affect their determination in the future to employ this powerful military and fighting force in the service of the Crown in whatever part of the world it may be necessary to do so.
  Mr. Paget: May I add one other factor which is extremely important? In civil disturbance, it is the courage of the Gurkhas. Nothing is as difficult as nervous troops. The Gurkhas never seem to be nervous.
  Sir J. Eden: The hon. and learned Member is absolutely right. That was extremely well displayed throughout the Malaysian situation, in confrontation, and in the Congo.
  I am especially concerned about the choice of words used by the Secretary of State on 7th December, at column 1356, when he made his announcement about the decision to cut the strength

  1111
  of the Brigade. I have said what I felt it necessary to say not so much because of the Government's decision to cut down by 5,000, but because of the clear indication given by the Secretary of State that this is only the first in a series of other measures which will lead to a further reduction in the strength and fighting effectiveness of the Brigade.
  The Secretary of State said on that occasion:
  "Changing circumstances, including the outcome of a detailed examination now taking place on the future structure of the Army, may make it necessary at some future date to reduce the Brigade of Gurkhas below that strength."
  That is, below 10,000.
  "It is the present intention of Her Majesty's Government to retain a substantial force of Gurkhas until the future becomes clearer, but a final decision cannot yet be taken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1966; Vol. 737, c. 1356.]
  The right hon. Gentleman announced also that he had cut out two battalions altogether. These measures—the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the measures which he has already taken—aroused fears in my mind that the Government regard the Brigade of Gurkhas as expendable and something which they can simply cut off whenever it becomes embarrassing in financial terms for them to retain them in their employment. If that is not a fair statement of the Government's view, I hope that I may get a full repudiation of it, because I am nervous of the possible consequential effect of the uncertainty in which the Brigade is now likely to find itself on future recruitment from Nepal.
  I know that this decision is being taken because confrontation has come to an end, but I agree very much with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), a former Secretary of State for the Army, that the commitment still remains. Confrontation may have ended, but the Communist activity and agitation continue. In Sabah, Sarawak and Borneo the clandestine Communist organisations are very actively at work. There are large numbers of them in those countries who remain a potential source of unrest and conflict which we cannot, and should not, ignore.
  I agree very much with the opening sentence of paragraph 21 of the Defence White Paper that:
  1112
  "It is still too early to make firm assumptions about the political pattern of South-East Asia in the 1970s".
  It certainly is too early to make firm assumptions and it is very much too early, since we cannot make those firm assumptions, to make firm decisions about cutting the overall strength of our military forces or our capacity to deploy them to any part of the world.
  The whole House would, I am sure, hope that the day may not be far distant when the responsibility for these matters can safely be placed in other hands—when, for example, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand themselves come together to form their own collective defence organisation. Meanwhile, however, before this has taken place and while the Communist threats still persist, it is essential that we should continue to assist in the provision of a protective shield behind which these desirable objectives can be allowed to foster.
  The effect of these cuts on Nepal gives me considerable concern. The Government will know that one-seventh of the total income of Nepal comes from Gurkhas serving in the British Army. More than that, the fact that these men come from the hills and ultimately return there means that the whole standard and level of education in the country is considerably raised. They provide a disciplined element in the society which straight aid could not of itself produce. This is an important stabilising influence.
  I am concerned, therefore, about the effect on Nepal, and I am concerned equally about the effect of this decision on New Zealand and Australia. I agree with the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who said on the second day of the Defence Estimate:
  "What I am concerned about is Australia and New Zealand, and Malaysia to some extent."
  He went on to say:
  "I am concerned, not with Malaysia or Singapore, but with Australia and New Zealand."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 310.]
  The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be concerned about Australia and New Zealand, because we see how concerned those two countries have been with the necessity to maintain effective defence against Communist incursion in the whole of the Far East. They are

  1113
  obvously nervous about the impact of any reduction in military strength on Communist activities in the Far Eastern sphere and the resultant threat which that poses to their own northern territories.
  In all this, however, the real threat is China. When considering the deployment and strength of our forces overseas, the House would do well to consider what may be happening inside China at this time and what could possibly be the effect on the preservation of national sovereignty and independence as a result of this. It is hard to forecast what could happen, but I feel that we have not yet seen the last of China's imperialist ambitions, or, rather her territorial ambitions. China is clearly faced with a number of grave problems concerning her own population—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Army Estimates.
  Sir J. Eden: I am coming right back to the Army Estimates, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This seems to me to be an extraordinary time to cut down the strength of our forces overseas. At a time when the political situation as a result of the turmoil inside China is so extraordinarily uncertain, this would seem to me to be the time to preserve stability by whatever means we can. In this regard, the deployment and strength of the British Armed Forces, and the British Army in particular, has an important rôle to play.
  I regard the containment of Communism as still a duty and a proper rôle for this country to discharge. I know that some hon. Members find this unpalatable and that they do so for their own political or pacifist reasons. I know that the Government are finding it difficult to follow this through because of what they call balance of payment difficulties. I hope, however, that they would not carry these arguments so far as to undermine our capacity to deploy military forces in the Far East and to preserve the strength of our fighting forces who are there now.
  I say this especially in regard to the Brigade of Gurkhas because, on a cost-effectiveness basis, we could not ask for a better return on our money invested. The Minister of Defence(Administration)
  1114
  told me not long ago that their cost is half that of a comparable British unit. At that price, the Gurkhas should not be reduced in number but strengthened. I should like to see us taking steps to use the Brigade of Gurkhas in other parts of the world, should the need arise. At any rate, it seems folly that, when so much uncertainty persists in the world today, we should be taking steps to reduce the strength of some of the most effective voluntary fighting forces in the world, and I beg the Government to think again.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Crawshaw: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his efficient team. I, too, pay tribute to them. It is indeed an efficient administrative team. I am sometimes concerned, however, about whether their strategic ability matches their administrative ability.
  I am also sometimes concerned about whether the Secretary of State, in fashioning Britain's defence forces, is having regard to certain things which may be outside his control. We realise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will shortly be having his say about how much money shall be spent, but there are other factors which one must bear in mind. Reference has been made, for example, to our having no troops east of Salford, and I wonder to what extent views of this type are having any influence on my right hon. Friend's policy.
  There are certain responsibilities which we have undertaken in the past and which it may not be possible for us to evade in the future. Whatever they may be, we appear to be trying to cover too many parts of the world with too few resources. That being so, sooner or later we must come to a decision about whether we wish to continue to exert influence in all these areas or whether we should use what forces we have in those areas which are vital for this nation's defence.
  The future of N.A.T.O. is of vital consequence to this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) spoke about the great stability that exists in Europe and said that we did not need all the paraphernalia of defence now existing in Europe. He fails to realise that this stability exists as a result

  1115
  of the Biblical expression about the strong man, armed, keeping his goods. Anyone who under-estimates what Russia might wish to do in certain circumstances is deceiving himself about the real issues involved. N.A.T.O. has given Europe the stability of which my hon. Friend spoke and I believe that Europe is the area vital to the defence of Britain. We lost most of the Far East during the war. Could we have lost this country and still have won the war? I ask this question because if one is considering these things from the point of view of economising in the number of forces available, one must consider in which areas those forces should be deployed—and I plump for Europe.
  I wish to concentrate on some illogicalities in the policy of my right hon. Friend regarding the withdrawal of troops from Germany. We are told that we will withdraw these forces because of some foreign exchange cost difficulty. Either those troops are vital for N.A.T.O. or they are not. If they are not, they should not be there anyway—exchange costs or any other difficulty. If they are vital, then, exchange costs or any other difficulty, they must remain there.
  The Secretary of State has also said that if we withdrew our forecs from Germany we would be able to get them back there if difficulty arose and they were needed in that area. Does anyone really believe that? Have we been told of the air transport ability we have for moving forces? How quickly could we get one or two divisions back to Germany? And, of course, this is being considered in the light of its being a 48-hour battle. I wonder to what extent the decision to withdraw our troops is pandering to certain aspects of the views of some of my hon. Friends?
  I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East back in his place because I told him that I would give him honourable mention in my remarks if I caught Mr. Speaker's eye. I have been asking my hon. Friend a question for a considerable time, since he is for bringing our troops back from Germany. He does not want 5,000 or 10,000 of them brought back. He would prefer that we withdrew 50,000 of our troops, although he also says that there must not be a German finger on the nuclear trigger.
  1116
  How does he reconcile those two arguments? He can possibly reconcile one, but not both. I will willingly give way to my hon. Friend if he will resolve this vital problem which has been exercising my mind.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The official policy of the party to which my hon. Friend and I belong is that there should be disengagement in Europe, with a nuclear-free zone in the centre of Europe. This would mean no nuclear forces for West Germany and also a drawing back of the troops of the N.A.T.O. Alliance and the Warsaw Alliance.
  Mr. Crawshaw: I wonder whether my hon. Friend remembers 1936, when Germany went into the Rhineland. At that time we were in a position to have stopped it militarily. Does anybody ever consider placing troops back somewhere once they have been withdrawn? Like my hon. Friend, I would like to see all our troops brought home, but I am not prepared to see Germany filling the vacuum which will be created by our withdrawal from this area. I believe that if we give up our responsibility to N.A.T.O. in this matter it will be only a question of time before Germany is in possession of independent nuclear weapons. We must make the choice. I believe that it is an easy choice to make. If our troops are brought out we will have no control over whether or not Germany has nuclear weapons. I wonder whether, as a result of this disagreement with Germany, that country will get what it has never been able to get by agreement with us—and that is our troops out of Germany?
  From the point of view of withdrawing our troops from Germany, is the resultant policy a credible one? We are told that we do not need troops there because we shall use nuclear weapons from the word "go". I am not sure when and upon whom those weapons will be used. Presumably one cannot use them on the troops coming at one because, in terms of Germany, within a matter of hours one would be firing those weapons at the German population, who are our allies. One can only assume, therefore, that they will be used on Russian cities.
  If that is the kind of defence we have in mind, then we do not need any troops

  1117
  in Germany. It is a matter of strategy. We simply tell them which cities we are going to obliterate. We enumerate them and obliterate them in order. That makes a credible policy. It is not a credible policy that we keep troops there presumably to stop the Russian's advance, and then start using nuclear weapons. My party, when in opposition, knew something when it said that we had to get rid of nuclear weapons or have sufficient conventional forces in Europe to stop the Russians. But that is not our policy now. Whether our policy is dictated by military or financial means. I do not know.
  May I touch for a few moments on the situation in the Far East? Towards the end of last year I had the opportunity to visit Malaysia. I should like to pay tribute to the high regard in which our armed forces are held in that country. It was rather embarrassing at times to find people there more "British" than the British themselves. There is no doubt that our troops made a tremendous impact in that area. Is the Secretary of State prepared to tell us what is the rôle of the Commonwealth Brigade in Malaysia?
  Hon. Members will recall that last week we were told that our troops in Thailand had donated an airfield to the Thai Government. For us to get bogged down in any conflict in that country would be to land ourselves in the same position as the Americans have landed themselves in Vietnam. When we do not have prolific forces, we have to make our strategy suit the size of our forces. I hope that the Commonwealth Brigade in Malaysia and the troops in Thailand are not something which indicates action in the future. We would get ourselves into an impossible position if that were so.
  I know that the Secretary of State comes under criticism for not withdrawing from the Far East. I should like to see us out of the Far East. That is where I differ from hon. Members on the other side of the House. I do not believe that we can fulfil all the obligations which we have to fulfil. We have to get our priorities right. Is there any understanding with the Americans, explicit or otherwise, on our retaining certain troops out there? These are matters which concern hon. Members on both sides of the House. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us.
  1118
  In the last few moments of my speech, may I touch on air transport before dealing with personnel matters? I was interested to hear that we are to have more air transport for troops. That is the only way in which this country can make its presence felt. Obviously, the economy cannot stand large forces in any of the three Services. I have always held the view that to be able to land a brigade in an area within 24 hours is worth two or three divisions a matter of a few days later. On what scale are we seeking to operate? The Rhodesia issue would not have arisen had we been capable of moving forces of any size by air. This is the difficulty in which we have landed ourselves.
  Mr. Reynolds Mr. Reynolds indicated dissent.
  Mr. Crawshaw: My hon. Friend shakes his head. He has no intention of using them. I do not believe that there were any troops to use in the first place.
  I do not believe that by bringing troops back to this country we will have a good Army. I do not believe that the man who joins up wants to serve his period of engagement in this country, or that the training facilities are suitable in this country. I do not believe that this way a man will be able to become accustomed to different types of climate during his period of service so that we can at a moment's notice switch him to a different type of climate.
  There was one situation in Aden, or somewhere in that area, about two or three years ago where we had more troops out of action than in action because of the nature of the climate. I would ask the Government to consider very seriously whether this is the answer to bringing the troops out.
  I am not surprised that men are volunteering for the Territorial Army. It is the sort of thing for which men will volunteer. I would ask my right hon. Friend not to try loyalties too far, because we can try them too far. Certain things get people's backs up in the forces, and they are not the big things. I brought to the Minister's attention the other day the matter of people being asked to hand back their Territorial Army lapel badges. That is the type of thing which gets their backs up. I know of one unit where this has caused considerable resentment among the men.

  1119
  It often strikes me as being hypocritical when, at the Dispatch Box, the Minister pays tribute to our forces and to the loyalty of the men, but when it comes to a cut-down the loyalty of those men seems to be cast overboard. I do not believe that we can turn it on both hot and cold. If we genuinely believe that these men, who have reached retirement age or have become redundant in the Territorial Army, have served their country well, it behoves each one of us to make sure that when they are displaced full regard is given to what has happened. A sergeant-major in my Territorial unit is being displaced next month. He has served for more than 19 years in the unit. He is not being kept on. I would ask the Minister not to take loyalty too far. Many of these men are still willing and anxious to serve in future emergencies. I know that a difficult decision has to be made on the financial issue, but I hope that the Government will get their priorities right.
  6.37 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), knowing, as I do, his work both in the law and in the Territorial Parachute Regiment.
  What he said was all important. He would not expect me to agree with everything, but the way in which he ended his speech, when he referred to the loyalty of the Army, is of first-rate importance in the difficult times that are bound to come.
  The "nigger in the woodpile", if I may use an obvious metaphor, seems to be the Treasury. I sympathise with Service Ministers because they are subject in so many matters to the Treasury.
  Regarding payment to the troops, we as a party were to some extent as guilty as anybody. The cutting by half of the biennial payment was bitterly resented by the Services. We are still going on under the present Government with this sort of thing. I need not refer to medical officers, because that matter has already been debated. The hon. Member for Toxteth will be interested to hear that legal officers in the Army are still without any increase in pay as compared with the ordinary Service officer.
  1120
  What is being said about that, and I believe it is true, is that nobody has kicked up a row on their behalf. This is the uneasy feeling which one finds in the Services. When a difficult situation arises, difficult in the sense that it is not what the man expected when he joined the Services, there is the thought that he cannot get the people in charge to treat him fairly. This produces an extremely bad atmosphere, and I hope that the Government will realise this, because this will be the test if it is necessary and it is finally decided to bring a large number of Servicemen back to this country. They did not necessarily join for service in this country. Many of them joined with the idea of seeing the world, and if they are unable to do this there will be a feeling of boredom unless careful and wise arrangements are made.
  We all know that the widows of officers of a decade or two ago are in poor straits. This is a topic which I shall not exaggerate or talk too much about, but it is an example of the fatal fact that between the Service Ministers, who I believe genuinely want the best for the Army, there stands this Treasury control over expenditure. The amount involved for such widows is infinitestimal. I suppose that those widows' pensions would be covered by about £2 million, and the increase for legal officers would amount to a few hundred shillings. But these things are not done, and bad feeling percolates through the Services, in the way we have heard.
  There is another matter which I think ought to be carefully considered. I have the privilege and the honour of representing Aldershot, which likes to call itself the home of the British Army. We are very pleased that there is a friendly relationship between the council and the Services there. Military members are on our council, and I hope that this state of affairs will continue, because I believe that it is a valuable link. One must attach considerable importance to this if there is to be a substantial increase in the number of Servicemen and families coming back to this country.
  So far as I know, when a question was raised about the Services not getting a fair chance of obtaining accommodation, someone, I think it was the Minister of Housing and Local Government, sent a circular to local authorities asking them

  1121
  to help if they could and some did their best. This is a problem which must be dealt with if we are to bring back 25,000 or more soldiers, many of whom have families. I hope that the Services and local authorities will get together on this issue and that decisions taken by the Services will, wherever possible, fit in with the situation in local authorities. The Minister of Defence, whom I am pleased to see in his place, knows a great deal about the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Act, and 1 wonder whether, in winding up the debate, he will say something about how the situation will be helped and financed by that Act which we passed about a year ago.
  The White Paper contains a sentence which is rather frightening from the point of view of local authorities. It says:
  "Furthermore, a sum of £20 million has been set aside for other expedients"
  that is not for building, or for the hiring of accommodation, but for
  "caravans, mobile homes, the purchase of private houses and the rehabilitation of barracks."
  This is a really big issue, and perhaps I might quote as an example what has happened in Aldershot. We have built on nearly every available piece of land, and yet I am sure the Aldershot Council will be most anxious to help in any way it can. If, however, it is unable to do so, the Army should realise this and act accordingly.
  These expedients are extremely frightening because they are unsatisfactory. I see that there is a proposal to build an extra hostel for families. This is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with this difficult situation because it will mean that we may almost be helping to break up homes in some cases. It is important that the Minister should realise that this repatriation is almost a war operation and not something which can be treated merely as a matter of a few people coming back and arrangements being made for them.
  I propose next to say a few words about the Army Cadet Force. We all remember the great interest which the late General Dimoline, whom we knew so well, took in the Cadet Force and the work that he did for it. The White Paper says that
  "arrangements are in hand to rehouse detachments of 15 cadets and over, who are at present accommodated in Territorial Army centres no longer required by the Regular or Reserve Army."
  1122
  This is vagueness carried to an extraordinary degree. What sort of arrangements are being made, and is a detachment of 15 a satisfactory size? I doubt it.
  I hope that the Minister will say something about the Staff College arrangements by which those who did not succeed in getting into the Staff Colleges, but were very near it, were given certain facilities and it was hoped at the time that by this arrangement we would satisfy the aspirations of people who were very good but who just failed the examination. I have not been able to discover anything about that. It would be of interest to know.
  Mr. Paget: Is it not really a question of those who succeed in the examination but do not get a nomination?
  Sir E. Errington: That is more correct.
  Finally, there is the question of the Seychelles. A figure of £100,000 has been given. I have had an opportunity of visiting that territory. As I understand it, the Commonwealth Office is providing £3½ million to build a civilian airstrip in the Seychelles. Why has the Ministry of Defence to help in this work, to the extent of £100,000, due to the establishment of the British Indian Ocean Territory?
  I am sorry to have referred to so many odd points. My message to the Government is that they must realise that soldiers, sailors and airmen are willing to do their jobs, however unusual, if they know that they will be backed solidly by the Government. Secondly, local authorities will help to solve these problems, but there has to be consultation with them to ensure that this is so.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Colin Jackson (Brighouse and Spenborough): With the permission of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) I will not follow him in his remarks about the Seychelles, although I listened with great interest to everything he had to say. I join other hon. and right hon. Members who have paid tribute to the Army in its work overseas and at home. I have had personal experience of this. Last year I saw the Army in Cyprus performing a valuable rôle in the United Nations and the individual garrisons at Dhekelia and Episcopi, and not long ago I recall our forces in

  1123
  Aden performing an infinitely difficult and trying job with great courtesy and consideration. The way in which our armed forces were operating in Aden showed an increased sensitivity for the local community, compared with the situation in Cyprus a few years ago.
  I want to explain why I believe that we need to continue the run-down of our Army units abroad, and I hope that I can point to definite political reasons behind the military thought. Let us take the question of Aden. In my opinion, we are right to provide for the withdrawal of our forces next year. When I was in Aden I noted the way in which our battalions—from the Royal Sussex, the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry and the East Anglian Regiments—were occupied. The majority were not occupied as teeth arms, on a fighting job; they were occupied in looking after British families in Maala, and the homes of senior colonial officials. They were working eight hours on and eight hours off. No member of our Army could enjoy that. He would not have expected to be involved in such work when he joined.
  I know that there are terrorists in Aden, and I deplore their activities as much as does any other hon. or right hon. Gentleman, but there comes a time in any country—whether it be Cyprus, Algeria or Kenya—when there arises among the local population, excluding any question of terrorists, the feeling that the Army element from a foreign country should leave.
  If attempts are made to resist this feeling, as happened in Algeria, there is liable to be an escalation of tension to an infinite extent. In the case of Algeria between 400,000 and 500,000 French soldiers were involved, and President de Gaulle's first solution was a ghastly disaster for the local French population. Fortunately we do not have a large indigenous British population in Aden. We are having an escalation to an unlimited extent in Vietnam.
  Next year a United Nations presence in Aden may commend itself in the United Nations and around the world. An indefinite pledge by Britain to stay would make life more difficult for the international position of the South Arabian Federation. It would not be accepted
  1124
  by the Arab League if there were a British base in Aden, and its possibility of being admitted to the United Nations would be further reduced.
  Mr. Ramsden: I appreciate the hon. Member's point about the United Nations, but in regard to his analogy with Cyprus, even if the United Nations take a hand how many of the units are likely to be British units, still tied up in Aden?
  Mr. Jackson: When I said that I believed that our forces should leave next year I had in mind that we should leave if we were expected to bear the sole responsibility. Cyprus is the most interesting analogy. I would not exclude the possibility of the presence of British troops in Aden, just as in West Iran there was the presence of Pakistan forces, but an indefinite sole commitment would do no good to the territory itself, and would certainly do great harm to our Army units.
  I now turn to the question of the Persian Gulf. Are we to understand that the Army unit based in Sharjah will be an unaccompanied Army unit? My experience of that part of the Gulf leads me to suppose that it is not a suitable station for families, but I have not seen it specifically stated that it will be a station for soldiers without their dependants.
  I wonder what thought is being given to the difficulties involved in the presence of British Army units in this part of the Trucial Oman area. Up till now we have had only the Trucial Oman Scouts. It has been an extremely conservative area in the past, unused to the presence of external forces, and I can foresee considerable difficulty arising between the local inhabitants and British forces in this area unless some kind of current affairs programme of education is initiated.
  The increase in building in the Gulf, which will cost £2½ million, is very considerable, and an increase in British armed forces—and particularly in the Army—may involve us in deeper political trouble at the beginning of the 1970s. In view of our policy of withdrawal from Aden—to be succeeded, we hope, by a United Nations force—it would not be right to suggest that a withdrawal from the Persian Gulf by our forces would be suitable at the moment. This is an area

  1125
  of turbulent change. We have one position of change under way. We should not inaugurate a second.
  By 1970 not only Egypt but Syria, Algeria and Iraq will be questioning the British presence in the Gulf, as they are questioning the British presence in Aden today. I hope that some thought is being given to alternative defence arrangements in the Gulf. The eventual answer to the Kuwait situation was the presence of an Arab League force with a U.N. connection, although the initial force involved was British. If we close the Aden base, I do not see that we have a sufficient follow-through of assistance in extra forces to hold any upsurge in Kuwait. Therefore, the basic premise of the additional forces is lost, because we do not have the back-stop in Aden. The increase in Army units in the Persian Gulf may in the end be an unwise move.
  Will the return of our Armed Forces from the Cyprus garrison mean the closing of either Dhekelia or Episcopi, or simply a further run-down of both bases? On economic grounds it would be difficult to argue for the maintenance of both those vast military complexes. They were built for an entirely different situation in the Middle East and the Near East than now exists. Fortunately, the Cyprus Government do not feel as strongly about run-down problems as do the Government of Malta.
  If Dhekelia were to be given up and if there were to be a concentration on Episcopi, one novel suggestion might be that Dhekelia should become the first headquarters of a United Nations force overseas, perhaps even with a small British contingent, because we are responsible for the logistic support of the United Nations troops in Cyprus today. The presence in Cyprus of a small U.N. force might be a valuable means of preventing general war from breaking out along the Israeli-Arab frontier, which is undoubtedly one of the most dangerous areas in the world.
  Moving on to the question of the total number of British troops in Singapore and Malaysia, I am not one of those who thought that a date could be put to the withdrawal of British troops from South-East Asia. I have not believed that the last Army unit could be spelled out today to be out of Singapore in 1969. It is
  1126
  only necessary to look at the problem there is in Malta, with a much smaller total of forces involved, to realise what would happen if "exit 1969" were to be marked as the target date for the British Army in South-East Asia. The one-third to one-quarter of the population which is employed by our Army, air and naval bases would, with a run-down of 2½ to three years, be thrown into unemployment and chaos.
  There is a democratic Government in Singapore. Any hon. Member who has visited the territory must be proud of it —for example, the arrangement for the education of children. What talks are now going on about phasing after the withdrawal of certain teeth troops in the next year to 18 months? When it comes to the reduction of the bases, where a large number of Singapore citizens are employed, we shall have to watch out for a Malta-type situation.
  There have been reports about discussions round the table between representatives of the Malta Government, the Department of Commonwealth Affairs, the Department of Overseas Development, and the Ministry of Defence on the problem of Malta in the next few months. I hope that talks are now taking place about the rundown of Singapore beginning in the second half of 1968. It is too early to say whether the Army presence should be closed to Singapore. This cannot be decided until at least 1973 to 1975.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) referred to political union or closer action between Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. All hon. Members will hope that in the early 1970s South-East Asia, through political discussion and political partnership, can be taken out of the cold war, but it would be unwise to announce 1969 or 1970 as the date for withdrawal.
  Finally, I come nearer home, to Germany. My understanding is that, unless the defence talks go well with the Bonn Government, a considerable portion of the Rhine Army will be arriving home in the United Kingdom. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that the size of the British Army must be contracted. There is nothing sacrosanct about the total number of soldiers in the Army. Its strength is based on the tasks required of it. One of the great things about Britain is that

  1127
  we have learned to adapt ourselves to the ages. We have been described as a chameleon with principles: we see which way history is going and get round in front of it.
  Inevitably there will be a contraction of the British Army overseas. Therefore, we should be planning for it in our long-term arrangements for the Army here at home. The Secretary of State for Defence has said that no definite statement about the size of the Army can be made until the talks with the Germans are concluded. It seems from all the evidence that there will be a need for a reduction there. There will therefore need to be a reduction in the total size. I wonder whether the advertising campaign aimed at getting people to join the Armed Forces will not have to be reviewed. Such a review would be in line with our long-term policy.
  7.8 p.m.
  Sir Ronald Russell: The hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) said that there was a democratic Government in Singapore. I was tempted to say at the time that that is more than we have in this country, in view of the events of the last four days.
  I hope that the Government will take some notice of the excellent speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), which most of us on this side will wholly endorse, of much of what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), and of the remarks just made by the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough about not withdrawing too hastily from Singapore. I think that the hon. Gentleman by implication meant from Malta as well. These are vital factors. It is wrong to run down in the way which the Government are following at the moment, and I hope that they will reconsider the important points which have been raised.
  My speech will be directed not to that aspect of policy but to certain points which came to my attention in going through the Army Estimates the weekend before last. I put down some Questions last week, to which I have had Answers of varying satisfaction or otherwise, and
  1128
  I wish to probe one or two matters further now.
  My first question may be thought trivial but I regard it as pertient. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), by a slip of the tongue during his speech, called the Minister the Parliamentary Secretary. That is a very good name for the hon. Gentleman, but his full title is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army—10 words. His opposite numbers in the Navy and Air Force take 11 and 12 words respectively. Last week I put a Question down to ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he would shorten these titles by cutting out at least the words "for Defence", which seem completely superfluous. The answer I got was a blunt "No", without any reason.
  Will the Minister say why it cannot be done? The present title must be a bugbear to typists in all the departments of the Ministry. It must certainly be a bugbear to toastmasters if the hon. Gentleman goes to dinners where he has to be announced by his full title. It must be the most cumbersome title ever given to any Minister in the public service, and I hope that the Secretary of State will look at it again.
  Vote 8, Subhead E, covers the comparatively trivial sum of £1,440,000 for "Compensation for Losses, Damage, etc.", mainly for traffic accidents and training. Why has that amount of money to be spent—the amount last year was a little larger—principally on compensation of this kind? Why are there so many traffic accidents in the Army, which cost about £675,000 a year in compensation entirely, one supposes, to third parties? It probably does not include the cost of damage to Army vehicles or the cost of hospitalisation—if I may use an awful American word—of any of the soldiers involved. Could we have more detail to show why the figures remain so high? Why do all these accidents take place, and is anything being done to reduce the number?
  Mr. Paget: It is correct, I think, that there is no transport firm which has such a low figure.
  Sir R. Russell: I am interested to hear that. The hon. and learned Gentleman brings me to my second question: can

  1129
  insurance take it over? Perhaps insurance will not take it over. Why does the Army have to bear the brunt of the third party claims made against it in that way?
  Next, the question of training, for which the Estimate for compensation next year is £691,000. We have heard this afternoon that the Army has training areas of varying adequacy, not so much in this country though better, perhaps, in Germany or elsewhere. How does damage to this extent take place, presumably, outside the areas allocated for training? One assumes that the Army's training areas either belong to the Army or are leased to it, and they are confined to the Army. Where is the damage done, and how does it come to such an enormous figure? Perhaps the Minister will give me an answer either today or by letter later.
  Now, Vote 10, Defence Lands and Buildings. Why is the cost of the purchase of land and buildings £15 million in 1967–68 compared with only £2,500,000 in 1966–67. Does the difference arise from the bringing home of the Army, possibly from Germany, Malta and elsewhere, or is it due to some new policy about which we do not yet know? I know that some of this amount is offset by sales of land and buildings, but I should like the Minister to tell us why there is that difference.
  Finally, the question of ammunition and explosives, under the Army Estimates and also the Estimates for the Defence Services as a whole. We are estimating to spend for the Army alone £29½ million on ammunition and explosives in the year 1967–68, and the figure for all three Services is £49½ million. The total over the last 20 years, which is as far back as one can go with comparable Estimates, shows that the Army has consumed no less than £384 million worth of ammunition and explosives in what we call peace time. I realise that that includes the Mau-Mau trouble in Kenya, the war against Communism in Malaya, the recent confrontation in Borneo, the troubles in Cyprus, in Palestine and in Aden as well—perhaps other hon. Members can think of further areas of trouble—but, even allowing for the immense amount of training, including battle training, which a modern Army must do, I wonder why it costs that tremendous sum in ammuni-
  1130
  tion and explosives in peace time over 20 years. It can include only explosive bombs used by the Army, not bombs used by the Royal Air Force, for example.
  Is there room for economy in expenditure on ammunition and explosives? It seems an enormous sum for a peace-time army, even allowing for the warfare of a "colonial" type which has been going on in various parts of the world during the past 20 years. I hope that the Minister will give us more information.
  I end by emphasising what I said at the outset. I hope that the Government will take note of the feeling on both sides of the House against too hasty a rundown of our defence forces, particularly in bringing troops back from Germany too soon.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Those of us who have been critical of the Government's major defence policies in the last few days and who, quite frankly, would like to see some type of India operation in leaving east of Suez are none the less concerned about the soldiers and their welfare. Indeed, I think that many of us are no less concerned about the welfare of the individual soldier than those who take a different view on the major items of defence policy.
  First, I want an assurance from the Minister on the Air Estimates. I understand that he is to make an announcement of some importance in the Air Estimates on the vexed subject of the bodies of serving men being brought home. His Department knows—it happened in his predecessor's time—that I have a constituency interest here, the case of Private Gomez, of Linlithgow, who was, unfortunately, killed in Aden in tragic circumstances. Although the Minister at the time did his best to make it possible for the body to be brought home, regulations were such that it was not possible, and the grave of Private Gomez is out in the Middle East. From this case and others brought forward by my hon. Friends, I take the view that in the very difficult circumstances of service in the Middle or Far East we should at least give the families of serving sailors, soldiers and airmen the assurance that their bodies will be returned home should tragedy happen. I

  1131
  hope that there will be an alteration in Government policy on this matter.
  Mr. Reynolds: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force will deal with that subject in the Royal Air Force Estimates (Vote A) debate, which I understand is likely to be some time next week. But I tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) straight away that any change which he is then able to announce will not be retrospective.
  Mr. Dalyell: I understand that point.
  Another point that is considerably important to the welfare of the Services is the question of compassionate leave. Like many other hon. Members, I have a constituency interest. After an industrial accident to a member of the family at home, the eldest son in the Navy in Singapore was this week refused compassionate leave to return home and look after family affairs. I know that expense is involved, but it is a small matter compared to the knowledge that one can return home should bereavement take place, and the effect of that knowledge on the morale of the Services. Although I am a critic of the Government's defence policy, we are all concerned about the welfare of the individual Serviceman, and there should be a great change in Government policy on that matter.
  I now turn to Vote 10, which concerns land and training areas. Whereas the costs were £2½ million in the current financial year, they will rise to £15,290,000 in the next financial year. To anyone who views the rising cost curves with alarm, for reasons that have been given previously in the debate and which I do not want to repeat, there occurs the whole question of training areas and facilities in Germany. Is it or is it not a fact that there is about £400 million-worth of British assets in the form of barracks and training areas in Western Germany, built up ever since the Rhine Army went into occupation?
  If my figure is wrong I hope that that will be denied. But if there should be withdrawal from such facilities on an appreciable scale I should also like to know from my hon. Friend precisely what the contractual arrangements are with the German Government on a matter
  1132
  of that kind. I speak as a former member, for three years, of the Public Accounts Committee, which was deeply interested in such matters. May we have as full an explanation as my hon. Friend can give of the contractual arrangements he has in mind with the German Government both on land and barracks?
  I share the view of several hon. Members opposite and one or two of my hon. Friends that it seems very strange, when we may be paying out vast sums for housing and other accommodation in this country—possibly very unsatisfactory accommodation—that we should at the same time be thinking of withdrawing from Malta. The Government should be prepared to swallow their pride and look at the situation again, because those of us with housing problems view with grave concern Government optimism that the necessary accommodation will be found. The Maltese want us to stay and I do not think that Governments should stick to decisions merely to save face. I should think a great deal more of the Government if they were prepared to look at the matter again.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Member has raised a very important point, which has been raised several times in the House, concerning the question of men who leave the Services and come back from abroad. He will probably be aware that in the past instructions have been sent to housing authorities to pay regard to the circumstances of men leaving the forces and coming home. I hope that he will press the point as far as possible.
  Mr. Dalyell: The matter referred to by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is very important. It was referred to by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in his opening speech when he hinted that not all civilian local authorities gave the co-operation that they might to the military. I suspect that the housing lists of the authorities in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gillingham are longer than those in mine, and that it is very difficult for a local authority to put back potential tenants who have been waiting a long time and give priority to returning Servicemen. Representing a Service area, the hon. Gentleman must be peculiarly sensitive to the problem. I should like every local

  1133
  authority to be as co-operative as the best local authorities are.
  That brings me to the question of Singapore, and here again I have a minority opinion. I would be for conducting an India type operation as soon as possible. I can understand that Lee Kuan Yew has his problems, but if the problem is to provide economic assistance when Singapore is changing from a commercial to an industrial city it could be done in a better way than merely by maintaining forces there. There is an optimum way of doing it, and if our arguments are mostly economic, as they appear to be, we should adopt a different method.
  Miss J. M. Quennell: When the hon. Gentleman talks about an "India operation", what exactly has he in mind?
  Mr. Dalyell: Withdrawal as soon as possible, the sort of thing the Attlee Government did in India—[An HON. MEMBER: "Kashmir."]—with all its disadvantages. I am prepared to face up to all the disadvantages as the previous Labour Government rightly did also in the case of Israel. It may mean putting stores into the sea and that sort of thing, but I consider that it should be done.
  In his opening speech, my hon. Friend referred approvingly to what the Royal Engineers were doing in Thailand. Precisely what moneys are involved in the road building in Thailand? Why are we doing it? Does it involve the construction of air strips, and if so for what purpose are they being used, by whom, and under what Vote does it come in the Army Estimates? Many of us who have been in Cambodia and Burma are deeply disturbed about British participation in building up forces in Thailand because, as was demonstrated in the defence debate—and I shall not go into that any further—many of us feel that the presence of white troops provokes difficulty. The safest countries in South-East Asia are those like Cambodia and Burma which have adopted a strictly neutralist line.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred to the question of low-penetration aircraft and the hovercraft unit being set up in the Far East. I am interested in both these matters. Could my hon. Friend say precisely what
  1134
  weapons are being developed against low-penetration aircraft, bearing in mind the very considerable reference to Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, because if the Americans can develop Red Eye aircraft—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think the hon. Member can go into that.
  Mr. Dalyell: I just say on the question of equipment that I am hoping the Government have taken into account all the new technical advances in equipment, particularly those which affect lowpeneration aircraft.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I said the hon. Member could not go into that on the Army Estimates.
  Mr. Dalyell: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I respect your Ruling.
  May I come to the question of the career structure of the Services? I admit that, as many hon. Members opposite have pointed out, this creates extremely serious problems. Whatever the reservations of some of us may be on the general issues of defence, there are very considerable human problems which arise from the possible cutting short of an expected career. I am hoping that the Government, if they have to cut forces, will do everything possible to carry out the legitimate requirements of serving officers and men seeking their way into industry. The more that can be done in that direction, the better.
  I should also be in favour of greater help to Service pensioners. There has been considerable pressure on this matter. As soon as the Government can do it financially, it would be right and proper that many Service pensioners who are in some need should be helped.
  Mr. Onslow: Does the hon. Member remember that recently we were discussing in this House the setting up of a public service pensions commission? On that occasion we should have valued his support.
  Mr. Dalyell: I qualified what I said, I think rightly, by referring to taking into account financial commitments. If the hon. Member wishes to make party points like that, that is fair enough, but I thought that the debate on the Army Estimates was an occasion for a general

  1135
  discussion. I was saying that I thought there was legitimate cause to give this matter further consideration. I think it right that this should be so. I am not prepared to commit myself to the Bill which came before the House, because 1 think there are other priorities. Granted that there are Service priorities, these should be taken into account.
  On page 88, Vote IV there is the question of civilian employment. It appears to some of us that the dependence of the Services on civilians is more considerable than it should be. When it reaches the sum of £42 million we should be quite clear that all these civilians are actually needed. Going back some years to my own experience in the Rhine Army, it was certainly true in the early 'fifties that there were rather more civilians serving with the Armed Forces than was necessary. If there have to be cuts, this is something which should be looked at again.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows that I have raised the question of advertising, both in the interview I had with him and in subsequent correspondence. I should like him to tell us what is taking place from the point of view of cutting down advertising in what is often a rather misleading way, particularly in the quality Press. Perhaps he could say something about that when he winds up the debate.
  Finally, and this is the main point I want to come to, I am extremely curious about what is said in the Defence Review on the question of "hearts and minds". Going through the Army Estimates rather carefully, I can find no heading under which this is discussed. I should like to know under what Vote the "hearts and minds" campaign is supposed to come. If it were a minor issue perhaps it would not be worth raising, but, in paragraph 25 of the Defence White Paper, the Government say:
  "The 'hearts and minds' campaign was as critical to Commonwealth success in containing the conflict as the continuous jungle patrols and the system of helicopter supply. Lasting lessons have been learnt about the use of military forces to help people in their everyday lives."
  That is the importance the Government attach to this campaign. Are we to take it that it was really critical to Commonwealth success? If so, what is done to
  1136
  prepare for "hearts and minds"? Are Service men trained to do this? Is it left to the good sense of professional soldiers? What does it really mean? I can quite understand that in Borneo, Sarawak and elsewhere the British troops were often personally kind to indigenous peoples. It is in the nature of most British soldiers to do a good turn when they can. I accept that. That is not in doubt, and I am not in any way getting at the troops, but I am jolly curious when the Government begin to put such emphasis on this "hearts and minds" campaign, because when I was on a Ministry of Defence visit to the Far East I put a systematic series of questions to the troops on this issue.
  In September, 1965, I remember well asking about "hearts and minds" in Singapore. I was told, "Ah, now we shall show you an actual example of 'hearts and minds'." I was taken to some kind of a boys' club in Singapore where all that seemed to be going on was a very disorganised game of basketball and some very desultory boxing, with no proper washing facilities. I do not doubt that the staff sergeant responsible for this was doing his best, but by no stretch of the imagination was that any kind of a "hearts and minds" campaign. It was small-scale good works by rather junior members of the Armed Forces there.
  It may be argued by my hon. Friend that the "hearts and minds" campaign did not take place in Singapore at all, and that it was out in Sarawak where a confrontation was taking place. I can only report back—a number of hon. Members who were also on the delegation I am certain would bear me out as they asked similar questions—that at two out of four of the forward units to which we went we got the reply, not from one person but from quite a number of soldiers, that they had never heard of "hearts and minds". This was in September, 1965, in Sarawak to the south of Kuching. In two units we got the answer, "We do not do that here". I want to know what this is all about. What do people who carry out the "hearts and minds" programme actually do? On what scale?
  My suspicion is that this is absolutely unrealistic and that one cannot talk meaningfully about a "hearts and minds" campaign conducted by troops who do not know the language—that is no discredit

  1137
  to them—of the indigenous people. It seems that this part of the White Paper—it was one of many reasons, though not the most important, why I voted against it—is absolutely sheer window-dressing. I do not believe that a "hearts and minds" campaign in any meaningful sense ever took place during the confrontation. It is perhaps outside the scope of the Army Estimates, but I do not accept, this perhaps is a minority view, that the British presence in Sarawak and Sabah was anything like as popular as the Government make out.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member can be allowed to pursue this any more.
  7.40 p.m.
  Miss J. M. Quennell: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) holds a view which is held by some other hon. Members in connection with the repatriation of our forces from the Far East. When he gave way to me, he quoted the British withdrawal from Israel. That made me think of something which I should like the Department to bear in mind. When British forces were withdrawn from Israel, the United Nations forces which entered that country were led by Count Bernadotte, who was shortly afterwards murdered. We believe that United Nations forces will take over from British forces when we withdraw from Aden. I hope that provision will be made for those who, in the initial stages and until they are established in the area, will be exposed to terrorist attacks.
  I want to direct my speech to a narrow but extremely important aspect of the White Paper. The most outstanding speech in the debate has been that made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) who in a broad and reflective and philosophical contribution spoke of the relationship of the Army to the citizenry, a subject with which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) dealt in great detail. Preserving and maintaining good relations between the Army and the citizen is a difficult and delicate exercise which we shall have to consider very closely in the next 12 months, because if 25,000 or 30,000 men and about 6,000 families are repatriated to this country, problems which have hitherto been unimportant
  1138
  will be bound to arise. The preservation of good relations between citizen and soldier therefore requires consideration now.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot spotted in the Statement on the Defence Estimates the sentence which I spotted. I should like to assure the Under-Secretary that this is not a concerted attack on his flank from the county of Hampshire, but is an entirely spontaneous action taken independently by two hon. Members from that county.
  Mr. Boyden: I did not take it as an attack; I thought that it was support.
  Miss Quennell: Perhaps later the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am giving him quite so much support. The passage in question reads:
  "… a sum of £20 million has been set aside for other expedients, e.g., caravans, mobile homes, the purchase of private houses, and the rehabilitation of barracks. The bulk of the money will be spent on buying private houses in the open market on a scale not previously contemplated."
  A series of problems will be created if this matter is not handled at this stage, problems which hitherto have not been contemplated.
  The sum of £20 million is a great deal of money for buying caravans, mobile homes and private houses. However, winding up the defence debate, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
  "Mobile homes are not caravans"—
  which cleared up a great deal of confusion—
  "they are prefabricated houses on hard standings, fitted with electricity and water. The number of mobile homes which we expect to require is about 20, and the number of caravans we expect to require for our forces returning under the Defence Review decision will be about 120. We shall be producing many thousands of permanent married quarters and many thousands of new private houses to accommodate those families at the same time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 392–3.]
  This money is therefore to be provided for the purchase of 20 mobile homes, 120 caravans, and private houses and the rehabilitation of barracks. I cannot seriously believe that only 20 mobile homes and 120 caravans will be required.
  Even assuming that only those will be in occupation, a number of important problems are raised and they are all associated with the settling of a large

  1139
  number of men from the Armed Services into a civilian context. On the day before, the Minister of State in his winding-up speech had quoted other and equally important figures. He said that there were four methods of obtaining married quarters and he went on to enumerate them. He said that the Department was building 3,300 houses, but these, he said:
  "take time to build. It takes a year or more to build a house from the time that a start is made on it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 222.]
  He went on to say that provision was made for the purchase of 4,175 houses, a figure different from that given in the statement, and he went on rather optimistically with the theory that British troops would be perfectly happy to spend the summer months in caravans while their houses were being built. After the summers which we have had recently, I wonder whether British troops would be perfectly happy, especially if they had come to this country from warmer and drier climes.
  The Minister of State used a very telling metaphor when he said that the Government were having to provide the housing on the basis of the provision of a new town for 40,000 to 50,000 people. That metaphor was very good, because this provision will place great strains on local authority resources and services in the areas to which the men are sent and where they are housed, whether permanently or temporarily. It is therefore vital for the Secretary of State to consider what routes of communication, or routes of liaison, are created between the Army and the local authorities concerned. I am sorry to say that so far the evidence is that this communication is not as good as it should be.
  My constituency contains two old-established large military establishments, although I cannot pretend to have the large connection with the Army which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has. Nevertheless, the problems facing his constituency and mine are similar, although, because I have a different type of local authority construction, the problems which I want to pose may be a little more difficult. However, they will apply to every constituency which has camps to which men are repatriated.
  1140
  Appreciating the problems with which it might have to deal in connection with repatriation, in a statement Hampshire County Council recently said:
  "The Ministry of Defence (Army) have notified the County Council of their intention to build 286 new married quarters at Longmoor and 269 at Barton Stacey to accommodate troops withdrawn from overseas, but they have not indicated how many children are likely to be involved. The Ministry have been asked to say what their proposals are for the county as a whole, but up to the present a reply has not been received. This information is necessary to enable the services provided by the County Council to be properly planned."
  That last sentence is the kernel of the whole matter. I quote from a letter written by the correspondent to the managers of the local Bordon County Junior and Bordon County Infants' School:
  "At a meeting with the Headmaster and Headmistress of the above schools, the school managers viewed with alarm, the rise in numbers of children on the school rolls,… At the present time at Mr. Woodward's school, there are 250 on the roll. In September it is estimated that the numbers will rise to 300. If the new quarters which are being built are filled, then the numbers could very well be over 330.… With Mrs. Pierce's school the same problem exists. In the short space of three years the school roll has doubled. At present the total roll is 206. A further 30 will be admitted at Easter, and taking into consideration the infants becoming juniors in September, the number estimate on the school roll then could then be 220."
  This position prevails in the local secondary school which serves that area, and it highlights the problems facing local authorities if the Ministry tells them how many houses he proposes to build but gives no indication or estimate of the number of children likely to be involved.
  While the Army has its own problems to solve in repatriating 6,000 families, there are problems for the local authorities, too. If there is no clear-cut and recognised route of communication between the Service Department and the local authorities, such problems can become very acute and embarrassing. Moreover, the caravans and mobile homes already mentioned can be sited and occupied far more quickly than it is possible to build hutted school classrooms.
  It is absolutely vital that the local authorities should be informed of the Army's intention by some well-known route of communication, so that it can

  1141
  prepare for the problems which will face it. So far this route is not established. I do not expect the Minister to give me an answer on this point tonight, but I would be grateful if he could let me know in some other way which Department the county and the L.E.A. ought to approach, on this matter for information. Is it to be the Quartermaster-General's department, the G.O.C. of the command or the local commander? How are they to find out?
  So far I have been speaking in terms of the L.E.A. and the county, but they are not the only authorities concerned. The county has planning functions and in this capacity it will be affected. The district authorities will be equally closely affected, because they will have the problem of coping with sewage disposal and water supplies. How will a rural district prepare for an increase of even 50 caravans? Not only will it have to find another vehicle, or two more vehicles, to deal with the problems created, but it may have to take on extra staff.
  Apart from that, there is another problem which will affect both levels of authority in the health and medical services, with which both district and county authorities are concerned. The other aspect has to do with the housing problem. Here, with a nice fat bank balance of £20 million, the Army Land Agent's Department will be going round the countryside, buying up houses. In my constituency it has already bought up quite a lot. It is quite clear that where there is a newly developed estate, the developer may find that there are certain attractions in dealing with the Army Land Agent's Department. He will have one client and can sell a block of houses instead of having to deal with perhaps 25 individuals. This would simplify his problems enormously.
  That raises a problem because if, in a certain area, the Army is mopping up the available houses, it will create a shortage. This can have two effects. It can have the effect of driving up the price of the remaining houses in the area, and secondly it can throw a further burden on the rural district as a housing authority, since people who have to live in the district will go to the housing authority and it will not be able to tell them to go and buy a house, knowing that they are perfectly well able to do so financially,
  1142
  because the authority will know that there are no houses available to buy.
  In some areas the housing problems can be made artificially acute by the Department's purchase of houses, as indicated in the White Paper. Housing authorities should also be informed, out of courtesy if nothing else, where the projects are contemplated, and where they are being made, so that authorities are in a position to adjust their own programmes to deal with the repatriation of our forces, with all the problems involved.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: Anything that I say in the next two minutes will not, I hope, reflect on the proud tradition of the British Army. I take a lot for granted from the British Army, especially its ability to tackle all sorts of jobs. At this point I must say that there is no need for my hon. Friends to worry about the "hearts and minds campaign", because this is something, again, which I take for granted from the British Army. It is something which in my experience of the Army just happens. I am intrigued by the Motion on the Order Paper which says:
  "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 237,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968."
  I look at the breakdown of these figures and I find that the numbers in the Army for 1967–68 will decrease by 500 men. In the same column I find that the number of officers will increase by 200. One finds that the ratio of other ranks to officers in the period of one year is from 8·7 other ranks to one officer to 8·5 other ranks to one officer. If we go on at this rate, we shall have more chiefs than Indians.
  Mr. Dalyell: While I accept the natural decency, if I may use that phrase, of British soldiers, I tried to find out what is special about the "hearts and minds campaign". This strikes me as having, by definition, some kind of ideological concept. It is the ideology of this which I suspect very deeply, rather than the decent goodness of the British soldier.
  Mr. Concannon: I think that my hon. Friend worries too much over this point. It need not be a planned campaign—

  1143
  ordinary British soldiers have done this over the years through a natural instinct. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend spoke quite a lot about the recruitment of officers and similar things. He said that he would like to see a larger increase from the ranks through officer cadet training and on to Sandhurst. The problem arises when they have finished their training, and they go in front of the selection board. What happens about the recruit's choice of regiment? Many of these officer cadets will go for certain types of regiment, so that some kind of selection will have to take place to decide who goes where. Can my hon. Friend give me any further information on this point?
  The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) paid a great deal of attention to the Territorial Army. As time goes by, this Government will take a great deal of credit for the reorganisation of the Territorial Army. I would sooner see a smaller but more efficient force. While my short period in the Territorial Army was not completely a farce, I think that everybody serving in it at that time would have agreed that some reorganisation should take place. To be trained with wireless sets which we sent to Russia during the war and which still had on them the instructions in Russian was not conducive to a good and well trained force. I have been told by the sergeant on my excursions to the local drill hall that all this sort of thing is finishing. The Territorial Army is now a well-organised, well-drilled, well-armed and well-equipped force of which the men in it can be proud.
  During the defence debate and during this debate one theme has been paramount, namely, the question of the families of soldiers returning to this country. The composition of the Army has changed in the last 20 years. When I joined the Army just after the war it was a bachelor's Army. The pay at that time was not conducive to a man being anything else than a bachelor. Pay was only 4s. a day and the marriage allowances and things of that nature were not good enough for a man to think about getting married and having a young girl following him round the world living in married quarters.
  1144
  The married quarters of those days were a sight to see. I remember in my early Army days doing fatigue duty. If anybody did the coal fatigue at the Stillington Street married quarters this was enough to send him absent for a fortnight. This made me make up my mind to be a bachelor during the time that I was in the Army.
  When National Service ended we had to think again about the size of the Army. We had to induce the Regulars to sign on for a longer period. It also meant inducing craftsmen and technicians to join the Army. The inducement obviously was the big wage increase which was given to the Armed Forces at this time which put them on a par with civilian employees. There was also the increase in the married family allowances and things of this nature. At the same time there was a housing problem. Previously, the only people who used to be in the married quarters were the old-time Regulars, or the Regular who signed on for 21 years, non-commissioned officers, and so on. There were very few other ranks with families in those days. This made life in the Army all the easier. The Army could be moved without so much unrest and upheaval being caused to families.
  At this time I did two trips to Egypt. The first took just over 10 days on a troopship. The second took me one day. I found myself being chased round Piccadilly Circus by some military policemen early one morning. The next day I was out guarding the Canal Zone in a sandstorm. The Army judiciary has been going through a bit of heavy weather just lately. I cannot understand why. My friend and I who were chased round Piccadilly Circus claim that we are the only two members of the British Army who did their punishment in Egypt for being caught out of bounds in the middle of London.
  The big change in the Army came in the mid-1950s. Pay and conditions were improved. The type of person who was brought in changed the concept of the Army into a married man's service. One could see this happening in one's constituency. A young lad would join the Army, would see the benefits of being married and on the first opportunity would get married and sign on. This obviously was the purpose of the wage

  1145
  increase. When a soldier signs on for 12, 15 or 21 years, the Army accepts that it has to keep a family with three, four, five or six children.
  Up to the Defence Review of this year, this was all well and good. All the time that we have had an Army we have never had the room in this country to barrack and house them. This meant that for a great deal of the time half the Army and half the married families had to be overseas. In the Defence Review last year the bringing home of 25,000 troops and 6,000 families was made a paramount consideration. With the changing rôle, we have to have changing conditions. Therefore, we shall gradually have to fetch the men home and station them here instead of overseas. We shall have to make room for their families.
  The unfortunate thing is that political and military decisions must be made in the light of social and welfare conditions. New camps and houses must be built as soon as possible. This was why I was very pleased to read what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in the defence debate. He stated:
  "… when we are talking about the redeployment of forces we are talking about flesh and blood, about moving not inanimate objects or statistical abstracts, but troops and their families who are human beings and who require barracks or housing in their new location."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 102.]
  These are fine words, and they must bear fruit. We must have these houses and barracks if we fetch our troops home. I have no doubt that this is the ultimate aim. If we do not require these troops, we must demobilise them.
  This is where I disagree with some of my colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and his companions underestimate the position. I agree with their object, but I do not think that we can achieve it in six or 12 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East made quite a lot of play about resolutions at the Labour Party conference. I agree with the resolution which was passed at that conference. But I must point out to him that the passing of resolutions has not solved the problem. It still exists. If passing resolutions solves problems, may I say that I have one or two lined up for next year's conference.
  1146
  The natural follow-up of the resolution passed at last year's conference is that we must pass another resolution which says that all the Government's commitments must cease forthwith. I learned my lesson in this matter as a very young trade unionist when I first took office. There were some agreements which I did not like. When I called to see the gentleman with whom I had had to argue the point, I said, "I want no part of this agreement. We must negotiate another one". His stock answer was, "We will start afresh. We will cancel them all." This is the point which my hon. Friends miss. Agreements which are made, even by previous Administrations, are binding on the Government.
  I am honest enough to think that the Government will not spend £1 more than they are forced to spend. I am prepared to concede this point. I also believe that we must have enough troops and equipment to fulfil our commitments in the world. The only time to reduce our forces is when our commitments disappear. The only time that they disappear is when we have worked them out or they disappear by mutual consent. The three-year agreement with Germany ends on 31st March. Then will be our opportunity to negotiate another agreement.
  We should consider the composition of the Army. I should like to see the day when, instead of the emphasis being put on the married man with a family, the emphasis is once again put on the bachelor. The structure of the Army has been based on families inducing the husbands to sign on. I should like to know whether there is any way in which we can induce bachelors to join the Army and stay bachelors while they are in the Army. I know that this is a a difficult matter. Demobilisation should be selective. The biggest liabilities should be demobbed first. The biggest liabilities are obviously men with large families. It may sound a revolutionary idea, but if a man joins up as a bachelor we could possibly think of paying him a bonus if he stays single in the Army. That would be something new.
  I should like now to turn to the position in Aden. During the weekend I have been reading speeches made at the weekend and speeches reported in HANSARD, and the first question I must ask about Aden is, why are we there at

  1147
  all? Judging by the speeches I have heard and read the only deduction I can draw is that we are there to protect our oil supplies and assets. Hardly anybody has made any mention of the people who live there, or of protecting them.
  I was in the company of some managing directors of some international oil companies last week, and I asked one a point blank question, "Does your supply of oil depend on British troops in the Middle East?" He gave me a point blank answer: "We should be pretty poor business men if that were so". I tend to believe him, but it is obvious that there are Members of this House who do not tend to believe that.
  When are we going to learn from our previous mistakes? When I was in the Army in Palestine I heard said umpteen times the sort of thing that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said in his speech about Aden—that if the troops came out, they would be angry and defeated. If that is so, I must have been the angriest and most defeated man in the Army in Palestine at the time when we left there. I left with only what I stood up in. We had more or less to fight our way out; we came out in battle order. I left in what I think was the last ship to leave the harbour on 31st May, 1948. But I was not disappointed at leaving. I was glad. I think every British soldier that day was glad to be out of Palestine.
  It must be remembered that the date for our leaving Palestine had been known for months and months previously, and I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench and to hon. Members opposite that if we had not left Palestine at that date and at the appointed hour what would have come after would have been worse than anything before. The whole thing would just have blown up in our faces. If we do not come out of Aden at the appointed time, the same thing will happen. What we are having now will be nothing to what will then occur, if we do not keep our promise and come out in 1968.
  I have said that we are in Aden to protect our oil supplies, and nobody has disagreed with me, and the speeches which I have read and heard convince me that it was our oil supplies and our assets which concerned us in Kuwait,
  1148
  North Africa, Persia and Palestine. The best example is Suez. And what happened in those countries? I went out to Suez twice. The last time, I was flown out, and I was put on guard at the Suez Canal, the very next day after arriving from England. While I stood on guard there in the moonlight of a desert night, while I was guarding that strip of water to see that nobody pinched it, an officer would come round, and say, "Any questions?" I would say, "Yes", and I would ask, "What the hell are we doing here?" The stock answer I used to get, and obviously got all the time, was that, if we left, those Egyptians—though at that time he did not call them Egyptians—would not be able to run the place. Well, we all know now that the only time the Canal closed was when we closed it down.
  When shall we learn from the lessons of the past? Sometimes the presence of British troops in other countries can set off a chain reaction, and the mere presence of British troops in Aden could set off a chain reaction. I can remember how, since the war, instances like that have happened. Can anybody deny, for instance, that but for the American presence in Vietnam the Vietnamese issue would have been settled? We might not have liked the solution, some of us, but I am sure the conflict would have been over.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the Army Estimates.
  Mr. Concannon: I will draw to a conclusion. The only thing 1 was going to say was that if we were to ask the Vietnamese people we should have to remember that some 10,000 of them are already dead and they cannot give us an answer.
  The final plea I make to my colleagues on the Front Bench is for the troops in Aden. I think that the strain on the Armed Forces in Aden at this point of time must be dreadful. I have been through that type of warfare myself; I have been through that type of guerrilla warfare in Palestine, North Africa and Egypt. It is extremely difficult, and it is extremely tiring on the forces who have to carry it out.
  They want no added difficulties put on them, and this is where I would make

  1149
  my plea, that we should not wait any longer to bring the women and children out of Aden. We must do this right away. They are an added burden on the forces in Aden.
  It comes on top of all those snide little attacks made by people who should know better—and here I am talking about the people who try to convince Members of this House that British troops are a mob of torturers, and who say things of that sort about them. I know the conditions in which our soliders there work. Nobody can tell me that British forces would do anything unnecessarily harsh. I would put what is or is not necessary at this height: quite a lot of things are excusable when they save the lives of British soldiers, British children and British women.
  I do not accept for one minute some of the charges which are made against British forces in Aden. We must relieve the forces in Aden of as much trouble as we can. This is why I plead with the Government to get the married families out of Aden right away. In my opinion they should not have been there in the first place, but that is water under the bridge. If we have not the accommodation for them, then send them on a world cruise. Put them on an aircraft carrier and send them on a world cruise. But as soon as possible let us have these families and children out of Aden. When we get the women and children back to England let us house them as well as we can and look after them. They are human beings and need looking after as much as any one else. As soon as possible I should like to see the women and children reunited with their husbands and fathers. We have no right to be in Aden. The sooner we are out of Aden the better.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) spoke nostalgically of the days of the bachelor Army and contrasted them with the present situation. According to recent figures there were more women and dependants with the forces overseas than there were soldiers. If there are 25,000 soliders returning to this country and 6,000 families, then the number of people involved may be as large as the hon. Member for Mansfield suggested. There may well be 25,000 dependants.
  1150
  This creates the problem of schools in this country, and this is where there is a conjuring trick. Once they are in this country the Ministry of Education will pay for their schooling and not the Army. This will create a great saving on the Armed Forces Vote, but it will make no difference to the economy of the country. It is therefore a bogus saving.
  May I add my congratulations to the women's services on celebrating their Golden Jubilee? One of their very first senior officers was my first cousin, Miss Violet Markham, who, although she married Colonel Carruthers, liked to be known throughout her public life as Miss Violet Markham. She went to France in 1917 to visit the women serving with the forces in France. During her visit to France she took the opportunity of meeting her husband when he came on leave, and complaints were made to the War Office that while she was allegedly inspecting her girls in France, Miss Violet Markham had had a man in her room. The complainants said that this was disgraceful.
  I should like to pay a tribute to our forces in Borneo now that they have successfully completed that operation. They have had to overcome appalling difficulties of terrain and long distances and they have given very successful help to the local population and made themselves extraordinarily popular.
  The use of helicopters was underlined during those operations. It was as a result of the experience of the need for helicopters during confrontation that the vast expansion in helicopters was undertaken which the Secretary of State mentioned last week. I wonder whether there has been a review of the requirement for helicopters since confrontation ended. We are accustomed to preparing always for the last war and not for the next war. Helicopters were an essential feature in Borneo, but that does not mean that they will be an essential feature in the next problem that arises.
  I hope that the Minister is not leaving the Chamber. because I want to say something about his efforts. I am glad to see that he is staying with us. Helicopters are a mixed blessing. They are extremely complicated and require many hours of maintenance, and they are very expensive. I should like to know whether there has been a revision of the requirements for

  1151
  helicopters since the ending of confrontation.
  I echo the tribute paid to the Gurkhas by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). They have performed most wonderful service for the British Crown. A reduction to 10,000 men has been announced, but in the way in which the reduction was announced there is a possibility that there may be a bigger reduction. It is significant that while under the Conservative proposals it was intended that all eight battalions should be retained, the Government now propose to reduce the number of battalions from eight to six, and this will make it much easier to continue with a further reduction at a later stage.
  On 27th February the Secretary of State for Defence said,
  "We felt it right, when confrontation came to an end, to carry out the plans made by the previous Conservative Government before confrontation developed and to reduce the Gurkha ceiling to 10,000 men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 741, c. 103.]
  As I have said, this is not exactly in line with Conservative policy, but even if I accept that the Conservative Government intended to reduce the number of Gurkhas, I should like to contrast the Secretary of State's words with those which he used on 16th February, 1965, when he said:
  "The previous Government decided to reduce the ceiling for Gurkha recruits and were compelled to revise the ceiling upwards again in the light of the emergency which we faced in Indonesia. On the question of Gurkha recruiting, I am glad to say that the present Government have decided to stop playing about with this issue and to leave the target at 15,000 men."
  That is a very different situation from that two years later when confrontation ended, when he said that he was following the intentions of the Conservative Government. He was prepared to make party capital in a very offensive way in 1965.
  I have to take issue with the Minister of Defence (Administration) on something which he said last Wednesday. I do not think that he was at his most polite when he said it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) who had asked him whether Fort George would be used for troops. He replied:
  1152
  "I can only say that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of the amount of money spent on rehabilitating Fort George when he was Minister of Defence for the Army. It is in very good condition. I visited it about eight months ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 494.]
  That was a pretty offensive snub.
  I put down a Question to the Minister of Defence immediately after that, which was transferred to the Minister of Public Building and Works. His reply was that in 1963–64, about £7,000 a year was spent on maintenance and that in 1964–65 a special £22,000 was spent as part of a separate service to preserve the fort as a historic building. What my right hon. Friend was referring to, however, was the figure of £160,000 which is the cost of renovating Fort George to make it acceptable for British troops. This money began to be spent in January, 1967. The Minister has put his foot in it severely and I trust that he will withdraw and make a decent apology to my right hon. Friend.
  In the White Paper, we are told that at Sandhurst academic subjects are to be abolished. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary could give us some information about this. It seems a most extraordinary proposition that when a young man enters the Army to get a commission to go into the most highly technical Army, in which he must be able to understand battle computers and every sort of advanced technology, his academic career should be postponed when he arrives at Sandhurst, he will deal only with military subjects and several years later he will be expected to start up his academics again and undertake a university degree course. This is extraordinarily shortsighted. Sandhurst has had a marvellous reputation for its academic subjects. Now apparently, with very little explanation, this whole idea is to be torn up.
  I turn now to the Territorials. Their primary rôle is stated in the Defence White Paper as being
  "to assist the police to maintain law and order and to act in support of the civilian authorities in general war."
  That, however, is not the only rôle. It is the primary rôle.
  The Minister of Defence (Administration) told us on 2nd February last year that another rôle was the defence of the United Kingdom in the event of invasion. Another rôle, which he has not mentioned and which must be an important one, is

  1153
  the defence and guarding of key points in times of emergency. These rôles together call for a very different form of training than that solely for the primary rôle. The primary rôle barely needs a rifle and certainly not automatic weapons. These men, however, should be trained as soldiers in the infantry rôle and this should include field craft. This interesting training is also necessary to attract recruits, because the aim is to produce a disciplined force of soldiers. This should be the object of the training and equipping of the Territorials.
  Existing training time is quite insufficient. There are an eight-day camp, four out-of-camp full days and 27 parades. The 27 parades should be increased to at least 52; they should be weekly. This would mean that each man would know that on a certain night in the week he should be at his drill hall; he would make his arrangements and would become accustomed to going. If he has simply to turn up 27 times a year, it will be merely a matter of fitting in occasionally when convenient to him. This is not nearly as satisfactory.
  The four out-of-camp full days are equally unsatisfactory. At least another four are required. One or two days in the year are taken for field firing. A weekend from noon on Saturday must be at least two days. This means that possibly one weekend in the year will take up the full days' training out-of-camp allotment.
  It is not good enough merely to say that the Territorials should be equipped in accordance with their primary rôle. They should be equipped to make a self-respecting force. The same can be said of transport. At present they are given one Land Rover per company, although the companies are widely dispersed and there is no possibility of pooling. Three-tonners are issued only on mobilisation. This means that the Territorials are virtually immobile. Even one three-tonner per company would be extremely welcomed by them. They would not ask for additional staff to look after these vehicles. They would be happy to garage them in their drill halls and look after them themselves. They would then at least have some mobility. I trust that this matter will be carefully considered, because the three-tonners are ready to be issued and it is only reason-
  1154
  able that they should be given to these units instead of being kept in mobilisation stores.
  The signals equipment is also insufficient. One short-range radio is issued to each company. The Territorial companies may be spread anything from 10 to 60 miles apart and it is difficult to see how radio operators are supposed to be trained. I imagine that a radio operator must switch on his radio and then telephone a company 10 miles away and say, "I have switched on. Let us pretend we are on radio; over to you", and then carry out training in that fashion. It is ludicrous to work on a basis of one short-range radio per company.
  Who supplies the communications equipment for the Civil Defence set-up? The Territorial Army has been helpful in Civil Defence matters in the past. The Regular forces will not be able to provide this assistance in the event of war because they will be overseas and fully engaged. Who, therefore, will supply the signals for Civil Defence? It will not be much good going to the Territorials at the last moment and asking them to help when they are so woefully short of radio equipment.
  The No. IV Lee Enfield rifle was ceremonially interred at Bisley last year, having done a wonderful job of work over many years, but Lee Enfield rifles have been issued to the Territorials. There is an issue of 20 SLRs per battalion and I understand that these are normally kept at a central point and are not in general use with the companies. We need about 20 SLRs per company. There cannot be any shortage of these rifles, of which I understand there are 50,000 in the Territorial Army now. It is clear that a large number of these will be withdrawn and, presumably, put into store. Could they be issued on a more generous scale to the Territorials? I hope that in this and other matters the Minister will be more generous to the Territorials. They have a difficult job to do and it is extremely important that they should succeed in this task, but they will not succeed if all that we give them is thoroughly inadequate equipment.
  The Under-Secretary referred to the Strategic Reserve and how it would be poised in Britain, ready to fly to any part of the world at a moment's notice. What does he propose to do about heavy

  1155
  equipment? In the past this concept depended on the holding of stockpiles of heavy equipment at places overseas, where all the equipment could be coordinated. Part of my own regiment flew out, from the United Kingdom to the Persian Gulf at the time of the Kuwait crisis and married up with their tanks in the Persian Gulf. It was a most successful operation. One day they were at Salisbury Plain, and two days later they were ready to take on anyone Kuwait.
  When the Government have succeeded in closing down all bases overseas, what is their intention? I can only guess that it is that everything will have to be carried with the Army. In that case, will we have an extremely lightly-equipped Army for use everywhere except in Europe? If that is so, is the Minister satisfied—he ought to come clean on this—that the forces, if sent out on an emergency, can meet and take on the heavy equipment which they might encounter as a result of going overseas?
  This year has been one of unparalleled uncertainty for the Army. This uncertainty is bad for recruiting, bad for morale, and bad for efficiency. I regret the muddle which has been brought about by the Secretary of State in the Ministry of Defence. It is virtually admitted in paragraph 2 on page 66 of the White Paper, which says:
  "The intention is to relate Service plans more closely to national manpower resources …"
  Surely the first thing to do is to determine our commitments and the number of men we need to fulfil those commitments, and to make sure that we get them by paying them adequately. Instead of doing that, apparently the way that we will look at all our commitments in future will be to relate Service plans more closely to national manpower resources. In other words, we cannot afford to pay our forces so let us cut them down.
  I know that this would suit the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I have heard him say so on a number of occasions, but that is not the general view of the House, and it has not been the general view expressed on both sides of the House this afternoon. Surely, it is grossly unfair to send forces to do tasks for which they are not
  1156
  properly equipped, and in insufficient numbers. That is what I fear will result from the muddle which is now going on in the Ministry of Defence.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Ben Whitaker: I believe that it is wrong to discuss this subject without first remembering all those who gave their lives, limbs or years of their lives for the defence of this country in the past. It is indeed probably right to say that the majority of families in this country lost some relative in one of the two World Wars. For their sake, as well as for our own, we should never return to a Munich state of unpreparedness in our defence until some form of universal disarmament is achieved; meanwhile, I hope that we will redouble our efforts to achieve some sort of United Nations peacekeeping force. That is quite a different matter from our present commitments to maintain our military forces throughout the world.
  Ministers at the Defence Department have done very well within the context of the commitments which they are at present asked to honour, but it is my belief that our troops in fact have no business to be in the Far East or in the Middle East continuing a policing rôle which they inherited from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. I believe that the peace-keeping there should be effected by the United Nations, and principally by means of development funds for aid instead of the present methods which we on this side of the House attacked the Tories for maintaining when they were in power.
  Frequently, in fact, the presence of our troops in the Middle East is counter-productive to the ends we wish to serve. As other hon. Members have said, it often has the effect of inflaming the local nationalists. The help which we should be giving there should be for social development, and to India, for example, food and not arms.
  Perhaps I might give two specific examples relevant to this debate. I am sure that everyone on this side of the House feels that our withdrawal from Aden comes not a moment too soon, but we are in danger of becoming identified elsewhere in the Middle East with just those sheiks who are now belatedly in Aden being replaced by trades union

  1157
  leader's and other democratic representatives. I hope that in the Persian Gulf we will work to hand over to the United Nation in the same way as the Government are seeking to do in Aden.
  We often hear the argument from hon. Members opposite that it is essential to keep our troops in the Middle East to safeguard our oil supplies; but surely the answer to this is that French and American oil companies obtain their flow of oil perfectly satisfactorily without the presence of a single one of their troops throughout the Middle East.
  Turning to another example, in Hong Kong it is not the presence of our few battalions that defends it against the Chinese. What preserves Hong Kong is the wish of the Peking Chinese Government to trade with Hong Kong.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting into the realm of defence and foreign policy, which is not admissible in this debate.
  Mr. Whitaker: I accept your Ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Perhaps I might new ask some specific questions for the Minister to answer tonight with regard to economies which could be effected in our military forces. Why are we still spending considerable sums of money on advertising for yet more men for the Army when it has been apparent for some time that there is going to be a contraction of our military obligations?
  Secondly, how much are we now spending on military bands? I believe that last year we spent £6¼ million on them. It is a sobering thought that we spent less than this, £6¼ million, on our contributions to the United Nations together with all its agencies. Does not this show a remarkable scale of values in our national priorities?
  It is also a fact that some of our soldiers are still being employed full-time in looking after polo ponies and grooming private horses. I would be grateful if the Minister would say tonight how many of our soldiers are still employed in this way at the taxpayers' expense, what is the cost consequently to the taxpayer, and why the animals' owners cannot pay for this themselves? After all,
  1158
  such owners tend not to be the most impoverished members of the Army.
  On a matter of a more important scale, I hope that the Minister will say what contingency plans are being made for the eventual evacuation of our troops from Singapore, which will create difficulties of a size that will make those of Malta small by comparison.
  The problems of the military rôle which we inherited from the Tories, and the recasting of our concepts in this direction cannot be achieved overnight. But we as a Government have been committed to a rethinking of these policies for two and a half years, and one hoped that there would by now be more contingency plans made for bringing home troops, including plans for their demobilisation, for their rehousing here, and perhaps for starting in consequence various State industries in development areas. Could they not play their part also in what the Prime Minister spoke of when he said that he would like to see housing in this country treated as a military operation?
  To summarise—the majority of Government supporters and, indeed, the majority of the country, irrespective of political party, have shown that they desire a firm change of emphasis in our military policy. Our fight for the strength of our economy would benefit from the demobilisation of some of these able-bodied men. I hope that the Minister will tell us tonight what further planning has been and is being made for the future, in the direction of converting our present 19th century nationalist military rôle into an international United Nations peacekeeping concept more compatible with the ideas of the 20th century.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said that Aldershot was proud to be considered the home of the British Army. I have no wish to challenge that claim but I must declare an interest in the Army Estimates by reminding the House that many Army units are located in my constituency. They include the Staff College at Camberley, the Guards Depôt at Pirbright, the R.A.O.C. Depôt, the R.A.M.C. Depôt. the W.R.A.C. College at Frimley, and—another important unit which I hope to

  1159
  mention again later—the Defence Operational Analysis Establishment at West Byfleet. If I touch on a number of matters of general importance perhaps I may be excused in view of the constituency interests I have and the large numbers of soldiers and their families who are based in my constituency.
  I begin with a general criticism both of this debate and of last week's debate on the Defence White Paper so far as it has been expounded and presented by the Government. The first man to devote himself to systematic thought on the subject of war was naturally a German—Clausewitz—who advanced the maxim that war is an extension of foreign policy by violent means. When we consider the rôle of our forces in any future war we are not inclined to approach the subject from the point of view that we seek war; we take the view that it is necessary for us, in deciding what forces we wish to have, to attempt to analyse whom our enemies may be, and the type of operations that we may have to counter. My main criticism of the Defence White Paper and the Minister's opening speech this afternoon is that this analysis has been completely lacking on the part of the Government. This is a very sad and regrettable state of affairs.
  We have had a few indications of Government thinking. The Government seem clearly to take the view that there should be a European orientation of our Army effort. Last year's Defence Review, however, made it fairly clear that in the Government's view there were major threats to British interests and to world peace in theatres outside Europe. This point is made specifically in paragraph 24 of the Defence Review:
  "It is in the Far East and Southern Asia that the greatest danger to peace may lie in the next decade …"
  This has been totally ignored by the Government.
  A particular point arising from this and relating directly to the Army is the statement in the Defence White Paper concerning the re-equipment of armoured regiments in B.A.O.R. with the Chieftain tank. There are clearly some unsatisfactory aspects even of what is said here. Paragraph 7 on page 33 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1967 contains this sentence:
  1160
  "The greater killing power of this tank, coupled with the increased protection, which it provides, will help to offset the considerable numerical superiority in armoured vehicles, which could confront our forces."
  That statement, boiled down, seems to amount to an admission that, if there were to be a conventional war in Europe, British tanks would be outnumbered. This is not in itself a new situation. We naturally hope that the Chieftain is a sufficiently good tank to compensate for the greater weight and umbers of armour which would be deployed against it by any attacker.
  The point about the Chieftain goes slightly further than this. I was sorry that the Under-Secretary appeared to have no idea of the financial costs or numbers involved in re-equipment by the Chieftain. I do not know that the House has ever been given accurate figures on this matter, but my guess is that the cost of each Chieftain is about £150,000, that the number in each regiment to be so equipped might be if the regiment is not fully up to strength, that the total sum of money involved in re-equipping each regiment is therefore certainly about £5 million, and that the number of regiments is to be so equipped must be at least five. So a very large sum of money is involved.
  This is a considerable commitment in terms of money, on the re-equipping of our forces for a particular rôle because, however useful the Chieftain tank may be in armoured regiments which are to take part in a conventional war on the European land mass—a conventional defensive war is what it would be—and I believe that the preoccupation with such a commitment must have unfortunate effects upon the flexibility of the Army in general.
  To consider what the general rôle of armour in a modern army is, we must go back to the first days of the tank and its invention. It was evolved to over come the particular circumstances of the 1914–18 war, and especially to enable troops to get over the obstacles of trenches and barbed wire and to provide them with protection from machine guns. It was basically also to provide a mobile gun platform whose gunners would have great security.
  By its advent in that war, the tank had a considerable influence on the course of the war—if it had been better handled it

  1161
  would have had a much greater influence—and represented a new breakthrough in the course of land warfare. That breakthrough was carried further in the 1939–45 war, very largely by the Germans, but also by ourselves, the Russians and the Americans.
  Is the concept of the tank in the rôole of a gun platform in a highly mobile battlefield still relevant? What is the Government's view as to where outside Europe tanks could be used? Do we envisage British forces ever being engaged on a major scale in a desert war, in a repetition of the North African campaign where tanks had particular uses? I doubt this very much. Can the Government see any rôle for Chieftain tanks in the paddy fields and the jungles of Asia? I doubt that very much. Possibly the only time where tanks have been of much use in an Asian battlefield was in Korea during the winter when the paddy fields were frozen and the going was hard enough for tanks to be employed.
  Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend realise that, although Burma was thought to be a totally unsuitable country for tanks, we operated tanks all over the place in Burma and, by linking two tanks together, got them right to the tops of hills? They were invaluable in that jungle country.
  Mr. Onslow: I know that tanks played a rôle in Burma, a very distinguished rôle in some operations, but those were particular circumstances where they were able to advance along mountain roads. They were at times used on the dry zone, but they were only really effective at the time when there was the least rainfall. If we were to be involved in a war in Thailand, Vietnam or some such place in the Far East, where it is possible to envisage a British involvement in the next 10 or 15 years, the use of the Chieftain tank, which is about three times as heavy as any used in the Burma campaign, would not seem very likely.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, will he tell us the cost of a Chieftain tank?
  Mr. Onslow: That is a question which I have already addressed to the Government Front Bench and to which, so far,
  1162
  there has been no answer. If the hon. Gentleman shares my concern in the matter, he will, like me, have to await the Government's reply.
  My point is that there is now a need for the British Army to rethink its heavy-tank philosophy. I believe that the likelihood of war in conventional terms in Europe is remote, and I suggest that there is much to be learned from the lessons of the American air cavalry. If we are thinking forward in terms of possible wars in which we might have British forces engaged in the next 10 or 15 years, that example is of great importance to us. Hon. Members opposite may not like any sort of rôle east of Suez, but, if we are as a nation to be able to play our part, or any part, in the containment of Chinese agression—we might find ourselves playing a part with the Russians and Americans on the same side as ourselves—we should remember, as Mr. Harrison Salisbury has recently pointed out, that the Chinese conception of warfare is war at 200 yards, and the value of Chieftain tanks in Asia in those conditions is likely to be fairly small.
  To turn from crystal-gazing, in which I have followed the Minister who opened, to a more immediate subject. The Government's preoccupation, which is revealed in the White Paper, with the homeward movement of forces has created particular problems of accommodation, training facilities and the employment of the troops which, so far as we are able to judge at this moment, the Government have not thought through and on which they are in no position to give the House an answer.
  First, the question of barracks and married quarters. If the only withdrawals are to be withdrawals from the Far East, from Aden and Cyprus, and the others which are detailed in the White Paper, there will be tremendous pressures in the United Kingdom. They will—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw) pointed this out—result in a situation in which we have by no means as many acclimatised troops as we should have if we are to have a fully operational and mobile Army. On this ground alone, there seems to be the strongest possible argument for retaining the barrack facilities in Malta which the Government seem determined to give up.

  1163
  If all the troops are to come back to the United Kingdom a tremendous problem will stare us in the face. But I detected in the Minister's speech today, as also in the White Paper, a suggestion that some of the troops being withdrawn from the Far East might go to B.A.O.R. In paragraph 6 on page 33 of the Defence White Paper it is said:
  "During the past year, we have again been obliged to make temporary withdrawals"—
  from B.A.O.R.—
  "in order to meet our commitments in other parts of the world".
  In his opening today, the Minister again used the word "temporary", and it seemed to me that he stressed it.
  What intention is there, if any, that units withdrawn from Asia and other stations outside Europe should be returned to B.A.O.R.? Perhaps he would be good enough to clear up the ambiguity on that point.
  We know that emergency camps are being renovated in various parts of the country to accommodate units which must return to the United Kingdom. In spite of the answer which I received last Wednesday from the Minister—I cannot specify him, for there are so many Ministers of Defence in various capacities at the moment—it seems highly likely that some of the camps to be reactivated for that purpose are of a lower standard than camps and barracks which have been demolished since 1964. Some of that emergency accommodation probably still relies on bucket latrines, and I believe that within the past two years camps have been demolished which were of a higher standard than that.
  About 700 married quarters have also been demolished in the past two years, or contracts for their demolition have been let. Was it really impossible to renovate them, and would not renovation have been much cheaper than the policy of building completely anew, to which the Government have now committed themselves? I strongly suspect that the sudden decision last July to accelerate the movement home of British troops has made a nonsense of the Government's previous policy on the provision of barracks and married quarters in this country.
  1164
  I should particularly like to know what the effects of the accelerated movement home will be on three matters which were briefly touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell). First, what will be the effect on the availability of houses for sale in areas where the concentration of returning troops will be greatest? How many houses does the Army intend to buy, for instance, in and around Aldershot, in Camberley or Frimley? How many buildings which are being put up for sale on the ordinary civil market will be pre-empted by the Army? It seems to me that the effect on the availability to ordinary house purchasers of properties they would like to buy must be very detrimental.
  Secondly, what will be the effect of the burden upon certain local authorities of rehousing Servicemen who are discharged and who have no claim upon their own area, or who have no area of their own to which they can go to obtain housing when they leave the Services? Does the Minister intend to offer special help to councils which have in their areas the regimental and corps depôts from which those discharges are likely to take place? Has he had consultations with the authorities, and would he be prepared if necessary to offer them help and discuss with them the release of areas of surplus military land which may exist around some of the depôts?
  Thirdly, what will be the effect on the local schools situation? In the South-East, where many of the depôts are located, pressure on school facilities is intense. We are constantly having to build new schools to cope with the expansion of population which occurs in the normal course of events. What will be the effect of the return of Service families to areas like that? What thought has the Minister given to the question, and what action will he take to help local authorities which find themselves in difficulty?
  Thirdly, there is the question of training areas. It seems clear that if troops return from B.A.O.R. and if they remain assigned to N.A.T.O. there will be a need for more land for training, particularly for tracked vehicles. The Minister of Defence (Administration) admitted that in his statement of 27th February, in columns 216 and 217 of HANSARD. But what happens if those troops are not

  1165
  assigned to N.A.T.O.? Will there then be a need for further training facilities? I tried to put that point to the Minister when he was winding up last Monday night, but he was midway through his impersonation of a runaway train and rattling over the points so fast that he stubbornly refused to deal with that question at the time. Or do the Government intend that these units will be disbanded, as we suspect, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) argued the evidence seems to suggest? Or is there just to be no need for more training areas?
  The Government must spell this out in much greater detail than so far has been presented to the House. What effect is the need, if it arises, for greater training facilities to have on the use of common land? Much of the use which the Army makes of common land in my constituency for training purposes already causes some annoyance and disturbance to local inhabitants when night exercises take place. Is such use to be intensified?
  Then there is the occupation of the Army. On page 70 of the White Paper, reference is made to the problem of re-engagement. In particular, in paragraph 30, speaking of the Army, these words appear:
  "These rates are too low, and great emphasis is being placed upon internal recruiting to improve them."
  What in the Government's opinion will now induce troops to re-engage? What is there in the prospects offered by the Army as a career which are likely now to make a man wish to extend his engagement and likely to make a wife wish her husband to extend his engagement? The influence of the family on soldiers in the matter of re-engagement is of crucial importance. This the Government seem to be ignoring. They should not be as complacent as I believe them to be about the prospect that many men, when they complete their term, will find their families living in mobile homes or other sub-standard accommodation, and bringing pressure upon them not to re-engage, which will be very intense.
  Even if they do sign on, what are the peaceful uses to which troops in this country will be put? I imagine that the Government will not argue that there will be a continuing and increasing need
  1166
  for troops to be employed in the search for escaped prisoners. There are a number of other civilian activities in which troops can be employed, but the number is not limitless. Assuming that the policy of returning troops to this country results in a decline in the number of the forces, where is the margin of error? What capacity have the Government now rapidly to re-expand the forces in case their policy proves to be disastrously wrong?
  This is a matter in which the existence and strength of the reserve forces is of vital interest, particularly in the Territorial Army. I remember going to Territorial Army camp in 1951 when we were in the curious position of finding ourselves suddenly brought up to strength as a unit by the recall of the Z men during the Korean War crisis. After a little difficulty, these soldiers, who had taken their discharge as they thought in 1946 or 1947, were fitted back into the unit to which they had returned, but that was because there was a framework which they could join. I doubt whether the Government are leaving themselves with any reserve framework which would be of use in any necessary expansion of our forces which may in future occur.
  I wonder how well T.A. recruiting is, in fact, going. I hope that it is going well. Of course it is still early to judge what results are being achieved, but I have my doubts about this. It is quite easy in the atmosphere of an annual camp to get volunteeers to sign a declaration of intent to soldier on in a Territorial Army, but matters might appear very different when they return home and think it over in the cold light of civilian life.
  If the Minister is looking for something for the troops to do, perhaps I can indulge in one piece of special pleading. I am a member of the Council of the National Rifle Association, although what I am about to say will not be said in that capacity. In my constituency we have the Bisley ranges, and the withdrawal of support which the Government have recently enforced on the Bisley meeting for the coming year has had a very difficult effect on the management of the meeting.
  In the past, there used to be a unit, usually of battalion strength, which provided a number of very necessary services for the Bisley meeting. This year, we are to experiment with a different system,

  1167
  relying on the efforts of competitors and such labour as we may be able to enlist from the cadet forces of various schools and other sources of that kind. If the Government are looking for work for the troops to do, I hope that they will reconsider the possibility of reallocating a battalion to the Bisley meeting.
  Although this might appear to be a marginal activity, this is a very popular sport which many people follow and which is threatened by rising costs. Secondly, the presence of troops in these conditions, which are not necessarily very easy, provides the unit concerned, especially the officers, with valuable experience of handling a unit in conditions which are not ideal. If most units are to remain more or less permanently based on their own barracks and relying on an established system of regimental accommodation and policing, when some departure from routine occurs there will be difficulty unless there has been experience of transfer into different surroundings, such as an exercise like this would provide.
  I am very worried about this subject of the peaceful use of the Army. Many potential soldiers will not sign on because they will not wish to serve their term of engagement almost entirely in the United Kingdom. I wonder whether the Ministry of Defence has applied the techniques of the D.O.A.E. to this problem. As the Minister well knows, this is a unit which has the task of systematic analysis, using advanced scientific methods, to test the logistics and parameters within which the Army and other defence forces are operating or are likely to operate. It is a very valuable extention of the old A.O.R.E. I wonder whether we can be absolutely happy with the rather superficial assumptions in the White Paper—that the effect of returning a larger proportion of units to this country will have no impact on their morale or strength. I should like to know that the assumptions underlying this have been rigorously tested and whether they have been analysed by computer methods, which might teach the Ministry of Defence a number of useful lessons.
  I repeat my fundamental complaint about the Government's attitude to national defence as revealed in these de-
  1168
  bates and particularly by what has been said today. We have had a Defence White Paper which seems to have been prepared and presented to the House by Messrs. Fudge and Scrooge—bogus statistics, a preoccupation with penny-pinching and very little real thought to the purpose of the Army and the conditions which it is likely to have to meet.
  I take leave to doubt whether the Government have thought about the fundamental problems which the Army is now facing and particularly whether they have any answer to the criticisms which have been levelled at them by my hon. Friend today. They seem preoccupied with an attempt to conceal their intentions to cut the Army's size drastically, even though all the evidence seems to point in the direction of a decision to that effect. If that is in fact their plan, the country is entitled to know and so, too, is the Army.
  9.20 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am amazed at the complete lack of imagination of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) who asked, "If the soldiers are brought home what can we do with them?" The obvious answer is that they should defend us at home. Defend us against whom? Every Friday we read about crimes, many of them in the centre of London. One hears of gangsters and bandits holding up banks, attacking innocent people with motor cars, right in the centre of London. Sometimes I would not be surprised if the Mace disappeared over the weekend. The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that we are desperately short of police. The Home Secretary is trying to build up a police force of 200,000 men, and the hon. Gentleman asks what we should do with these soldiers if we brought them home.
  Mr. Onslow: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he may not have heard the exact terms of my question, which was broadly this: if the troops were brought home, what would the Government intend to do with them? Earlier in this debate we have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) suggest that the Government intended to use them for strike-breaking. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's

  1169
  suggestion that the Government should use them for police purposes, but what I want to know is what the Government intend to do.
  Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman had been interested in that suggestion, why did not he make it himself? I am making the one constructive suggestion that I have heard in the debate in over two and a half hours, but the hon. Gentleman had not thought of it. He asks why have the Government not stated their policy. I want to defend the Government here. They are seriously alarmed as to how to defend the people of the country against the mail van robber, against the gangster, against the man who brings a motor car, jams up the street, and runs off with people's wages.
  I suggest that a very considerable number of soldiers, with whom the hon. Gentleman does not seem to know what to do, could be employed in defending our people in their own streets. I am amazed at the hon. Gentleman's complete lack of imagination. I am sure that if one gives the soldiers the chance to return to civil life it will be found that a lot will be delighted to get the ticket that the soldier received the other day at half-past three in the afternoon, having been previously arrested by the Army.
  I am sure that when he was released, and the House was delighted that he was released, he must have had thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Army, wishing him good luck and wishing to God that they had been with him at half-past three that afternoon.
  Mr. Onslow: Has he joined the police?
  Mr. Hughes: I do not see any difficulty at all in reabsorbing soldiers in uniform into civilian life, in order to take their part in the industrial life of this country. They are as essential and as important here as they are hanging about, as some of them are doing, in Germany, doing nothing except quarrelling with one another and the civilian population. I am quite sure that if the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army sent a letter to every commanding officer in Germany asking for the names of all the boys who want to come home and serve in the police force, saying that they would be welcomed and paid the
  1170
  increased rate of pay which we are paying to our policemen, inviting them to join in defeating the enemy at home, there would be such a rush that the problem of the Home Secretary would be considerably reduced a few weeks afterwards.
  We have been asked where the houses are for the returning soldiers. Some of the soldiers are building workers. They can help to build the houses. There is talk about the need for a military operation on the housing front in Scotland. We must stop training many of these soldiers in the handling of useless and stupid instruments, which we are told they will never use, and use their energies and the organising capacity of the officers in civil life. We are told that in a few years we shall need 200,000 skilled workers to keep the economic life of the country going. Many of these soldiers are not like the old type of soldier—just foot-sloggers. They are skilled men. Many of them are used to mechanical processes of all kinds. A large number of them are used to repairing expensive tanks. There is among them a very large number of skilled workers who could be employed in doing useful work in many sectors of civil life at home.
  I am advancing a case for the Government, and I am sure that they are grateful to me. The time has come for us to absorb these soldiers in the important economic life of the nation.
  My complaint against the Minister of Defence is this. He is asking us for £563 million for the Army, employing 238,000 soldiers. That is about the number we need for the police. This is one of the most useless, wasteful and spendthrift of the nationalised industries. I believe that the ultimate aim of the Government is to bring a large number of these men home. I entirely agree with the Government's policy of withdrawing our troops from Aden.
  I am a rather old Member of the House. I remember when Sir Winston Churchill stood at that Box and announced that the Government were going to withdraw troops from the Suez base. What a howl went up then. The "Suez rebels" said that Churchill was wasting the imperial heritage and doing away with the British Empire. They said we must remain in Suez. So said a very

  1171
  large section of the Tory Party at that time. But Sir Winston Churchill said, "No. The time we could stay in a base in a hostile territory—in Egypt—is over, and it is time that the troops were brought home." And that is precisely what the Government are doing in Aden, and it is what they will have to say in Singapore and will have to say in all the other bases in all other parts of the world.
  I hope that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) will agree with me on a good deal of what I say. I read the speech which he delivered at the Tory Party conference only two years ago. It is only two years since he said that we have got to rethink east of Suez policy. That was the thought of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that he was squashed, I am sorry that the Front Bench opposite and the Tory headquarters, governed by the Colonel Blimps, said, "We cannot have any original rethinking like that; we cannot have him stopping us wasting our money east of Suez."
  I say, therefore, that we should come home from Singapore. After all, we lost Singapore very quickly at the beginning of the last war.
  It being half-past Nine o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered.
  That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after half-past Nine o'clock and may he entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of two hours after half-past Nine o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Hughes: What the Opposition does not realise, and what the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who fought in the last war and the war before that do not realise, is that the world has completely changed, and that just as other empires have disappeared, just as the Spanish empire disappeared, and the Roman empire disappeared, and the French empire disappeared, and the Dutch empire disappeared east of Suez, our Empire has to be wound up east of Suez, too, and that means the redeployment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting a little wide of the
  1172
  Army Estimates. He is now entering the realm of defence and foreign affairs, not admissible in this debate.
  Mr. Hughes: I was pointing out that had we, and had the Opposition, realised that the time had come for the winding up of this empire, just as other countries have had to wind up their empires, we would not need to spend £563 million on the Army Estimates at the present time.
  Mr. Kershaw: What about Russia?
  Mr. Hughes: I am asked about Russia. I am not here to defend the Russian army estimates. I would not be allowed to defend the Russian army estimates here. But I am asked, what about Russia? The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to the last speech delivered from his side of the House, because an hon. and gallant Gentleman had a new rôle for the British Army—we were to be engaged on the side of America, allied to the Soviet Union, to take part in a war on China—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come back to the Army Estimates. We are now concerned with the administration of the Army and its rôle inside a defence policy which we debated last week.
  Mr. Hughes: I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who was arguing about the use of the Chieftain tank, and who showed that the Chieftain tank could possibly be used in a war in which we would fight in China on the side of the Soviet Union and allied with the United States of America. I know that that sounds a very fantastic thing to talk about in a debate on the Army Estimates. But I was asked, what about Russia, and from the Opposition Front Bench. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite do not realise that this is not for fighting Russia at all. I do not know what it is for. Nobody knows what it is for.
  I heard a soldier on the wireless this morning. He was interviewed in a programme just after the news. He was a recruiting sergeant, and he was given leave—given an extra fortnight's leave—to act as a recruiting officer and to say exactly what a good time he was having in the Army. Somebody said to him,

  1173
  "What do you do? Are you going to fight?" He said, "No, no. We are not going to fight. We are there to carry out missions and movements, but the last thing that we are thinking of doing is fighting." I predict an enormous number of recruits in that particular area. He was saying that there he was, having a fortnight's holiday, and then going back into the Army, but he was not going to fight anybody; he was not going to fight the Chinese, the Russians or anybody else. "Join the Army and have a good time." That soldier was quite honest about it. and his ideas about the Army were just as clear and just as precise as those which have been expounded by the old soldiers in this debate.
  They do not seem to have realised the character of even a conventional war. If they want to know what a conventional war is like—not a nuclear war but a respectable conventional war—I advise them to read an article in this week's New Statesman by an observer who went to North Vietnam to study what was going on there. It is written by Mr. Lawrence Daly, a secretary of a Scottish Miners' Union. He describes the ghastly and bloody horror of a conventional war—and it is not like the war that we have been talking about today.
  I know that the Government have had to revise their ideas about defence. I have been in the Opposition for many years and I listened in these debates to the speeches which were then delivered by the present Paymaster-General. I could repeat all those speeches almost word for word. The great argument was that when the Labour Government came into power they would not spend so much money on nuclear war but would spend the money on building up and improving the conventional forces in Germany. That even found its way into the Labour Party manifesto. It did not find its way into my election address because I knew that it could not happen.
  I give the Labour Government credit for having a plan for reducing the number of men in the Army. I hope that it will result that instead of spending £538 million, the amount will be reduced very quickly so that by 1970 we shall have saved £800 million or £900 million or £1,000 million of this ridiculous defence expenditure. Then we shall be able to
  1174
  tell the people of this country that we have done something to fulfil our election promises.
  Hon. Members may recollect that on more than one occasion in the past I have called attention to an item in the Army Estimates under establishment. I do not believe that it should be there. It is the establishment at Porton on Salisbury Plain, where we have a big establishment engaged in manufacturing and experimenting with gas and what are called biological weapons. I went with the Scientific Committee and had a good look at this establishment a few years ago. It is as big as a university. It seems that we are still spending £9½ million on research, on the Army Vote, for microbiological experiments or, to put it more crudely, germ warfare. I have advocated that this should not be on the Army Estimates at all.
  If we have these devastating weapons, if we have nuclear weapons and atom and hydrogen bombs, do we need to spend so much money, employing nearly 200 very gifted scientists, on experimenting with germ warfare for possible use in some sphere of operations? I do not know why this is allowed to continue. The Labour Government would be doing a very useful thing if they said, "We are interested in protecting the civil population of this country against germ warfare". Such expenditure should not be on the Army Vote but on the Vote of the Ministry of Health.
  I believe that we shall never get the examination of the Army Estimates that we need—carefully, meticulously watching every £100,000 and scrutinising every item—until we have a Specialist Committee for defence. That is the argument that was used by the Paymaster-General on the innumerable occasions when he spoke.
  We will never get a real examination of the Defence Estimates, and especially the Army Estimates, until we get this specialised committee examining the Estimates before they come to this House. We have on both sides of the House men who know the subject, who have had experience and who could examine these Estimates long before they come to this House. If we did that, we would not have this enormous bill, and considerable saving to the taxpayer would result.
  9.41 p.m.
  Mr. Jasper More: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) ranged over many subjects. Whether the Government were grateful for his contribution was difficult to judge from their expressions. I was glad to be able to find at least one or two things in the hon. Member's speech with which I agreed. I am sorry that I could not agree with many of the sentiments from below the Gangway on the Government side, but I make an honourable exception of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Toxteth (Mr. Crawshaw), to whose speech I listened this afternoon.
  Much of the debate has been concerned with the withdrawal of troops from B.A.O.R. My view is that at this moment in our history, nothing could be more disastrous than withdrawing our troops from Germany. Anybody who has any recollection of living through the 1930s much surely feel that there could be nothing more dangerous to the prospects of peace than to do anything in the way of creating a power vacuum in Central Europe.
  I do not want to elaborate on that except to refer to the implications which many hon. Members have mentioned, namely, the question of accommodating the troops who come home. I am doubtful of the extent to which the returning troops would, as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire suggested, rush into the police force or the extent to which they would be welcomed if they did. However that may be, they would still have to be accommodated in this country. That would bring into question the section of the administrative services of the Ministry of Defence to which I want to make special reference and which comes in Vote 10 under the heading "Purchase of land and buildings".
  In the Estimate for 1967–68, it is expected that land and buildings will be purchased to the extent of more than £15 million. It is also expected that land and buildings to the extent of more than £11 million will be sold. I only hope that these Estimates are correct, because I want to give certain details of what the Ministry of Defence has achieved or not achieved in my constituency. Judging by those performances, we shall certainly be lucky if it succeeds in selling anything in the neighbourhood of £11 million.
  1176
  I am referring to a constituency case called Ditton Priors. As the Minister has accused me, certainly on one occasion, of referring to this case in exaggerated terms, I thought that it might be a good thing if I gave the facts and dates so that the Minister and the House may judge for themselves. This is a case which has been going on for two and a half years.
  Mr. Reynolds: On a point of order. I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member is about to give a lot of information concerning the ex-Royal Navy ammunition depôt at Ditton Priors. I hope that if he gives this information, it will be in order for me to reply to it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member refers to naval matters on an Army Estimate, he will be out of order.
  Mr. More: I am referring, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the activities of the Defence Lands Service Branch under Vote 10. I take it, therefore, that I shall be in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can determine as the hon. Member goes along whether he is in order.
  Mr. Reynolds: Vote 10 covers lands for all three Services, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member is referring to an ex-Royal Navy ammunition depôt which is now a Royal Air Force Station. I shall find it rather difficult to deal with it on the Army Vote.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: In view of what the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has said, and noting the remarks of the Minister, I think that it would be best to allow the hon. Member for Ludlow to proceed, and then we can determine whether or not his remarks are in order.
  Mr. More: I wish, first, to refer to the case of my constituent, Mrs. Moreton. She is a member of a family whose lands were purchased early in the war. She was informed in October, 1955, that the Defence Lands Branch wished to negotiate with her for the possession of this land. A letter was sent to her enclosing a plan of the 10 acres which, the letter stated, she might be interested to purchase. That was 14 months after the question was first raised. I ask the House to note the lapse of time. Finally, in December, 1965, she received a letter

  1177
  from the Defence Lands Branch stating that allocations were still to be agreed and that negotiations would start in three months' time. There was then a delay of four months and then, on 1st April—perhaps a significant date—the district valuer was instructed to negotiate. Later in the year Mrs. Moreton's agent offered £75 per acre. There followed a delay of three months and, finally, in January of this year, she received a letter from the District Valuer—it was sent to her agent—referring to the
  "… tentatively agreed sale figure …"
  and it added:
  "You will have no doubt heard that this depôt will now pass to the Americans and that in the circumstances the completion of this sale will not take place. I would like to inform you that the first notification received was the 10th January."
  I ask the House to note the date. Finally, on 24th January, there came a letter from Surbiton—odd how all these letters emanated from different addresses—saying that the offer had been withdrawn.
  There is then the case of my constituent, Mrs. Colebatch. She had a personal call from the Defence Lands Agent in October. 1965. That was followed by correspondence with the Defence Lands Branch. There was again a delay of three months and, on this occasion, letters came from Liverpool. She had no notification that the deal was off, although I have recently gathered that her solicitors have been told that the deal is off.
  Then there is the case of my constituent, Mrs. Cains. She also, two and a half years ago, was approached on this subject. In her case there was a delay of seven months. That was followed by a letter from the Defence Lands Branch stating:
  "Various members of your family have expressed interest in this matter …"
  and it went on to ask that somebody should be appointed to represent the family. There was then a delay of three months, after which another of these letters came from Liverpool saying:
  "In the light of all the circumstances I am now advised by my Headquarters that it will not be possible to regard any member of the family as former owners for the purpose of the disposal of the Establishment."
  Oddly enough, the word "establishment" was spelt with a capital "E". It went on:
  1178
  "If you are likely to be interested in buying the property by auction I shall be pleased to keep you informed of the disposal arrangements proposed".
  Various letters were exchanged until, on 17th February of this year, the Defence Lands Branch claimed that it had said that if the family was interested it should say so
  "… in order that you might be kept informed of the disposal arrangements".
  It was untrue to say that Mrs. Cains had been informed that he should say anything of the kind, and she has lost her land.
  In the case of another constituent of mine, there was a delay of seven months. It all stared in 1964, and, after that delay, she received a letter from the Defence Lands Branch, complaining that the delay was due to the settling of conflicting interests. There was then a delay of nine months. At a meeting the Lands Branch gave the precise details of the land offered. It was agreed that vacant possession should be given on 30th October last year and, in January, 1966. letters were exchanged confirming the details.
  A new thing then came into it, which was the railway. There had been a railway of 10 miles which served the depôt. After a few weeks of correspondence, that was settled also.
  In June, after a delay of two and a half months, my constituent was informed that the Lands Branch had met the District Valuer—this brought somebody new into it—who would be getting in touch. There was then a delay of four months. Finally there was a meeting with the District Valuer to value the plantations, and the District Valuer had to consult the Forestry Commission.
  Finally on 4th January it was stated that the District Valuer would arrange a final meeting on 17th January to discuss these things It was on 10th January that the depôt was taken over, but it was not until 13th January that the Lands Branch sent a letter breaking off negotiations.
  I refer once again to the railway. As early as July, 1965, I had a letter from another constituent complaining that the railway was breeding rabbits. That is not unusual when railways are abandoned. They breed weeds and do a fair amount of damage to the surrounding farms. I had already been approached by another

  1179
  constituent. I told him that I had applied on his behalf for instructions from the Ministry of Defence as to what was happening, and I told him that I would try to keep him in touch.
  Finally, I got a letter from a Minister this time—that was on 27th July, 1965—saying:
  "We shall get ahead with its disposal as soon as possible."
  I got slightly told off in the letter, because it finished up saying:
  "It is a rule that all correspondence from Members of Parliament should be dealt with by Ministers."
  Apparently I had written to a mere official. Anyway, encouraged by that I wrote to my constituent informing him, and said:
  "If you do not hear from the Minister of Defence within a reasonable time, please let me know."
  There then elapsed twelve and a half months and my constituent, a patient gentleman, wrote to me in August, 1966, saying:
  "Your letter to me was dated 29th July, 1965. In this letter you said that should I not hear from the Ministry of Defence within a reasonable period, I should let you know. I have heard nothing further from the Ministry."
  Somewhat to my surprise, in view of the telling-off that I had received in the previous letter, I received, on 5th September, a letter not from the Minister but from a private secretary, saying:
  "Mr. Ennals is away from the office at the moment … Next month we hope to begin advertising the sale of the rails … We shall shortly ask adjoining landowners whether they want to buy any of the land."
  Needless to say, they never got any of the land.
  I come on to the Bridgnorth Rural District Council. In 1964 they were offered the sewage works which had served the depôt and they decided that they would buy the works subject once again to the report of the District Valuer. The District Valuer then stated in April, after a delay of 10 months, that he was unable to act and the Minister of Housing and Local Government announced that it would arbitrate.
  In fairness to the Minister of Defence, one must confess that in this case they were helped in their delays by the Minister of Housing and Local Govern-
  1180
  ment. Nevertheless, after four months they began to take an interest and while the Minister of Defence demanded £6,000, the rural district council offered only £1,750. A delay of eight months ensued, and by arbitration it was settled at £2,160.
  One would have thought that that was final, but after a delay of two months the Minister of Defence said that he refused to accept the valuation of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. After another two months they withdrew their offer altogether, so the council has not got the sewage works.
  Finally, there is the question of the village hall. There were rather a lot of surplus buildings in the depôt, and the villagers thought it might be sensible to see if they could get one as a village hall. In December, 1965, they formed a committee and the Land Agent came to see them. He offered them a large canteen and the car park area, and a price was agreed at £2,250. The village is a very small one, but it got busy and by means of a house-to-house collection £300 was collected. They got the Fire Officer to come and inspect the building for safety. They went to the County Planning Committee and got permission for a change of use. They got the Electricity Board to restore the electricity which had been cut off by the Ministry of Defence.
  They wrote to the Department of Education and Science asking whether they could be given a grant. They were told that before they could have anything else they must have an architect. They got one, and had to pay him 50 guineas. They then asked the Ministry of Defence for a contract. The Treasury Solicitor then came in—and this was a new man—and said that he could not make a contract until they knew about the grant. Anyway, they succeeded with the grant, and in December, 1966, they received an offer from the Department of Education of £1,125 for the grant and were told that additional grants might follow, which was good news.
  They wrote and told the Ministry of Defence about this, but got no reply. Finally, their solicitor wrote after some weeks and then they received a reply on 31st January saying that the United States Forces needed the canteen for an

  1181
  indefinite period. Finally they had a call from the Land Agent saying that negotiations had terminated.
  I do not think that any of that experience encourages one in the idea that the Lands Branch really is very good at dealing with sales of property. I suggest that it would be wiser not to vote £22,560,000 in Vote 10, because it is obviously a fairly useless organisation. It would be far better to scrap the whole thing and find a competent firm of land or estate agents and turn the whole thing over to private enterprise so that there can be more satisfaction for people who are trying to buy back land taken from them for war purposes.
  In a broadcast not long ago the Minister said rather ingenuously, and these were words of truth, that the trouble at Ditton Priors would never have arisen had these sales been completed, and I entirely agree with him. In the meantime, while these services for defence land and buildings are being wound up, I see no reason why they should come under a separate heading, because on the previous page of the Estimates, page 97, there is a Vote which would completely and effectively describe them. It is "Non-Effective Services," and I suggest that they might be put under that category.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) raised the question of the rôle of the Army in a war with Russia against China, and he was replied to by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) who dealt at some length with his rural district council's sewage works.
  I wish briefly to raise a subject which has both a national and a constituency interest. I want to revert to the point which I put to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence during his speech about the threatened decision by the Government to send the Royal Defence College to Shrivenham and not to Greenwich. This threatened decision has alarmed hon. Members on both sides of House.
  It is contrary to the recommendations of the Government's own independent Committee which they set up to consider the whole subject of higher education for officers. The decision to set up the Royal
  1182
  Defence College is fully in line with the Committee's recommendations and is, I think, supported on both sides of the House, but the decision to send it to Shrivenham and not to Greenwich is opposed on both sides of the House, and I hope very much that the Government will consider the matter again.
  The only reason which the Government have given for opposing their own Committee is the strange one that there is no room for expansion at Greenwich it expansion is needed. I wonder how far they have seriously considered this. Have they considered, for instance, a number of local sites, such as that to be made available by the closing of the Seamen's Hospital in Greenwich, or the site opposite the Trafalgar Tavern, which is now used as a car park? Have they considered using the buildings of the Royal Military Academy on Woolwich Common, which are under-used at present? After all, this was the old Sandhurst. Its future is uncertain, and it would make an ideal part of the Royal Defence College if one were needed to be expanded in Greenwich borough.
  Finally, there are the possibilities of the site of the Royal Herbert Military Hospital, shortly to be demolished, which would be admirable from this point of view. As a local Member of Parliament, I see no evidence that the Government have investigated this problem before reaching a decision. As the Committee pointed out, to send the college to Greenwich would be cheaper than to send it to Shrivenham. The capital cost would be £2 million as against £3 million at Shrivenham, and the college could be established sooner if placed in Greenwich rather than in Shrivenham—in 1969 instead of 1971.
  At Greenwich it would be more likely to attract the best staff and the best outside lecturers. Many hon. Members, including myself, have been invited to lecture at the Royal Naval College from time to time. When we get such an invitation we mentally measure the distance from here to Greenwich. If we had to try to measure the distance from here to Shrivenham we might come to a different conclusion. Whether that would be good or bad for the standard of lecturing at the college remains to be seen, but Greenwich is more convenient from this point of view than is Shrivenham.

  1183
  Finally, the whole history of Greenwich is a recommendation for the establishment of the Royal Defence College there. The Government are not showing enough understanding of the nature of these splendid buildings and their history. To destroy the connection of the Armed Services with Greenwich Naval College would be to repudiate the findings of the Government's own Committee. It would be financially wasteful, administratively inefficient, and would be an act of vandalism and a crime against the history of the Armed Services.
  10.3 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: I support the plea of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for the establishment of the new Defence College in Greenwich. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the traditional buildings and the well-known history of the Royal Naval College would be of tremendous advantage to the environment and for the work that would go on at the Defence College. In the same way, we might say that if this House were situated at Margate or Southend it would not be so effective as it is in Westminster. We should use the tradition of the Royal Naval College to the full, for centuries to come.
  I want to raise three points, the first being a matter of information on Vote 7, in relation to aircraft and ships, Subhead "Light aircraft", with the sum of £2·9 million. I hope that the Minister will expand a little on this matter, and give us a breakdown of the figure. Does it refer entirely to helicopters, or does it include hovercraft. To an airman like myself a helicopter is not a light aircraft anyway; only fixed-wing aircraft are what airmen would regard as aeroplanes.
  I should like to know whether this figure includes Sioux helicopters. I have been impressed by their performance and their ease of maintenance, although I know that difficulties have been experienced with the jet engine. If the figure should also include a number of light fixed-wing aircraft I should be interested to know what type, and how many. I know that we are short of British light aircraft and that only a few elderly Austers, and Beagles, have been used in recent years. I would not like to think
  1184
  that we would have to buy American or continental aircraft for the Army. That might well be true if we are to have a policy of using light aeroplanes as well as helicopters.
  My other two points have a much closer connection with Scotland. Like many other hon. Members, I want to pay my tribute to the regiments, to the Royal Air Force, and to the Royal Navy, which have done so well in Borneo and the Far East. I am thinking particularly of the Scottish regiments—the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.
  I want to make two points in regard to Scotland. The first concerns the regiments which will be returning to Scotland. Which regiments will be returning? What units will be coming? Where will they go? Are they going to the old traditional areas of Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Fort George, or has the Secretary of State other places in mind?
  Scotland is, perhaps, rather neglected by the Ministry of Defence. There are many areas which would welcome the arrival of some more soldiers in Scotland. Scotland always gives a very warm welcome to its regiments. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell the House that there will be a number of battalions coming to be stationed in Scotland in the next year or two. In recent years we have been a little disappointed that the only time we saw fleeting glimpses of our Scottish regiments was at the Tattoo, when they were usually dressed up as Beefeaters or something else.
  Secondly, I am sorry that the Secretary of State did not deem it appropriate to make a statement in the House on the downgrading of Scottish Command. I know that rumour has been prevalent for over a year that Scottish Command might disappear. There is no doubt that the final announcement has been received with shock and resentment in Scotland. Scottish Command means much more to Scotland than Southern Command or any other command does to England. Scottish Command is the focal point of Service life in the country. The office of the General Officer Commanding, with his unique position in Edinburgh Castle and his control over ceremonial in our Scottish capital, is one of the most honoured

  1185
  positions obtainable by a Scotsman in the Army. We in Scotland appreciate the importance of naval headquarters and of the Air Officer Commanding, but to Scotland and Scotsmen Scottish Command has a very honoured ring about it. Regardless of whether Scotland now has sufficient troops to justify a command, it is wrong that Scottish Command should be demoted.
  What financial saving, will arise from the downgrading of Scottish Command? What loss will there be in civilian jobs through this change? It seems incongruous, now that more Scottish troops are returning, that this command should be downgraded. I press the Minister to reconsider this decision and warn him that Scotland will not take this decision lying down.
  10.9 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will excuse my voice, which I lost earlier this evening and have only just recovered. I shall therefore speak very briefly.
  I want to draw attention to a subject which has not been mentioned so far. I refer to the work done by the universities in adult education in the Army. Many universities have an extra-mural department dealing with all three Services. They supply lecturers and teachers to teach all kinds of scientific subjects and liberal studies. But, much more important, they encourage the scientific study of strategy. This is very valuable, particularly for senior officers. Soldiering is now so technical, scientific and complicated that, unless Regular senior officers are kept up-to-date with the overall aims of strategy, they soon get out of touch with strategic realities. I emphasise this side of the work, therefore, as a valuable effort which should be deepened and, where possible, greatly expanded.
  It would be a great mistake if this work were thought valuable only for senior officers. It should be open to all ranks. All ranks should have some understanding of overall strategic problems and how the Government see them so that they can discuss them with people in other fields. I understand from reports produced by the various extramural departments that it is the practice also to encourage Departments such as
  1186
  the Ministry of Defence and Foreign Office to send their people to join seminars so that one has at the same time the experience of the serving soldier as well as that of the civil servants in the Departments. I hope that this, too, will be encouraged.
  There is another aspect of education in the Army which is of great value. There comes a time when every soldier feels that the step into civilian life will be tricky for him. He is more likely to think this at a time such as the present when there are changes going on. This is not just a question of personal confidence, though I am fairly sure that this arises, but of preparing the individual soldier for civilian life.
  We have something to learn here from experience in the German Army. Admittedly, that is a conscript army, but the German practice has some relevance to what we should do. The German Army provides vocational training for soldiers so that they learn trades which are useful in civilian life. I am not suggesting that there are no jobs in the Army related to civilian life. There are many Army trades plainly relevant to civilian life, of course, but I hope that this aspect of the matter will be considered closely so that people who sign on in the Army are given apprentice training and proper master's certificates which enable them, when they leave the Army and return to civilian life, to be an asset to the country industrially.
  I put those two points to the Minister, and I hope that he will tell us something about how the Government see the work of the extra-mural departments of the universities in relation to adult education in the Services.
  10.14 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Before I come to my own speech, may I say how very much I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) about the future of Greenwich College. This is a decision which the Government have been considering, and it must have been very much a knife-edge decision as to whether it should go one way or another. We all understand that. But I put it to the Minister responsible that, if he decided to remove the Services altogether from Greenwich, this

  1187
  would be looked upon by people in the Services as a gratuitous insult, taking them away from what is the finest group of buildings in all Europe. By common consent, it is a magnificent group of buildings, with which the Services have been associated in one way or another over the centuries. I beg him to look upon the matter again if the decision is, as I believe, finely balanced.
  The debate has been unusual for me because, for just a few moments, I found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who has unfortunately just left the Chamber. I agreed with him when he paid tribute to the value of the police in this country. We all recognise that, but it is no good having law and order at home if we abdicate to anarchy in those parts of the world where we still have residual responsibilities.
  In my constituency we have a considerable number of military establishments. We have the Royal Army Pay Corps with its computer unit, which has been discussed by several Members on both sides in the debate, and it is a very impressive set-up which is very typical of the modern Army. We have the Army Air Corps at Middle Wallop, where intensive and advanced training is done with fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. We have the Green Jackets depôt in Winchester and the Royal Hampshires, whose reputation stands very high in the Territorial Army.
  When I survey the cumulative amount of Regular Army personnel and volunteer effort involved in just those four establishments, I come to the big point I want to make I ask the Government to look at the value of our Armed Forces in the right perspective. The theme running through most of the speeches from this side of the House has been that the savings which the Secretary of State hopes to make are chickenfeed compared with total Government expenditure. Let us hold up our heads as a nation, look at the matter in the right perspective and not moan to our friends and allies that a Socialist Government made us so broke that we cannot afford to pay for our share of peace-keeping.
  The subject of Malta is to some extent sub judice, because I understand that discussions between the two Governments
  1188
  are still going on in London. Has the Secretary of State considered the strategic side of the problem anew, as he implied that he would the other day? I am sure that everybody on both sides of the House agrees that British battalions cannot be permanently deployed around the world in this place or the other just to bolster up, perhaps temporarily, the economy of the country in which they are stationed. That is not a valid argument. But there are valid strategic arguments on Malta. Malta secures the right flank of N.A.T.O., and it is an essential base if we are to have a creditable defence agreement with Libya which the Libyans will regard as a reasonable bet. It is often forgotten in this context that we have the defence agreement with Malta herself. Several speakers have mentioned the possibility of a Mediterranean Cuba situation arising if Malta should get into the wrong hands.
  There is also the point about training areas, which have been much discussed in the debate. Malta is a valuable training area for all three Services. There is the acclimatisation point, because the whole concept of the Secretary of State's air transportable army does not take sufficient account of the fact that if men are flown suddenly from the United Kingdom to the Mediterranean or tropical areas they will be useless for the first few vitally important days.
  Malta is and always has been the linchpin to the command of the Mediterranean. So I ask the Secretary of State whether he will consider placing two battalions of the strategic reserve in Malta? This has been mentioned by other hon. Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). Will the Secretary of State station two battalions there as if it were part of the home base and an extension of Salisbury Plain? If this were done, everyone would be happy, the Maltese would be happy, our troops would be happy, their families would be happy, the poor old British taxpayer would be happy, and I do not see why the Secretary of State should not be happy.
  That was a large point and I now raise a small point. It is about the peaceful use of military forces, known by the Ministry of Defence as "P.U.M.F.". Many hon. Members have asked for more

  1189
  information about P.U.M.F., but we have had astonishingly little from the Front Bench opposite. It is an astounding concept. I do not understand it and I do not think any hon. Member on either side of the House understands it. Will the Secretary of State tell us what this means?
  I turn to the Army in the Far East. A great deal has been said about this and sometimes you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have called hon. Members to order when they were discussing the strategic concept in the Far East. I wish to speak about the Army in the Far East. We must not forget the war against Communist insurgency in Malaysia from 1948 to 1960. Confrontation has been mentioned, but
  I do not think the Malaysian campaign has been mentioned. It has been typical of the peace-keeping we have had to do in the past, and it would be a very brave man who said that we would never have to do it in the future. To look at this in its right perspective we should remember that it was the only time that the Communist Powers have taken us on militarily at a time of their own choosing and on ground of their own choosing and have been thoroughly seen off. It has been the most significant event in the history of the Far East.
  Do not let us deprive ourselves and our children of the means to look after ourselves in the wicked world in which we still live.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. William Baxter: Time does not permit me to give a resumé of my opinion on the Army Estimates, so I shall devote the two minutes at my disposal to dealing with a more or less constituency problem. Most hon. Members have paid great tribute to the prowess, bravery and tenacity of purpose of the men in our Armed Services, but among those who have been in our services, the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are as good as, if not better than, most. There is no doubt that they
  1190
  have been exceptional in carrying out their duties and responsibilities.
  I raise this matter because last night I attended a service in Haggs Parish Church where the band of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders Territorial Army Division gave its last performance before being disbanded. The problem which has arisen has been because of the loyalty of those individuals who were the only band or group of people who enlisted en bloc in the Territorial Army Association way back in 1955 to give the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders a band of its own. The band was known at that time as the Bonnybridge and District Pipe Band.
  Now it has been disbanded. During the period when it was associated with the Territorial Army its canteen facilities, dances and so on made a considerable profit for the Territorial Army Association—of approximately £2,000. Now that it has been disbanded it unfortunately is not being permitted to get that £2,000 from the Territorial Army Association. I appeal to my right hon. Friend that he should be generous in this respect and show a very good spirit to these men who have served so well. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seriously consider my plea that the money which this band has raised should be handed back to it to help the band to continue in civilian life.
  I am told that in Bonnybridge there is a little hall which the band has used for many years as a place in which to practise. It is of no further use to the Territorial Army Association and it would be a great pity if the band had to give it up. It would give great pleasure to me and be an act of great generosity by my right hon. Friend and would make very little difference to the Army Estimates if he gave this £2,000 to the men who have done so well by their country and if he permitted them to have this little hall to carry on in their civilian capacity.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) for piping me in so briefly and so cheerfully.
  This at times has seemed to be a rather Parkinsonian debate in that it might have been designed to illustrate Parkinson's Law that the number of speakers expands to fill the time available. It was opened by the Under-Secretary in an often interesting and informative speech which has been referred to as of being of a nuts and bolts character, though it was disappointing that he did not seem to be informed on one or two questions, not very recondite, which were put to him. But it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) who, in a most valuable speech, carried the debate to a much higher level and who set its tone.
  Mr. Archie Manuel: Unusual for him.
  Mr. Powell: I was about to say that I was rather shocked by the levity with which it was greeted by the Secretary of State when my hon. Friend trenched upon some of the deepest questions which have to be decided in this country's defence policy. It was a levity which ill-matched the responsibility which the right hon. Gentleman bears.
  My hon. Friend sounded the note, which has been frequently repeated throughout the debate, of anxiety and uncertainty as to the whole rôle and future of the British Army. It is not surprising that there should be that anxiety and uncertainty, because we have had a White Paper which has simply told us that we must now await the outcome of various discussions before knowing "the shape and size of our defence forces in the 1970s" and referring to the intention to "cut supporting services … as reductions are made in the combat forces".
  The evident embarrassment and insincerity of the Government on a number of matters relating to the future size of the Army were bound to intensify this anxiety and suspicion. For example, there is the question of the accommodation of troops returning to this country.
  1192
  In that period of fret and bluster last July, when we were to bring back the troops from the Continent in a matter of weeks if not days, the public was told by the Ministry of Defence that there were 14 camps on a care and maintenance basis, earmarked—that was the word—for an eventuality such as this.
  That was last July, but when last week I asked the Minister of Defence (Administration) about those 14 camps, he told me that they had
  "now been included in a larger list of camps to meet planned withdrawals as a result of the Defence Review as well as possible withdrawals from B.A.O.R."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 154.]
  It is perfectly obvious that most of this accommodation is being used, and will be required, for the Defence Review withdrawals, as they are called, alone. It was a piece of bluff last July.
  It is a vast operation on which the Government are engaged, to accommodating the 30,000 troops which they expect to bring back from outside Europe. It is an operation for which we have not had the slightest suspicion of a costing. We have been told that it is the equivalent of producing a whole new town, but the question which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) put, as to what was to be the cost of this new town has so far not been answered. Yet this concerns only the Defence Review withdrawals.
  It must raise a question in one's mind and is bound to excite suspicion when it is realised that, in addition to all this, would come at least an equal operation, if not a greater one, if substantial withdrawals were to be made from B.A.O.R., and if those troops were retained in the Services and not disbanded.
  Then there was the matter of training ground. In March, 1965, the Minister of Defence (Administration) said:
  "We are desperately short of land where tracked vehicles can manoeuvre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 195.]
  This was a very forthright statement, and after a time we started to inquire what had been done to meet this desperate shortage of land where tracked vehicles could manoeuvre. In the debate last week the hon. Member attempted to say that everything was alright for the time being

  1193
  because of a reduction in the size of the Territorial Army.
  When I challenged him and asked, did he really mean that the reduction in the size of the Territorial Army had met the deficiency of land for training with tracked vehicles, he said, quite candidly:
  "To a slight extent that has happened,…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 216.]
  To a slight extent. Of course, this is an enormous problem, a problem to which the Government have not yet seriously addressed themselves, how training land, particularly for tracked vehicles, could be found if substantial forces were to be brought back to this country from the continent and retained with the Colours. They would need training land on which not only units, but whole formations can manoeuvre, formations including armour as well as infantry.
  It was in this connection, the question of availability of training land, that the hon. Gentleman twice used his significant
  "if."
  "if"—
  he said—
  "it is necessary … to bring troops back from Germany, and if"—
  a further condition—
  "such troops remain assigned to N.A.T.O.… then there will have to be training land for them, including the armoured formations."
  and again:
  "We would probably require additional land for tracked vehicle training if these troops come back from Germany and remain assigned to N.A.T.O.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 216.]
  It is impossible to listen to that repeated hypothesis on the part of the Government without realising that this great threatened operation has barely been considered by the Government in its practical bearings—unless, of course, it is to be coupled, and there are all these indications that it is, with a reduction in the size of the British Army as a whole.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State asked in an intervention this afternoon where, in the matter of bringing forces from the Continent to this country, did this party stand? The answer has been given repeatedly, and I will give it again. In the first place, we are resolutely opposed to any unilateral decision by this country to
  1194
  withdraw troops from the Continent. In the second place, we do not believe that the strength of British forces on the continent ought to be determined by short-term foreign exchange considerations, especially when we are entering upon a year in which—the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, a day or two ago—we shall have a surplus on our balance of payments sufficient to make massive repayments of debt. Finally, we believe that this is a matter which must be decided with our allies, upon a long and profound view, both of the military and political implications.
  This brings me to the great central question which seems to dwarf all others in the field of defence. I raise it particularly within the framework of the Army Estimates and the manpower Vote, for though the answer which is given to this question must affect profoundly the future of all three Services, its effect upon the future of the British Army is beyond all comparison far reaching.
  Mr. Healey: With respect, the question I put to his hon. Friend referred not to possible withdrawals from Germany, but to the withdrawals already planned from outside Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "No.") Oh, yes. His hon. Friend was arguing that the cost of accommodating those people would offset the savings. The question I asked him was, was he in favour of moving those people outside Europe back to the United Kingdom or not? We have not had an answer to that question yet.
  Mr. Powell: It appears from the sounds from behind me and elsewhere that my recollection is not the only one that it was the issue of the size of B.A.O.R. on which that question was put. However, this can be settled when we look up the record.
  I am referring to what I may perhaps for convenience call "the nuclear assumption". Stated in bald terms, this assumption is that there can never again be a war which threatens the safety of this nation, because if such a war were ever to commence it must speedily be terminated by the inconceivable catastrophe of the nuclear exchange. To accept this assumption is to take a decision of the utmóst gravity for the future of our country. For if our military preparations were based on it—and logically they must

  1195
  be, if it is accepted—then, in the event of its proving to be wrong, we should have thrown away the means of rational self-defence and stand, like Wolsey, "naked to our enemies".
  It would be the ultimate, unforgivable miscalculation, and an awe-inspiring responsibility is entailed upon those who accept this assumption. Clearly, it is the duty of us all not only anxiously to examine and re-examine it, but to give the benefit of any doubt rather against than for it. It is in this spirit and with that sense of responsibility that I want to challenge the sway of the nuclear assumption tonight.
  The assumption is accepted by the Government:
  "It is difficult to believe"—
  they say in the White Paper—
  "that any rational government … would reckon to achieve by the use of force against Western Europe any political objective whose value would be remotely commensurate with the appalling risks".
  That is, the risks of going nuclear. In the Minister's words,
  "… a Western nuclear response to deliberate aggression in Europe is inevitable…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 113.]
  Inevitable—that is his word. Hence the only war, in the ordinary sense of the word "war", for which we have ever to be prepared is the brief pre-nuclear phase of a few days or even a few hours. That is why, for instance, the White Paper says that
  "it is no longer realistic … to attempt to provide maritime forces for conducting a prolonged war at sea after a nuclear exchange"
  dismissing as non-existent the possibility of a prolonged war at sea without a nuclear exchange or before a nuclear exchange.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the nuclear assumption—
  Mr. Powell: I think that I am going to take most of the questions which the hon. Gentleman would think of putting to me. I shall be on the nuclear assumption for the next 20 minutes, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient.
  No wonder that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), with his octogenarian common
  1196
  sense, pointed out last Monday that in this case one needed very few forces at all.
  In my submission, this assumption is untenable, and is only, in modern dress, our old friend, the hoary, perilous delusion that "There will never be another war", which those of my generation remember having heard before, just as we remember two wars that were going to be "over by Christmas" because a long war was supposed to be no longer possible. The first one lasted four-and-a-quarter years, and the second lasted six years.
  But let me, at the outset, identify if I can as many areas of agreement as possible before I come to the difference. First, I accept that as long as nuclear weapons exist, there is always a possibility that they will be used at some stage in a conflict. I do not see how this can be denied. If the nuclear assumption asserted no more than that—that is, that the possibility of the nuclear exchange cannot be excluded—I would have no quarrel with it. Secondly, I accept as self-evident that the existence of nuclear weapons other than one's own is a deterrent to using them. In the words of Part II of last year's Defence White Paper,
  "… the nuclear strategic forces exist to deter any nation from mounting a nuclear against ourselves or our allies. To achieve this, the nuclear forces must be seen to be able to inflict an unacceptable degree of damage on any nation contemplating a nuclear attack."
  Notice the careful, and in my view logically correct, insertion each time of the word "nuclear". Whoever drafted those sentences might well have had in mind Sir Basil Liddell Hart's dictum that the nuclear weapon is a deterrent to nuclear war but not to war.
  Here I part company with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) at that point of his important argument on the Navy Estimates last Wednesday when he dismissed the British Polaris fleet as void of effect because of its relatively small scale. Certainly no deterrent is absolute; but I suggest that if in August, 1945, Japan had been known or even suspected to possess and to be able to deliver a fraction of the atomic power of the allies, the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would very likely never have happened. However the efficacy of nuclear weapons to deter nuclear war and the worth-whileness of Britain's nuclear weapons for this purpose is

  1197
  common ground with the Government, if not with their so-called supporters.
  Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman said that nuclear weapons never deter conventional war. Does he suggest that if Nasser had had nuclear weapons, Suez would have taken place?
  Mr. Powell: I am about to deal with the question whether nuclear weapons deter non-nuclear war. I have admitted so far, and I accept, that they are a probable and valid deterrent to nuclear war.
  Finally, before I come to the point to which the hon. Member sought to bring me, I go further, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no significant hurdle between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons, to use those horribly inappropriate adjectives. As he said last week:
  "within days of starting to use nuclear weapons, organised warfare would become impossible." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 111.]
  In other words, I accept, as he does, if not the inevitability, the high probability of nuclear escalation. Once you go nuclear at all, you go nuclear for good; and you know it.
  Here is the parting of the ways, for from this point two opposite conclusions can be drawn. One is that therefore there can never again be serious war of any duration between Western nations, including Russia—in particular, that there can never again be serious war on the Continent of Europe or the waters around it, which an enemy must master in order to threaten Britain. That is the Government's position.
  The other conclusion, therefore, is that resort is most unlikely to be had to nuclear weapons at all, but that war could nevertheless develop as if they did not exist, except of course that it would be so conducted as to minimise any possibility of misapprehension that the use of nuclear weapons was imminent or had begun.
  The crucial question is whether there is any stage of a European war at which any nation would choose self-annihiliation in preference to prolonging the struggle. The Secretary of State says, "Yes, the loser or likely loser would almost instantly choose self-annihilia-
  1198
  tion." I say, "No. The probability, though not the certainty, but surely at least the possibility, is that no such point would come, whatever the course of the conflict."
  The right hon. Gentleman has expressed the core of his argument in those two terrifying sentences to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) devoted a brief but trenchant analysis last week. I must read them again:
  "… there is no country on the Continent",
  said the right hon. Gentleman,
  "which does not believe that a prolonged conventional war would inflict damage on it quite as difficult to bear as the damage resulting from a strategic nuclear exchange. This is not an option which any of our European allies has the slightest intention of accepting."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 112.]
  Those are the right hon. Gentleman's words. In other words, every European nation has resolved to choose nuclear annihilation rather than fight to win or lose.
  Mr. Healey: No.
  Mr. Powell: Let me translate that into terms of a real situation which we all remember. Suppose that in September, 1939, all parties had possessed whatever nuclear capability one chooses but that otherwise everything was as it was in reality. I ask, would Reynaud, in June, 1940, have destroyed his country? Would Churchill have destroyed ours in September, 1940, if the Battle of Britain had failed to deny the Channel to the invasion barges?
  If that seems to be making it too easy, take Poland in 1939. Would the Poles, even if they had foreseen the years of crucifixion which lay before them, have chosen rather not to exist? In all these cases the answer, I believe, is "No, in all human probability not." If so, it follows that as reasonable beings we have to be prepared to fight for our country, not despair of it and make ready to destroy it. In making and being seen to make preparations to fight with reasonable prospect of survival and victory lies the longest hope of peace.
  To those who argue as I have just done, two great objections are always made. One is that no such European war is in prospect; that in the words of the White Paper, "Though it is not,

  1199
  perhaps, inconceivable that because of some fundamental change in the world situation the threat to Western Europe might revive, such a change is most unlikely to develop overnight".
  Very likely. We are not today, to use analogy, at 1935, let alone 1937 or 1939. But there is a relativity which is vital to all thinking about defence. It is that political circumstances can change, and the assumptions of foreign policy can be stood on their heads, in a much shorter time than is required to gain a new military capability or to regain an existing one which has been lost. If we were to dispossess ourselves of the capability of fighting a conventional war for the safety of these islands and Western Europe, we might not be in a position to acquire it again once a specific threat became unmistakable.
  Mr. Healey: I should like the right hon. Gentleman to make clear to the House and the country whether he believes, therefore, that the British Government should prepare itself to fight and win a purely conventional war in Europe.
  Mr. Powell: I will not leave that point undealt with.
  Mr. Healey: Answer my question, "yes" or "no", now.
  Mr. Powell: This is my speech. I will make it in my own time and in my own order.
  As I was saying, this is the reason why those hon. Gentlemen opposite are so mistaken and so dangerous who demand imperiously to be told who is the enemy before they will consent to a defensive capability being required or maintained.
  There is, moreover, a certain relationship of cause and effect. The declaration, as a matter of settled policy, that a nation does not contemplate defending itself otherwise than in the sense of committing suicide is bound to affect the balance of power of which that nation is a part. I adopt some wise words spoken last week by the Foreign Secretary, they contain a sentiment expressed by a number of my hon. Friends, and I commend to the House the whole passage in which they appear. He said:
  "We cannot leave Central European countries to face by themselves the problems they
  1200
  have had to face before. So long as we and the United States are there in sufficient strength, some of the things which we all of us think dangerous—even disastrous—will not happen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 288.]
  As we learnt between 1918 and 1939, mortal danger to a nation does not arise suddenly like a summer thunderstorm. It creeps upon it, stealthily, by gradual stages, at none of which extreme measures appear either necessary or justified—until, at last, simply because we had rested our safety upon the theoretical alternative of no war or the nuclear exchange, we might find ourselves one day faced with that very alternative in practice; and be forced to resolve it by choosing surrender.
  I come to the other objection, in which the right hon. Gentleman sought to anticipate me. It is alleged that to provide the reasonable means to defend ourselves and Western Europe, along with our allies, in a perhaps prolonged conventional war would be altogether beyond our capability or, at least, beyond our will. There are several fallacies in this argument, all rolled up together.
  It is true that the nuclear assumption is the cheapest form of defence ever thought of. Taken literally, it makes it possible to dispense with the great bulk of all military forces and preparations other than nuclear. It is, of course, cheaper still if, like some hon. Gentlemen opposite, one is prepared to leave even that to somebody else. But whereas between two courses of action within our own control we are entitled, if we wish, to choose the cheaper, we are not entitled to choose the cheaper of two assumptions about the future course of events and the behaviour of others. There we dare take only reason and probability for our guide, for there is no ground for supposing that what is cheap and convenient for us is therefore probable.
  Of course, if it were true that it would be quite beyond our capability to fight a European war with any rational chance of victory, then that might have to be accepted. But what reason is there for supposing that to be true? There is no such inferiority either of industrial capacity or of manpower on the part of Britain and any likely combination of allies, compared with any likely combination of enemies, as to make the contest a priori unsustainable, especially if

  1201
  we take into account the degree of superiority which it is generally considered necessary for a successful aggressor to possess.
  It may indeed be that the prevent conventional forces in Europe, of the present North Atlantic Alliance, are not capable of defeating an aggression by the Warsaw Pact Powers, though even this is by no means as self-evident nor so firmly held by professional opinion as is commonly supposed; but that is not what the argument requires. The Government themselves regard such an aggression as far from imminent. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if Soviet policy
  "… were to change, all sorts of political indications that a change was under way would reach the West long before military intelligence was received on the physical movements of forces which must precede aggression."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, col. 111.]
  What the argument does require is that we should have the ability, by the time such aggression was mounted, to oppose to it, with our allies, such forces as might have a rational prospect of eventual victory.
  For the Service whose Estimates are before the House that means, to adopt a famous phrase from naval theory, that Britain must have "an army in being," an army equal in armament, training and philosophy to any other in Europe, and of such dimensions and structure, and supported by such reserves, as to be able, and to be seen to be able, to play an important and continuing part in Continental warfare; a part which would make it the cement and fulcrum of the indispensable alliance.
  If there is to be a British Army in the years to come—and I confess I cannot conceive that a nation such as ours in size, position and potential could be without a substantial military capability on land then to be such "an army in being" must be its raison d'être and its principal purpose.
  I sometimes think that the magnitude of the reorientation which lies before the British Army, far beyond what is imposed on either of the other Services, is rarely grasped. It has been concealed from us in the last 20 years by the very existence of B.A.O.R. and N.A.T.O as they emerged, without a decisive break, from the circumstances in which the last
  1202
  war terminated. This has enabled us to forget that in 1939 there were 46,000 British soldiers in India, large numbers in Egypt and the Far East, as well as in garrisons east and west right round the world. The British Army was then, as it had been for the greater part of two centuries—except when we were fighting for our lives—a colonial or imperial army, with the establishments in Europe serving to recruit, train, reinforce and relieve it.
  That Army has gone for ever. On any possible view, the proportion of British troops outside Europe in a few years' time will be only a minority. There has to be a new basis, a new concept of what the Army is about, a new main purpose. This main purpose can only be to provide such "an army in being" as I have defined for the defence of Britain in Western Europe. From that main purpose all else—organisation, training, location, reserves—will fall logically to be derived.
  But there is an underlying prior decision which has to be taken first—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes rose—
  Mr. Powell: —it is a question which the hon. Member and I resolve in an opposite sense—whether we intend to be able to defend ourselves at all, in the rational, human sense of that term. That is why it is vital that the issue of nuclear assumption, which denies alike the possibility, the desirability and the necessity of rational defence, should be fought through to a finish. On the rightness of our answer may hang not only the future of the British Army, but the existence of the nation.
  10.58 p.m.
  Minister of Defence (Administration) (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I was interested to hear hon. Members opposite cheer at the declaration that we shall come out of everywhere east of Suez. I was also interested that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in his opening remarks, rather lowered the tone of the debate by criticising my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army for not knowing the answer to the couple of questions which he allowed someone to interject into his speech, yet the right hon. Gentleman did not allow us to know whether he knew the answers or not. He did not give way when hon. Members wanted to get up.

  1203
  A large number of points have been raised during the debate, and I shall endeavour to answer them, and then try to deal with some of the general points which were raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and those raised earlier by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw).
  First, there was a reference to training land in this country if it was necessary to bring troops back from B.A.O.R. As I said last Monday, if they remained assigned to N.A.T.O. we would require additional land for track training. There is no contradiction with what I said then, and what I repeat now, and the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which were quoted by both speakers on the Front Bench opposite, about the need to maintain a military presence both of the United States and the United Kingdom in N.A.T.O. and in Europe.
  I said that this would apply only if we withdrew troops from Germany, and, as the House is aware, we have not made a decision on that. I said that it would apply only if these troops remained assigned to N.A.T.O., but it has to be remembered that N.A.T.O. is looking at the strength levels required in Europe to meet the occasional threat there. So the two "ifs" that I used were deliberate, and I will stick by them.
  With regard to possible German withdrawals, we state in paragraph 18 of Chapter I of the White paper that accommodation is being prepared in Britain in case it proves necessary to reduce the level of our forces in Germany. We are starting these preparations in 16 separate barrack complexes. Hon. Gentlemen continually ask where they are. I occasionally receive letters from them advocating the desirability of locating them in their constituencies and sending the troops there. It all seems rather odd. They complain in the House about us bringing troops back from abroad, and then they ask that they should be sent to their constituencies where there are good barracks, and presumably the shopkeepers and businessmen are waiting for them.
  We are preparing 16 barrack complexes, throughout the country, in Perth, Edinburgh, Catterick, Barnard Castle,
  1204
  Scarborough, Ripon, North Weald, Pembroke, Crowborough and Warminster. Some of them will be in Scotland, and, as with the Defence Review withdrawals, all the necessary works will be carried out in two phases. Phase I will consist of the essential "get you in" services to make sure that all the facilities that are necessary are there, followed by phase II services which will provide any necessary additional amenities not available in the camp at the time.
  This work has been earmarked and contracts are being prepared, and I assure the House that if it is necessary to withdraw troops from Germany we know by what dates these various barracks will be available, and the rephasing or redeployment of the troops will in the main be linked to the dates on which the barracks will be available for them to move into.
  Steps are being taken in the areas where the barracks have been identified to begin acquiring a further 4,000 houses as married quarters, and I am certain that by the several means I mentioned last Monday we shall be able to provide the married quarters which will be required if these units come back.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) has left the Chamber. He asked questions about the pipe band. The funds belonging to the pipe band will be trust funds, and will have to be dealt with under the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act and the various laws relating to trusts in Scotland, which are different from those in England.
  With regard to the T.A. hall, as with all other T.A. halls which are surplus, it will be offered to other Government Departments. If there is no other Government use for it, it will be offered in the first instance to the local authorities in the area, and if the local authorities do not require it it will be available for public auction as a last resort. My hon. Friend has often called for a reduction in military expenditure. There is no hope whatsoever of handing over this hall free of charge to his pipe band. It must play its part in securing income to set against the military expenditure which my hon. Friend has criticised on many occasions, and in respect of which I believe he abstained from voting the other night.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of housing troops returning from overseas, may I ask whether he will consider introducing legislation to help Servicemen who return from abroad to gain possession of their own houses without having to get a court order to do so?
  Mr. Reynolds: Special provision was made in the Rent Act in respect of married soldiers and other persons working in Government and diplomatic services overseas if they were in this position. If the hon. and gallant Member knows of any specific cases in which this provision has not been of use perhaps he will get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Provided a place has been let in a way which applies under the provisions of the Act it should not be difficult for people in this position to get the accommodation they require.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) asked whether the money shown in respect of light aircraft in the Estimates was for fixed-wing aircraft as well as helicopters. The amount covers the purchase during the coming year of Beavers—fixed-wing aircraft—as well as Sioux and Scout helicopters.
  The hon. Member also asked whether returning troops would go to traditional areas, and was particularly concerned with Scotland. They will go to traditional areas, because they will be moving into existing barracks which are being prepared at present to receive them. As for Scottish Command, he regretted that the decision was not announced in the House. I was intending to announce it in my speech in the defence debate last Monday evening, but I had only 22 minutes in which to speak and I was not able to get the announcement in. That part of my speech had been given to newspapers, particularly in Scotland and the West Country, earlier, with a time embargo for 10 o'clock, and by the time I sat down it was not possible to prevent the announcement appearing. I can assure the hon. Member that it was intended to be announced in the House.
  The hon. Member objected to the demotion of Scottish Command tó an independent district in Scotland. He must remember that we are setting up a new
  1206
  command structure for all three Services, which will provide a new operational command which will be responsible for the bulk of the units in the United Kingdom, including those in Scóotland. Once these units come under the operational command, situated in Salisbury, with the increased number of troops in the United Kingdom because of the Defence Review and possible B.A.O.R. withdrawals, it will no longer justify our maintaining Scotland's status as a cóommand in its own right, and from 1st April, 1968, it will become an independent district, responsible direct to the Ministry of Defence. There will still be a general for Edinburgh and the Castle, although we have not yet decided what rank he will be.
  The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) asked me once again—as I have been asked many times in the last few months, both inside and outside the House—what equipment would be provided for T. and A.V.R. 3 home defence units. These units will be given the rifles and the equipment necessary for their primary operational rôle, which is to assist the police and civil powers in the event of war in Europe. In the vast majority of cases T. and A.V.R. 3 units, by working with T. and A.V.R. 2 units, will be able to get good value for their training, and do most of the things they want to do.
  The hon. Member also accused me of misleading the House about Fort George. I had said that a fair amount of money had been spent on this whilst the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) had been Minister of Defence for the Army. He read out figures—£7,000 in one year and £23,000 in another, which was the year I was referring to, and he said that £160,000 was being spent now. I said the other day that I had visited Fort George to see what the accommodation was like, and that it had been obvious to me that if it was to become a permanent barracks it would need a new N.A.A.F.I., a new kitchen and new dining rooms and other facilities.
  Strange though it may seem for a building erected in 1750, the accommodation was suitable for four men in a room. No doubt when it was erected it held many more men per room, but there is now good accommodation for

  1207
  four in a room. We are also purchasing 108 married quarters adjacent which should be available in October this year.
  Mr. Allason: The hon. Member did mislead the House. He referred to the amount of money spent on Fort George and mentioned the sum of £22,000 spent as part of the cost of preserving the fort itself as a historic building.
  Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman is referring not to what I said, but to what was said, I think, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works in reply to a Question. I said that a considerable amount of money was spent on it, and, of course, all money spent on military property goes on the Ministry of Public Building and Works Vote. The £23,000 spent on that occasion was spent partly to preserve the building; it has given us a building in good condition for barracks. If the hon. Gentleman would like to go and see it, I should be only too pleased to arrange for him to do so. I do not think he will be disappointed by what he sees there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), in an interesting speech covering his own experience, asked whether it was possible for officer cadets, including those from the ranks, to have free choice of the regiment into which they could go. My answer here applies also to the question asked by the hon. Member for Stroud about the new junior regiment at Shorncliffe. One must first take into consideration the needs of the Army and where the vacancies are. Officers and soldiers must serve where they are needed, in the regiments which have vacancies, but they are able to state a preference for the units they want. These preferences are taken into account, especially where there are family connections. This is the position when a man wants to join the Army at present. Where possible, we always give weight to the preference expressed by an officer or soldier for the regiment in which he wants to serve.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said that, with large numbers of soldiers coming to the United Kingdom under the Defence Review withdrawals and possible withdrawals from B.A.O.R., there could
  1208
  be problems for local education authorities in the areas to which they were moved. This is a fair point. As regards the hon. Lady's own area, I shall take her suggestion and write to her to give details of what is happening there.
  I must make the point in this connection—it seems to be forgotten by many local authorities—that by making a contribution in lieu of rates the Army and, for that matter, the other Services contribute a large amount to local authority revenues every year. It is not, so to speak, a dead loss to the local authority to have units moving into empty barracks in its area. Money will come in. There are some local authorities, notably in counties surrounding London, which have had to cope with the problem of expanding towns and new towns, with the consequent education problems put on their plate. We shall do our best to make sure that local authorities are given the maximum possible notice of units coming into their area and of the occupation of a large number of married quarters so that they can knit their plans into the returning dates of the troops.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) criticised Vote 4 and said that there were too many civilians; and also criticised the number of civilians employed by the Army in the United Kingdom, the Far East and B.A.O.R. Over the last 10 years, every possible effort has been made to civilianise Service jobs wherever possible. The more one civilianises jobs, the larger is the proportion of civilians supporting the actual teeth arm units. There has been a big move to civilianise jobs, so that there is now a large civilian element backing the Army not only in the United Kingdom, but in other parts of the world.
  We are at the moment investigating the possibility of more room for civilianisation of jobs of one kind or another because it is generally cheaper today to employ a civilian than a soldier. There are some jobs which must be done by a man in uniform not only for reasons of discipline but for other reasons, too. There are some jobs which must be done by soldiers because, if the same job is done by a soldier overseas, there must be a corresponding job for him in the United Kingdom; otherwise he will never be able to have a home posting.

  1209
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker), that we should cut the amount of advertising for recruits to the Army which is now being done. They argued that, if there was to be a reduction in the size of the Army, it was ridiculous to spend a lot of money on advertising to try to bring people in.
  The answer is that one needs young men in the Army whatever its size happens to be, and one has to keep on drawing young men in all the time. We cannot suddenly turn off the tap and say we do not want any more young men in for a few years. If we did that, we should end up with an ageing Army, and, of course, once having stopped trying to recruit, it would be very difficult to start again once we had got down to the appropriate level. Strange as it may seem, therefore, although there is a reduction in the number of Service men, we shall have to keep up the advertising and the recruiting momentum.
  The hon. Member for Woking asked about the Chieftain tank which is now coming into service with units in B.A.O.R. The 11th Hussars are already getting supplies of Chieftain tanks and the 17th/21st Lancers will be the next regiment in B.A.O.R. to receive them. By the end of April, 1968, we shall have 300 Chieftains in service in the Army. All tank regiments will have them by the early 1970s. They cost between £90,000 and £100,000 each, depending on what is in them and their various attachments. A regiment's worth, including initial spares, is about £5½ million.
  The hon. Member also asked whether we intended to buy any houses in his constituency. At the moment, there are no plans to buy houses in Aldershot. Whilst hon. Members criticise us for bringing the troops back, they seem anxious to have them in their constituencies.
  It is not our intention to use caravans for troops. except as a last resort for the Defence Review withdrawals. I think that I managed to get into my speech last Monday night that so far we had identified a need for only 20 mobile homes, but the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West did not seem to appreciate that there is a major difference between mobile homes and
  1210
  caravans. In the Defence Review withdrawals we shall need some caravans for temporary accommodation until married quarters are ready.
  Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I am neither anxious nor un-anxious to have troops and married quarters in my constituency. I want to know what consultations the Government will have with local authorities, and the consideration the Government are giving to the needs of the people not in the Services who want to buy homes of their own in constituencies affected.
  Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member is curious, and I am sure that his local paper will report that next week.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked what our troops were doing in Thailand and who was paying for them. A Royal Engineers squadron will be in Thailand throughout the whole of 1967 doing road work which will link up isolated villages, enabling Government services to reach them and the villagers to get produce from their fields to local market towns and improve the situation in their own area.
  The Thai Government pays for material, internal freight in Thailand and local labour. I believe that that is a straightforward "hearts and minds operation" of the type about which my hon. Friend asked for information. We are providing it as a service. It is the kind of work that I hope units of the Royal Engineers will be able to undertake in large numbers in various parts of the world once we have got rid of "stretch" in the Army. They are ideally equipped for that kind of work, and it is excellent training for their job, so long as no great additional cost falls on the military budget.
  Mr. Dalyell: To avoid misunderstandings, would it not be better if such work were put on the Ministry of Overseas Development Vote?
  Mr. Reynolds: I cannot think that we should be able to get it to take over the cost of soldiers' wages and equipment. The Department carries the extra cost of having a unit in Thailand compared with being in the base in Singapore. That is covered in the Ministry of Overseas Development Vote at present.

  1211
  The hon. Member for Stroud asked for details of anti-tank weapons, including Vigilant, Carl Gustaf and Wombat. Swingfire will be coming into service with units next year, and will give a long-range anti-tank capability to the Royal Armoured Corps. In atomic tactical weapons, we have the Honest John and the 8-in. howitzer, and we are watching development of the American weapon, Lance, and shall make a decision in due course.
  The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) asked why there was a sum in the Defence Votes to cover the cost of damage to vehicles and things of that nature. It is not the policy of the Government as a whole to insure against matters of that kind, except on the Vote of the Department concerned. In view of the miles covered by Army vehicles, I do not regard the amount of money he mentioned as excessive. Every effort is made to bring home to soldiers and other drivers of Army vehicles the need to be as careful as possible, because accidents cost the taxpayer a considerable amount.
  The hon. Member also wanted to know about the £650,000 needed to compensate for damage caused in training troops. In Germany, a great deal of training is done in military areas, where that type of damage is relatively small. A great deal of training also takes place on ordinary farmland and hon. Members who have seen an exercise involving a complete division of armoured vehicles moving across farmland will appreciate that the farmer has to be compensated for the damage done. It is alleged that some farmers used to guide vehicles so that they knocked off the corner of a building, so that the farmer could be entitled to compensation, but whatever the truth of that a few years ago, there is no truth in it now. However, the sum of £650,000 is provided for this purpose and such damage is inevitable when we use wide areas of agricultural land in Germany for training as soon as the harvest is gathered in. The land is torn up and we have to pay for damage caused.
  I was also asked about the £385 million worth of ammunition which, it was said, had been consumed over the last 20 years. That was the figure which the hon. Gentleman gave. I have not been
  1212
  able to check it and I have accepted the hon. Gentleman's figure. He listed some of the engagements in which it could have been used.
  The majority of this ammunition has not been consumed. Much of it is completely obsolete and has been dumped. Some of it, made in the years during or after the war, is no longer in service and has been sold or dumped in large quantities. For example. a considerable amount of 25-pounder ammunition was dumped in the Indian Ocean when we came out of Kenya and areas like that.
  A large amount of money has to be spent on making new ammunition, for instance, for the Chieftain with its own gun, the Abbot self-propelled gun, for the 175 mm. and 105 mm. American gun which is being or has been purchased and, of course, the 81 mm. mortar. We are still building up ammunition stocks, so that a considerable amount of money in the current year's estimates is for ammunition. We have been able to produce more during the last 12 months than in any comparable period for the last few years.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my hon. Friend tell us what is the cost of the Chieftain tank?
  Mr. Reynolds: I thought that I had answered that question. It is between £90,000 and £100,000, depending on exactly what is in the tank at any time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Colin Jackson) asked why we should not leave one sovereign base in Cyprus and make do with one. This was considered in the Defence Review, but the equipment and facilities of these twó areas are complementary to, rather than different from, each other, and we need some of the facilities of each area. It would cost a very large sum of money to try to provide all the facilities in either base, and it would be uneconomic to do so.
  I know that I have not replied to a number of questions which hon. Members have asked and I will endeavour to write to the hon. Members concerned.
  Sir J. Eden: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not have much time left, but I asked an impórtant question about the Government's intentions about the future cost and strength of the

  1213
  Brigade of Gurkhas. So far he has not mentioned the Gurkhas.
  Mr. Reynolds: I have that on the next sheet of my notes. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman will have to rely on a Written Answer, or I will write to him. In fact, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 7th December. There has been no change since then. We are proceeding with the rundown, which was originally agreed with the Government of Nepal by the Administration which the hon. Gentleman supported. That run-down is now being carried through by us.
  Sir J. Eden rose—
  Mr. Reynolds: I cannot give way; I have only six minutes left in which to deal with the general questions put to me by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and by the hon. Member for Stroud. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and if he does not like what I say in my letter, he can put down a Question and we can have a go at satisfying him.
  Sir J. Eden: An extraordinary idea of priorities.
  Mr. Reynolds: It probably is an extraordinary idea of priorities and it is possible that I should spend more time dealing with the size of the Brigade of Gurkhas and not waste time dealing with the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stroud, but the hon. Gentleman had better sort that out with his right hon. Friend and hon. Friend afterwards. That is not something with which I can deal at the moment.
  The hon. Member for Stroud criticised us strongly for contemplating withdrawing from Germany for Deutschmark reasons. That was his main concern, although I gathered the impression that he was against any kind of reductions in our forces in Germany. He also criticised us for preparing contingency plans for withdrawing from Germany. Those criticisms rather surprised me, because the hon. Gentleman supported a Government which over the course of about 10 years reduced our forces in Germany from 80,000 to 53,000. I find it difficult to understand why he should be criticising
  1214
  us at this moment when he supported a Government which carried out bigger withdrawals than those which we are contemplating.
  Then his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, went on to say that the assumption that there could only be a nuclear war in Europe was untenable. I think I am quoting him fairly, and, of course, the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government which produced the 1957 White Paper. He was, if I remember rightly, in the Treasury at that time, and it would not surprise me in the least if he was one of the Ministers who were putting pressure on the right hon. Gentleman, who nowadays usually manages to occupy the seat below the Gangway, and insisting that there should be cuts in expenditure on the Armed Forces and that the only way this could be done was the way proposed in the 1957 White Paper.
  This White Paper stated that the only existing safeguard against major aggression—and it did not say whether nuclear or conventional—was the power to threaten retaliation with nuclear weapons.
  The right hon. Gentleman was a senior member of the Government that produced that particular White Paper in 1957, and so was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint (Mr. Birch) who was cheering him on this evening and congratulating him on his speech on his way out of the Chamber afterwards, and some other hon. Members who cheered him after his speech.
  I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman has undergone this complete change round in his ideas. He did not give us any indication tonight that the situation had changed since 1957, and indeed I do not think that it has changed in this respect. He tells us we must have an Army equal to any other in Europe—
  Mr. Powell: In?
  Mr. Reynolds: Equal to any other in Europe.
  Mr. Powell: In training, equipment and philosophy, is what I said.
  Mr. Reynolds: In training, equipment and philosophy. Indeed the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to make out

  1215
  that we could fulfil the rôle he is talking about with a much smaller Army, but he did not say tonight how many extra men he wants us to have in the Army, how many more tanks at £5 million a Regiment, how many more 175 mm. and 155 mm. Abbot guns, and how much they are all going to cost; how many more bomber aircraft he wants in that Army to carry the conventional bombs, and how many more fighters he wants to protect us against conventional bombers in that Army.
  Nor has he told us how much it will cost to provide the extra ammunition, food and fuel that would be required if one was contemplating having a conventional war of that kind on the Continent.
  One other thing he has not told us today. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) urged during the defence debate that we should send British troops to Vietnam; he was speaking from the back benches then. A day or two later the hon. and gallant Member said from the Front Bench that we should use the Royal Navy to assist in the shelling of Vietnam. I am still waiting—and I have not heard yet—to see whether the statement made from the Front Bench by the hon. and gallant Member represents the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who speaks on defence for the Opposition.
  It is significant that today the right hon. Gentleman concentrated all his attention on the building up of our forces in Europe and said nothing about troops for Vietnam. I can only assume that he is disowning the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester on Monday and Wednesday of last week. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester should remember that it is one thing to speak from the back benches and put forward one's own personal ideas, but that it is quite a different thing to speak from the Front Bench for one's party. But we have had no withdrawal of what he said—
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: If the hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD, he will find that I said no such thing as he has just attributed to me.
  Mr. Reynolds: I think that what I have said is a fair portrayal of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West presumably means that he and the Tory Party disown the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am very glad of that.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 237,000, all ranks, be maintained for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of Her Majesty's Crown, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1968.

  SCIENTOLOGY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: It is my duty to bring to the attention of the House the case of a constituent of mine, Miss Henslow, and an organisation known as Scientology. The public have been hampered in its knowledge of scientology by the fact that so far as I can establish, on every occasion that the organisation has been named by a newspaper, that newspaper has been served with a writ of libel.
  Fortunately, my remarks and those of the Minister, who I am very glad to see in his place, are made under Parliamentary privilege, so that I hope that our words will be widely reported to allow the nature of this organisation to be understood for what it is. The effect of this organisation is that money is extracted from the weak, the credulous and the mentally and the techniques used are potentially, and in many cases, positively, harmful to the mental health of the community.
  The Minister will recall that I asked him on 5th December last if he would hold an inquiry into the practice known as scientology. The purpose of such an inquiry was to draw the attention of the public to the activities of that organisation, and if found to be harmful to pass legislation to ban it. The Minister replied that he had no doubt that scientology was totally valueless in promoting health, and that people seeking help with problems of mental health could gain

  1217
  nothing from the attentions of this organisation.
  That reply was quite unsatisfactory, for it completely ignored the considerable body of evidence that had been laid before him by myself and others, and the great weight of evidence produced by the State of Victoria Commission, upon the evil nature of this organisation. It is my purpose to bring this evidence to light and to challenge the Minister to say that it does not constitute a sufficient cause to hold an inquiry.
  It may be argued that to draw attention to scientology may be to attract sympathy, and that it might even draw more deluded people to it. That is arguable, but what would be quite inexcusable would be to allow great harm to come to some who are mentally ill, who would not have attended this organisation had they been aware of its real nature. That would be a responsibility which the Minister could not have shed as long as he lived.
  It is, therefore, necessary for me to state the facts of the case of Miss Henslow, my constituent, and I do so with the express permission of her mother, for she recognises that the harm that scientology can do to others far out-weights the pain she is forced to endure by a recital of the facts. Miss Henslow had for some years suffered from a manic depressive illness, which necessitated periods in Graylingwell Hospital. She made a considerable recovery, and was able to leave hospital on 26th July, 1962, and continued to receive treatment as an out-patient.
  In December, 1965, she met a man called Murray Youdell, a student scientologist at Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead. He persuaded her to apply for a job at that establishment, but she was not accepted until April or May, 1966, when she was accepted as a fee-paying student, during the evenings, and took lodgings in East Grinstead.
  Towards the end of June, Mrs. Henslow received a letter from her daughter which said that she found her mother
  "… suppressive to her, evaluates for her, invalidated her and was destroying her, that she did not wish to see her again and that from then onwards she did not exist for her".
  Mrs. Henslow was able to derive no
  1218
  comfort from the fact that another letter arrived by the same post in which her daughter said that the first letter was an error, and that she was the last person she wished to "disconnect" from.
  Miss Henslow visited her mother at her invitation in July, 1966, and Mrs. Henslow was horrified at her daughter's condition. There was worse to come. On 29th July, just before midnight, Mr. Youdell and another scientologist brought Miss Henslow to her mother's home, dressed only in a nightgown and coat, and in a completely deranged condition. As soon as Mr. Youdell and his companion had left, Miss Henslow flew out of the house and dashed down the the road, shouting at the top of her voice. Fortunately, she turned into the police station. The Chief Constable of West Sussex has since been good enough to give me a report of the incident, and tells me that Miss Henslow remained in a hysterical condition until 3 a.m. at which time she was given a sedative.
  Such a serious view was taken of Miss Henslow's condition that she was put under a supervision order for one year. I am happy to say that Miss Henslow has made some progress, but she is still far from being well. I hope that I have said enough to show incontrovertibly that Miss Henslow's present condition has been caused by her attendance at Saint Hill Manor. The Minister will be aware of another case, the details of which I have sent him, and which points to the same conclusion.
  But, above all, the Minister cannot ignore the evidence and the findings of the Anderson Commission on Scientology in the State of Victoria, which appeared in 1965 and which ran to about 200 pages. This report shows that scientology, or dianetics, is not just an organisation of cranks, or of people pretending to be cranks, trying to make money out of those who come under their spell. As the report says:
  "Scientology is evil; its techniques evil; its practice a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially; and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill."
  There can scarcely be anything more horrifying than the section in the report dealing with a demonstration session specially provided for the board making the report. Nine days after the demonstration the subject of the session was

  1219
  admitted as a patient to the care of the mental health authority, and, in the words of the report, the board had
  "witnessed this unfortunate woman being processed into insanity".
  The founder of the organisation known as Scientology is a Mr. Ron Hubbard, now aged 56. From 1930 to 1932, Hubbard was a student at the George Washington University, and claims to have been a graduate of that university in civil engineering, using the letters "B.S. and "C.E." after his name. In fact, he has no such qualification. He also claims to be a doctor of philosophy at the Sequoia University, Southern California, but that institution is not registered with the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which is the relevant accrediting body.
  Hubbard was—and is—a prolific writer of books of fiction, travel, science fiction and fantasy between 1932 and 1941. In 1950, he wrote his first major book on dianetics, entitled "Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health". Forthright claims have been made for dianetics, including one that they cure with certainty 70 per cent. of man's psychomatic illnesses. These have never been denied, and indeed, in a booklet entitled "Dianetics: the Evolution of a Science" the statement is made that information and advice on training and treatment may be obtained from the registrar. I must ask the Minister whether such a claim is not a direct contravention of the law. Certainly, Hubbard himself writing in April, 1960, said that dianetics contained a perfectly workable therapy and acted as a bridge between the uninformed and the informed public on the subject of scientology.
  The Anderson Commission reported that Hubbard's writings were the products of an unsound mind, and certainly his claims to have visited Venus and Heaven lend support to this view. Hubbard wrote a book called a "History of Man", published in 1952, and in it referred to the Piltdown Man in support of his theories. The fact that the Piltdown Man has since been exposed as a hoax has done nothing to alter these theories.
  Hubbard's theories may be considered harmless in themselves. The fact that his organisation has changed its name
  1220
  from dianetics to scientology, to the College of Scientology, and even to the Church of Scientology, should delude nobody into thinking that the practices are in any way different or any less harmful.
  The Anderson Commission reported the unsavoury, and indeed disgraceful methods by which people were induced to embark on a course of scientology: how, once they had embarked, it was impossible to break away, and the resulting financial consequences and damage to health; how harmful hypnotic procedures were used, and a great store of personal information filed away which would do great damage if it were ever released how family discords were provoked; how inquiry agents were set on the trail of those who opposed scientology, including even the member of the Victoria Legislative Council who raised the subject in that assembly.
  There is good reason to suppose that these harmful practices are being carried on in this country.
  I ask, therefore, that a full inquiry be held into the nature of this organisation and its practices. If scientology has nothing to hide, then it should welcome such an investigation. But I hope that the information which I have given, the tragic case of my constituent, Miss Henslow, and the fact that scientology has been ejected from both Victoria, and, I believe, Rhódesia, will persuade the Minister to hold an inquiry at the earliest possible date.
  I have one further point to make. Englishmen have another form of protection besides that of Parliament and the law. It is the Press. But the Minister must know that in this case the public will not have the protection of the Press once this debate is óver, because they are likely to be sued for libel if they publish anything about scientology. Thus, if he decides not to hold an inquiry he will have the sole responsibility of allowing what the Anderson Committee described as "an evil organisation" to grow and flourish. That is a responsibility from which he will never be released.
  11.41 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I realise the difficulty which faces the right hon. Gentleman. He is Minister of Health and the organisation

  1221
  which we are discussing now calls itself a church. I am sure that all of us agree that we should tolerate any and all religious beliefs in our democratic society, but to what extent we can tolerate the practices of self-styled religious organisations is quite a different matter. Unfortunately, for reasons of time I cannot pursue that now.
  I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that many open-minded people in the town of East Grinstead, whose judgment on matters of this kind one can trust, are seriously disturbed by the activities and objectives of this organisation known as Scientology. I have received information which would indicate that the case which we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) is not an isolated example, information which would add substance to the arguments which have been put forward.
  But we have to be scrupulously fair. Is this organisation, as it exists in England today, as fundamentally evil as the Victoria Report found it to be in Australia? It is still run by the same man from the same place and it still appears to make a lot of money. I do not believe that anyone can read that report, particularly the part dealing with brainwashing, without feeling shocked and deeply perturbed about this organisation. In the past, those who have dared to question its activities have been subjected to a campaign of vilification. I shall be interested to see whether my hon. Friend and I share the same fate.
  Neither my hon. Friend nor myself—and I am sure that I speak for the right hon. Gentleman, although I am anticipating—wishes to see a Government persecuting or harrying uncónventional groups. but I should have been failing in my duty to my constituents had I not welcomed, as I now do, this short debate.
  11.43 p.m.
  The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I am glad that the House has had an opportunity this evening of considering the activities of scientologists in this country. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) has described the effect of these activities in an individual case, that of Miss Karen Henslow. I have had correspondence with Mrs. Henslow about her daughter's
  1222
  distressing experiences and I accept what the hon. Member says about them. They graphically underline the general implications of scientology to which I should like to direct the attention of the House.
  Since I answered a Question on this matter on 7th February, 1966, I have received letters from a large number of persons and organisations drawing my attention to what the writers feel are the damaging effects of scientology particularly on health and above all on mental health. Many of those who have written to me or to their Members of Parliament have themselves at some time taken courses in scientology or have relatives or friends who have done so. In many cases the courses are said to have brought about not the enhancement of personality promised to them hut a deterioration in mental stability and an estrangement between the person concerned and his family and friends.
  Several hon. Members have expressed anxiety over the possible damage done by scientology to the mental health of its clients and over what they see as a harmful influence in an even wider context. The East Grinstead Urban District Council have conveyed to me the terms of a resolution passed last December expressing grave concern
  "at the effects the activities of scientology may be having upon the town and its people."
  There have been, as the hon. Member said, a number of Press articles describing the harmful practices of scientology and of its splinter groups.
  To attempt a definition of scientology is a sterile exercise, because it appears to mean nothing more at any given time than its inventor, Mr. Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, chooses to say that it means, and at no time has he chosen to give it any meaningful definition.
  The headquarters have for some years been at Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, where Mr. Hubbard and his wife, Mary Sue Hubbard, secretary of the organisation, live and where policies are decided and disseminated.
  The harm which scientology might cause to health gave rise in the early 1960s to growing uneasiness in the state of Victoria, Australia, and it led to the board of inquiry, mentioned by both hon. Members, appointed there by Order in

  1223
  Council in November, 1963. This inquiry, by Mr. Kevin Anderson, Q.C., resulted in a report, submitted in September, 1965, from which had I the time, I should like to have quoted in extenso. The report sums up in these terms:
  "The Hubbard Association of Scientologists claims to be 'the world's largest mental health organisation'. What it really is, however, is the world's largest organisation of unqualified persons engaged in the practice of dangerous techniques which masquerade as mental therapy."
  I am told that Mr. Hubbard has threatened with an action for libel anyone in this country who quotes from the Anderson Report. His attitude is understandable, because it is difficult to believe that anyone acquainted with Mr. Anderson's findings would willingly submit to the teachings of an organisation so comprehensively condemned.
  Following the Anderson Report, the Victorian Parliament passed the Psychological Practices Act, which effectively prohibits the practice of scientology. The records of the scientologists in Victoria were seized under powers conferred by the Act and their activities thereupon came to an end.
  Hon. Members may reasonably ask whether the scientologists in England carry out the same practices as did their counterparts in Australia and, if so, whether we should take the same view of them as did the State of Victoria. The answer to the first question is, I think, clear. The association, as its names suggests, is an international organisation. Its founder and leading members are all at Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead. The Hubbard communications office, through which Mr. Hubbard keeps in touch with scientologists throughout the world and through which he issues a constant stream of advice, directives, exhortations and policy statements, is also there. Copies of every report made on every "auditing" session in all centres throughout the world are sent as a routine to headquarters and placed on file there.
  This leads to the crucial question: to what can we reasonably take objection in scientology? For a Minister of Health, the overriding consideration must be the effect of these practices on mental health. Here one must distinguish between what the leaders of the cult currently claim and
  1224
  what they have until recently professed and, in my judgment, still perform.
  Mr. Hubbard wrote to me in February last year and said that
  "we do not treat or cure anyone and are not a healing science."
  In an advertisement in the personal column of The Times last March, he publicly and elaborately dissociated himself from doctors and renounced his dubious doctorate of philosophy.
  But most of the voluminous scientology tracts tell a very different story. I quote from a handbook printed in London in 1962:
  "There are scores of people alive today who would not be alive except for this new science. There are children and old people who would not be walking except for this new science. Polio ravages, arthritis and scores of other ills are handled daily by this new science with success."
  The Melbourne organisation claimed even more fatuously that
  "scientology is the only specific cure for atomic bomb radiation flash burns."
  I do not want to give the impression that there is anything illegal in the offering by unskilled people of processes intended in part to relieve or remove mental disturbance. The law places no barrier against this, provided that no claim is made of qualified medical skill, and the scientologists do not claim this. What they do, however, is to direct themselves deliberately towards the weak, the unbalanced, the immature, the rootless and the mentally or emotionally unstable; to promise them remoulded, mature personalities and to set about fulfilling the promise by means of untrained staff, ignorantly practising quasi-psychological techniques, including hypnosis. It is true that the scientologists claim not to accept as clients people known to be mentally sick, but the evidence strongly suggests that they do.
  It is clear that Mr. Hubbard and the other leaders of the cult have long realised that they are most vulnerable, in the eyes of the public, by reason of their pretensions to healing. In their last years in Victoria they laid claim to the status of a religion, and for a while one of their leaders, Frank Turnbull, assumed the title of "bishop". Recently, in England, they have conjured up a "Church of Scientology", have dubbed at least two of their

  1225
  staff "chaplain" and, I am told, have issued many of their staff with a full clerical outfit.
  As the scientologists draw their adherents into the fold, so they instil into them a distrust, even hatred, of other influences—including that of orthodox medicine—which might draw them away again. Squalid and even sinister motives are imputed to relatives or friends who advise against an attachment to scientology. A similar harshness is visited upon the unfortunate "pre-clear" who thinks to break away or to question accepted doctrines. A further intensive course of "auditing"— for which charges are, of course, made—is usually prescribed before forgiveness is granted.
  I have touched as fully as the compass of this short debate will allow on what seems to me the undesirable degree of influence which scientologists have over the "pre-clears" in their charge, and on the pressure exerted on them to separate themselves from their families and friends. A related aspect of the relationship between the scientologists at Saint Hill Manor and their clients, which I find disturbing, is the case material derived from "auditing" sessions which is accumulated and filed there. It contains confessions and statements of an intensely personal nature and might, in some cases, be such as to lay the subjects open to coercion or blackmail, though there is no evidence, either here or in Victoria, that this material has been used for purposes of blackmail.
  What I have said will have made clear my belief that scientology is not merely ludicrous, which would not matter, but is potentially harmful to its adherents. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also taken a close interest in the activities of scientologists in this country and shares my views on them. We have considered very carefully the proposal often made that a public inquiry should be set up, and the alternative proposal that action should be taken to terminate their activities here.
  On the question of an inquiry, my view remains that which I gave in answer to Questions from the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Horsham on 5th December, 1966; that a further inquiry is unnecessary to establish that the
  1226
  activities of this organisation are potentially harmful. The Anderson Report in Victoria and the evidence put before me in this country make this quite clear.
  There remains the question whether the practice of scientology should be prohibited. My present view is that this would not be the right course to take, and I say this for several reasons. Legislation would certainly be necessary to achieve prohibition because, as I have said, medically unqualified people are within the law in offering or providing treatment, with certain very limited exceptions. We would all, I believe, be reluctant to contemplate legislation—which would, on the Victoria pattern, almost inevitably have to range considerably beyond its immediate object if it were to be effective—unless the case for it were overwhelming. We are not in that position—at any rate, not yet.
  I am satisfied that the condition of mentally disturbed people who have taken scientology courses has, to say the least, not generally improved thereby. Indeed, the history of Miss Henslow, as described by the hon. Gentleman, illustrates this very clearly.
  I have not had evidence that scientology has been directly and exclusively responsible for mental breakdown or physical deterioration in its adherents in this country. I nevertheless intend to go on watching the position.
  My present decision on legislation may disappoint the hon. Members, but I would like to remind them that the harsh light of publicity can sometimes work almost as effectively. Scientology thrives on a climate of ignorance and indifference.
  Mr. Hordern: Does the Minister not appreciate that this is the difficulty with publicity, that his remarks will not be repeated after tonight's debate? Will he therefore send a copy of his speech to every general practitioner throughout the country?
  Mr. Robinson: I certainly consider that steps can be taken to publicise what I have said. I shall be very surprised if the Press are as poltroonish as the hon. Gentleman fears they may be. They have been quite forthright in the past on other subjects.

  1227
  Mr. Hubbard himself has said:
  "Incredulity of our data and validity. This is our finest asset and gives us more protection than any other single asset. If certain parties thought we were real, we would have infinitely more trouble."
  What I have tried to do in this debate is to alert the public to the facts about scientology, to the potential dangers in which anyone considering taking it up may find himself, and to the utter
  1228
  hollowness of the claims made for the cult.
  1 hope that the debate will be widely reported, so that the views of the House on the activities of scientologists may be known to all.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes to Twelve o'clock.

PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Home-produced Wood Chipboard
  Home-produced Wood Chipboard
  Admiralty House (Public Viewing)
  Admiralty House (Public Viewing)
  St. James's Palace (Cleaning)
  St. James's Palace (Cleaning)
  Polaris Base and Nuclear Weapons Depot
  Polaris Base and Nuclear Weapons Depot
  Ministers (Cars)
  Ministers (Cars)
  Fort George
  Fort George
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings-Related Benefits)
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings-Related Benefits)
  Retirement Pensioners (Late Claims)
  Retirement Pensioners (Late Claims)
  Benefits (Tests of Means)
  Benefits (Tests of Means)
  Long-term Hospital Patients (Pocket Money)
  Long-term Hospital Patients (Pocket Money)
  Retirement Pensioners (Supplementary Pensions)
  Retirement Pensioners (Supplementary Pensions)
  Retirement Pensioners (Statistics)
  Retirement Pensioners (Statistics)
  Supplementary Pensions (Wales)
  Supplementary Pensions (Wales)
  Retirement and Widows' Pensions (Contribution Gaps)
  Retirement and Widows' Pensions (Contribution Gaps)
  Emphysema and Bronchitis (Disablement Pensions)
  Emphysema and Bronchitis (Disablement Pensions)
  European Economic Community (Industrial Diseases)
  European Economic Community (Industrial Diseases)
  Central Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel
  Central Pneumoconiosis Medical Panel
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  Family Expenditures Survey (Pensioners)
  Family Expenditures Survey (Pensioners)
HOSPITALS
  East Ham Memorial Hospital (Personal Case)
  East Ham Memorial Hospital (Personal Case)
  Part III Accommodation (Cost)
  Part III Accommodation (Cost)
  Geriatric Hospital Patients (Cost)
  Geriatric Hospital Patients (Cost)
  Drug Costs
  Drug Costs
  Building Supervisors
  Building Supervisors
  Kidney Machine Facilities (Havering)
  Kidney Machine Facilities (Havering)
  Nursing Profession (Salmon Committee's Report)
  Nursing Profession (Salmon Committee's Report)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Wales (Central Registry)
  Wales (Central Registry)
  National Health Service (Drug Costs)
  National Health Service (Drug Costs)
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Dental Care and Fluoridation (Cost)
  Dental Care and Fluoridation (Cost)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Labour-only Sub-contracting (Inquiry)
  Labour-only Sub-contracting (Inquiry)
  Civil Air Transport Industry Training Board
  Civil Air Transport Industry Training Board
  Transport Salaried Workers Union (Communication)
  Transport Salaried Workers Union (Communication)
  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY
  DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITY
  SOUTH ARABIA (AIR FORCE)
  SOUTH ARABIA (AIR FORCE)
  BRITISH SHIPS, BEIRA (OFF-LOADING)
  BRITISH SHIPS, BEIRA (OFF-LOADING)
WALES
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
  Derelict Land (Reclamation)
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Town Planning (Appeal Procedure)
  Town Planning (Appeal Procedure)
  River Tees (Croft Weir Scheme)
  River Tees (Croft Weir Scheme)
  Rate Support Grant, Wales
  Rate Support Grant, Wales
HOUSING
  New Permanent Dwellings
  New Permanent Dwellings
  Local Authority Completions
  Local Authority Completions
  Flats for the Disabled
  Flats for the Disabled
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Roberts Arundel, Stockport (Disturbance)
  Roberts Arundel, Stockport (Disturbance)
  Petrol Tanker (Accident)
  Petrol Tanker (Accident)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Comprehensive Schools, Bristol (Books and Equipment)
  Comprehensive Schools, Bristol (Books and Equipment)
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Studley College
  Studley College
  Welsh Language Schools
  Welsh Language Schools
  Computers
  Computers
  Science Research Council Awards
  Science Research Council Awards
  Secondary Schools, Brentwood
  Secondary Schools, Brentwood
  School Milk and Meals, Wales
  School Milk and Meals, Wales
  Fulbright Scholarships
  Fulbright Scholarships
  Teachers, Wales
  Teachers, Wales
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community (Marketing Boards)
  European Economic Community (Marketing Boards)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Ghana (Settlement of Debts)
  Ghana (Settlement of Debts)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Ammunition and Explosives
  Ammunition and Explosives
  Water (cost)
  Water (cost)
  Traffic Accidents, Training, and Losses and Damage to Kit
  Traffic Accidents, Training, and Losses and Damage to Kit
  Statement on Defence Estimates (Headquarters Receipts)
  Statement on Defence Estimates (Headquarters Receipts)
  Discharges
  Discharges
  Official Cars (Foreign Manufacture)
  Official Cars (Foreign Manufacture)
  Animals and Scavenging and Conservancy Services
  Animals and Scavenging and Conservancy Services
  Under-Secretaries of State (Title)
  Under-Secretaries of State (Title)
  Returning Overseas Forces
  Returning Overseas Forces
  Long-term Service Contracts (Young Recruits)
  Long-term Service Contracts (Young Recruits)
  Storage of Explosives (Ditton Priors to Cleobury Road)
  Storage of Explosives (Ditton Priors to Cleobury Road)
  Naval Command
  Naval Command
  H.M.S. "Tiger"
  H.M.S. "Tiger"
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  South-West Economic Planning Council
  South-West Economic Planning Council
  Steel Industry (Private Sector)
  Steel Industry (Private Sector)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Technical Assistance (British Experts)
  Technical Assistance (British Experts)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Initial Rental Payment
  Initial Rental Payment
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
POST OFFICE
  Cornwall (Stamp)
  Cornwall (Stamp)
  Executive and Senior Executive Engineers
  Executive and Senior Executive Engineers
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Special and Alloy Steel Production
  Special and Alloy Steel Production
SCOTLAND
  Gravediggers (Wages)
  Gravediggers (Wages)
  Geriatric Beds, Ayrshire and Wigtownshire
  Geriatric Beds, Ayrshire and Wigtownshire
  Police Forces
  Police Forces
TECHNOLOGY
  Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Convention)
  Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (Convention)
  Advanced Battery Systems
  Advanced Battery Systems
BOARD OF TRADE
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
  Southern Counties Building Society (Liquidation)
  Southern Counties Building Society (Liquidation)
  Car Exports (U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe)
  Car Exports (U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe)
  Portugal
  Portugal
  Consumer Council (Scotland)
  Consumer Council (Scotland)
  Airline Passengers (Death in Transit)
  Airline Passengers (Death in Transit)
  Northern Region (New Jobs)
  Northern Region (New Jobs)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Betting Duty
  Betting Duty
  Capital Gains Tax (Appeals)
  Capital Gains Tax (Appeals)
  Average Employment Income
  Average Employment Income
  Survey of Personal Incomes
  Survey of Personal Incomes
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Income Tax (Unearned Income)
  Income Tax (Unearned Income)
  Foreign Travel Allowance
  Foreign Travel Allowance
RAILWAYS
  Level Crossings (Automatic Half-barriers)
  Level Crossings (Automatic Half-barriers)

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

PROPOSED MID-WALES NEW TOWN
2.36 p.m.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the consultants' proposals made to the Secretary of State for Wales for a mid-Wales new town; and whether they have reached any decision.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, consideration of the consultants' proposals has now reached an advanced stage. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making an announcement about the Government's policies for Mid-Wales in another place on March 15. I cannot anticipate to-day what he may say.

PRIVATE PLACES OF ENTERTAINMENT (LICENSING) BILL [H.L.]
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

AGRICULTURE BILL
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Walston.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1:

PART I

  LIVESTOCK AND MEAT MARKETING
  The Meat and Livestock Commission
  1.—(1) There shall be established a body to be called the Meat and Livestock Commission (in this Part of this Act referred to as "the Commission") having the general duty of promoting greater efficiency in the livestock industry and the livestock products industry, and the particular functions specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act, as well as the other functions conferred by this Part of this Act.
  (2) In carrying out their functions the Commission shall have regard to the interests of consumers as well as to the interests of the various sections of the livestock industry and the livestock products industry.
  (6) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as authorising the Commission to engage in the business of buying and selling livestock or livestock products, except so far as is reasonably necessary for, and incidental to, the discharge of other functions of the Commission.
  LORD WISE LORD WISE had given Notice of several Amendments to subsection (1), the first being to leave out "general". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The first five Amendments are to be moved by myself, but I do not propose to keep the Committee very long in moving them. It is significant that there are a fair number of Government Amendments in the Marshalled List, which I think proves that the Bill needs amending in many particulars. I imagine that we shall be expected to agree to the Government Amendments, and I hope that the Government will reciprocate by accepting some of the others which are to be moved from either side of the House.
  May I take Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 together? They touch more or less

  1209
  upon the same points. They both seek to leave out a word in subsection (1). The first, in line 10, is the word "general"; the second, in line 12, the word "particular". Both words appear to me to be superfluous. They seem to restrict the duty imposed upon the Commission. The Commission should be able to carry out the duties for which they are being established, without modification. The word "general" seems to have a limiting effect, and something useful which the Commission may be able to do in the interests of the community could rightly be considered to be a duty of the Commission in the ordinary way, but not considered to come within the loose wording of the expression "the general duty". The inclusion of the word "general" might open up a series of arguments as to whether or not the Commission were acting within their powers and duties. A duty is a duty; it requires no modification or expansion.
  In the same way, the use of the word "particular" seems unnecessary. The functions of the Commission are specified in Part I of Schedule I and elsewhere in Part I of the Bill. The word "particular" seems to suggest some limitation of the powers of the Commission. I see no reason for its inclusion, and its omission might save long discussions and arguments in the future as to its meaning. I am all in favour of charity as better than uncertainty. I beg to move the first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 10, leave out ("general").—(Lord Wise.)
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): I have listened with interest to my noble friend, and I am glad to say I do not think there is any matter of principle between us here. In spite of that, however, I must say, in all honesty, that I do not think his Amendments will help either his cause or mine. Amendment No. 1, together with Amendment No. 3, would, if agreed to, omit a distinction which we think is worth making in this case. The duty placed on the Commission to promote the efficiency of the livestock and livestock products industry is a general duty, and it is wider
  1210
  than the particular functions actually specified in Schedule 1 and elsewhere in the Bill.
  This statement of the Commission's general duty, together with subsection (2), helps to define not only what the Commission should do, but also their general objectives, and I think that the use of the words "general" and "particular" in this subsection helps to bring out this distinction and to make the meaning clear. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendments.
  LORD WISE: In view of what the Minister has said I will, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (1), after "livestock industry" to insert "including marketing". The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This is a slightly different Amendment from Nos. 1 and 3, so I think it better to move it separately. The words "Meat Marketing" are set out in large type in the heading of this Part of the Bill, but the subject does not seem to be referred to again until Clause 25, when it is dealt with in the definitions. It is such an important matter, so far as livestock is concerned, that it should be recognised in this clause of the Bill. The expression "livestock industry" is not in common usage, and the tying up of marketing with it in this subsection would make it quite clear that marketing was to be an essential part of the Commission's activities. I will enlarge upon this when we discuss Amendment No. 5. This is a quite simple Amendment, but in my view an important one, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 11, after ("industry") insert ("including marketing").—(Lord Wise.)
  LORD WALSTON: I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, again on a matter which is not one of principle. It really rests on the definition of the term "livestock industry". This, of course, is defined in Clause 25(2), from which it will be seen that it:
  "means all the activities comprised in the production, marketing and distribution of livestock in Great Britain …"

  1211
  It follows that the reference to the livestock industry in Clause 1(1) already includes a reference to marketing. Therefore I hope that your Lordships and my noble friend will agree that it would be unnecessary duplication to add the words "including marketing", as this Amendment proposes. I hope that my noble friend is satisfied that the point he wishes to clarify by his Amendment is already made completely clear by the subsequent wording which I have quoted.
  LORD WISE: I am well aware that the word "marketing" is described in connection with the livestock industry in Clause 25(2); but I am afraid I do not see eye to eye with my noble friend, because I think that it is such an important part of the Bill that it should be included in the first clause. However, in view of what has been said, I do not propose to divide the Committee on this Amendment, but will, by leave, withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  2.47 p.m.
  LORD WISE LORD WISE moved, in subsection (2), after the first "of" to insert "producers and". The noble Lord said: Here again, I wish to insert a few words. The inclusion of the reference to producers would at least put them on a par with consumers. This is not a consumers' Bill, and Part I is concerned mainly with livestock production and distribution, and kindred products. This Part of the Bill deals with production and distribution of the farmers' products, and not with consumption. This is not a food Bill; it is an agricultural Bill. It may be that at some time a new Ministry of Food will be set up. That Ministry could, and would, safeguard the interests of consumers. The Ministry should be a separate entity and not form a part of, or be a poor relation to, the Ministry of Agriculture, as it is at the moment. In the case of this clause it is invidious to single out the claims of consumers without any direct reference to those of producers who are, in my view, the senior partners in this Bill. Again, this simple addition of two words would put the matter right. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 16, after ("of") insert ("producers and").—(Lord Wise.)
  LORD ROYLE: I am a little concerned as to why my noble friend is limiting this Amendment to producers and coupling them with consumers. Would it not have been a good idea if he had also remembered that there are other people involved in the meat industry as well as the producer and the consumer?—I refer to the distributor. If we are legislating along the lines of the Meat and Livestock Commission, I would suggest to my noble friend that the distributors ought certainly to have equal consideration to that given to the producers. Therefore, while I have some sympathy with him in trying to extend the words of the clause in this particular respect, I feel that he is being quite unfair in seeking to bring the producers into the clause without considering also the distributors.
  The other matter I should like to mention is that Part I of the Bill provides for the establishment of advisory committees, which will meet with the Commission with the object of finding out the best means of dealing with livestock of livestock products. I notice that among those advisory committees the producers have a quite adequate representation, and I should have thought that that in itself was sufficient to ensure that the Meat and Livestock Commission will consider the points of view of the producer. That being so, with the greatest respect to my noble friend I do not regard this Amendment as necessary.
  LORD WALSTON: My noble friend Lord Royle has made my task easier by pointing out, perhaps not quite explicitly but certainly in a very convincing way, the difficulties into which one runs if one singles out any particular section of the industry which is engaged in the whole gamut of producing, processing and distributing livestock. I believe that we should undoubtedly get into difficulties if we singled out simply one section, albeit a very important one. I would take issue with my noble friend Lord Wise when he refers to the producers as being the "senior partners" in this matter. They are the first partners, in that they must come first. Obviously, if the farmer does not produce meat there will be no animal for the slaughterer to kill, there will be no carcase for the butcher to cut up or to sell, and there will be no meat for the housewife to eat. To that extent

  1213
  it is right to say that the producer is the number one partner, but I should not go along with my noble friend in saying that he was the senior partner.
  I would remind my noble friend Lord Wise that the term "livestock industry" is already defined in subsection (2) of Clause 25. The definition refers to:
  "… all the activities comprised in the production, marketing and distribution of livestock in Great Britain …".
  which covers all these aspects. Clause 1(2) already requires the Commission to have regard to the interests of the various sections of the livestock industry, and, as my noble friend Lord Royle has pointed out, there are advisory bodies to help in doing this. It is quite clear from the definition which I have just quoted that this includes the production interests. Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that the proposed Amendment would do no more than duplicate something which is already in the subsection. So once more I would ask my noble friend not to press this Amendment.
  LORD WISE: In view of what the Minister has said, and as I am a very friendly sort of person, I will, with the permission of the Committee, withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD WISE LORD WISE: moved to delete subsection (6) and to substitute:
  "(6) The Commission shall be authorised to engage in the business of buying and selling livestock or livestock products as is necessary for the discharge of the functions of the Commission."
  The noble Lord said: On this particular Amendment I shall not perhaps be quite so friendly. I consider that Clause 1(6) is a negative and unsatisfactory subsection. How can one decide whether a position has arisen which is:
  "incidental to the discharge of other functions."?
  I seek to give to the Commission the power to buy and sell livestock, if necessary. If this power were to be carried out in the interests of producers—and I must admit, in view of what my noble friend Lord Royle said, that I am concerned primarily with the interests of the producers—it could stabilise livestock prices at market auctions, ensure a fair price and create competition among other would-be purchasers.
  One of the greatest worries and uncertainties of a farmer's life is the fluctuation of prices at cattle markets. If the Commission could rectify this, it would be doing a great service to the farming industry. If the buying and selling were carried out by the Commission, there need be no loss to the community and the margin of profit could be kept at a reasonable figure. In regard to other farming industries, products are bought and sold by commissions and boards in this way. It would also protect producers against auction rings and non-bidding arrangements by dealers and others. I want a fair deal for the producer.
  I would refer the Committee to Clause 45(4), which deals with the functions of a Rural Development Board, which may acquire, sell, farm, let or otherwise deal with land. Those are pretty comprehensive functions given to a board of possibly less importance in this Bill than the Meat and Livestock Commission. The powers of the Rural Development Boards go even further. They have a positive power—a power which is denied to the Meat and Livestock Commission—to acquire by agreement any farming business or any dead or live farm stock. That the power should be given to one and denied to another in the same Bill is not rational, logical or sensible. The Rural Development Board can buy as well as sell. This Amendment has been put down with a view to improving the Bill, and seeks to put something alive into that part of the Bill with which I have dealt. At present, in my view, it is deadly dull. I hope the Minister will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 34, leave out subsection (6) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Wise.)
  LORD ROYLE: On this occasion I want to support my noble friend in his Amendment. As some of your Lordships know, I have been engaged in the retail meat industry for at least 35 years of my life, and during that period I have had opportunities to see many of the difficulties which prevail in the industry, particularly with regard to fluctuation of prices. Throughout the whole of my trading life I have always been concerned with this aspect of the meat trade. For example, noble Lords

  1215
  who are agriculturists know better than I that in the spring time there is a shortage of cattle. Before the cattle go out on to grass after they have been indoors for most of the winter, there is real shortage and scarcity, and throughout that period of the year meat prices are enhanced tremendously.
  In these days, when we are so concerned about the cost of living, these increased prices must be borne in mind all the time. In fact, during that part of the year it puts a great deal of meat out of the range of the working-class housewife. On the other hand, in the autumn, when the cattle have been on grass for some months, there is something in the nature of a glut, and meat prices come tumbling down. I believe that this is not right for the producer or for the distributor, and it is unfair to the consumer. I have always hoped for a system which will do away with this fluctuation and give a uniform level of prices as near as possible throughout the year.
  During the war and during the period of control I had an appointment with the Ministry of Food. Therefore, I was able to see at very close hand everything which had to do with the working of the control system. I know that we then had rationing, and that in these days there is no question whatever of returning to that. But, for all that, what came out of the war-time control was the wonderful system of the Ministry, as it was then—not a Commission as envisaged in the Bill—buying the whole of our livestock and meat needs, whether it was home produced or imported. The Ministry were therefore during that time able to ensure a very even distribution. They were the people, who sold meat to wholesalers, and ultimately to retailers, and both the wholesaler and the retailer had his own organisation for purchasing purposes. This did away with a great deal of the fluctuation, and, in my estimation, a great system was established at that time.
  I have always felt that it would have been a very desirable thing for the whole of the industry, as well as for the nation as a whole, if we could have preserved that controlled system of purchasing by the Ministry—or in this case the Commission—letting them sell directly to those who have to distribute. I am quite sure
  1216
  of this, because I have witnessed so much of it. For example, I have seen cattle passing through three and four different hands before they reach the butcher, each buyer taking a section of profit, and ultimately bringing to the consumer meat at a higher price than it need be. I always advocated that the system I have referred to should be allowed to continue in the days when we were getting away from rationing, bringing something much more sensible into the distribution of meat and livestock.
  It is because of this that I have so much sympathy with my noble friend Lord Wise. I am quite sure that he approaches this question in a very different way from mine. He approaches it, and quite rightly, from the point of view of the producer. But I am sure that there would be something of tremendous advantage to everybody concerned, whether producer, distributor or consumer, if the Government decided to make this very important change in the Bill. I know that the Commission which were set up with the purpose of looking into meat and livestock reported against this, but, at the same time, I feel that they ignored something which was very important. I should have been much happier with this Bill if the Livestock Commission had power to purchase and to sell and—I go further—to purchase all and to sell all. I am quite sure that we should then have had a much better meat and livestock industry. Therefore, I want to support my noble friend, appreciating to the full that this would be putting into the Bill something very different from what is envisaged at the moment, but, at the same time, something which would be of tremendous advantage to the community as a whole.
  LORD WALSTON: My noble friend Lord Wise said at the outset that he was not going to be so friendly this time, but he has himself so well under control that I think it would take a very shrewd ear to detect any note of unfriendliness in what he said. May I say straight away that there is a considerable amount of doubt as to the effect of this Amendment? It is doubtful whether it would give a general authority to the Commission to engage in trading, but it would probably widen their scope for trading and it could open the door for pressure on them to submit development schemes

  1217
  under Clause 9, to permit them to undertake trading functions for the better organisation and development of the industry. As at present drafted, the Bill prohibits the Commission from trading except where this is reasonably necessary for, and incidental to, the discharge of their other functions; so that they could, for example, buy livestock or meat for use in their research and development work, but they would not be permitted, say, to undertake support buying.
  My noble friend Lord Wise called in aid the Rural Development Boards, and suggested that because they were given wide powers there was no reason why the Livestock Commission should not have similarly wide powers. With the greatest respect, I think that that is a dangerous argument. The powers of all the different bodies which are proposed in the Bill, or elsewhere, are put forward not because of precedent, not because other bodies have them, but simply because it is considered that these powers are the minimum necessary for the proper exercise of their function. If it is felt, as we feel, that the Rural Development Boards need certain powers, then they are incorporated in the Bill. If it is felt that the Livestock Commission need different powers, then different powers are incorporated. I say quite frankly that I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view put forward by both my noble friends, and simply looked at in abstract I should have been very happy to see in the Bill provision for some form of trading on the part of the Livestock Commission. But unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we cannot look at these matters in the abstract. We have to look at them realistically, to see how they will work out in practice.
  My noble friend Lord Royle reminded us of the war time and the immediate post-war provisions. I agree with him that they worked admirably, and if similar circumstances were to arise they would provide us with a first-class blue-print of how to set about the problem. But, of course, conditions to-day are very different indeed, as my noble friend rightly reminded us. There is no question of meat rationing or anything of that sort, and the whole pattern of trading has developed a very long way from what it was in those days. I say this only to show your Lordships that there was very close consideration of all these points
  1218
  when the Bill was being drafted, and very careful consideration was given to whether the Commission's powers should be extended to provide for some form of centralised trading, perhaps including support buying.
  But the final conclusion which was reached, as was said in the White Paper on the Marketing of Meat and Livestock, was that meat has special features which together distinguish it from many other agricultural commodities, and make such trading by a central body extremely difficult properly to implement. After all, we know that meat is a highly perishable product, that it requires expert handling, and that there are no generally accepted standards of description or of quality. Also we know—and my noble friend has reminded us of this—that supply and demand fluctuate very widely, and to quite a considerable extent they fluctuate unpredictably.
  The practical problems of maintaining and operating machinery for this purpose are, in my view, too great and the costs are too high for such benefits as might accrue. If it were something which was going to be used day in, day out, week by week, month by month, the setting up of such facilities which are an essential part of trading powers would be warranted. But when, as I think both my noble friends would suggest, this is to be used only in rare circumstances to even out fluctuations or other variations, one would have very heavy overheads which would be warranted for only a very short period in any one year, and possibly in certain years not at all.
  However, I would remind your Lordships that the proposals in this Bill do not in any way ignore the problem of supply and demand fluctuations. After all, it is proposed to give the Commission a number of practicable and worthwhile functions which should go a very long way towards reducing the risks of major gluts and shortages, and therefore should help to bring a very fair degree of stability to the market. These proposals include the encouragement of fair and effective contracts, the improvement of market intelligence and market forecasting, and measures to increase competition at the retail stage and thus to make retail prices react more quickly to alterations or changes in supply so that major gluts and shortages have less

  1219
  opportunity to develop. In this way, the Commission will be able to influence demand by means of consumer advice and education and by various activities designed to increase demand for home-produced meat.
  In the longer run, of course, livestock improvement and research into production methods—and also, for example, into methods of preservation of meat—will also improve matters very significantly; and this is probably where the Commission's greatest benefit will come, both to the producer and to the consumer. All these functions taken together will, I believe, bring about a far closer relationship of supply and demand than there is at the present time, and that is precisely what we all want. Our proposals for bringing this about are simple and practicable, and I believe they will be effective. In my view, and in that of the Government, it is not possible to say the same for any proposals for large-scale trading by the Commission. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
  LORD WISE: First of all, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Royle for the support which he gave me. He related matters which were within my knowledge, as I was farming two big farms during the war period and I then considered that the Ministry of Food were the best customers of agriculture, and the most satisfactory customers. I am disappointed in what the Minister has said. He referred to many points about the function of the Commission which are not the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is that we want better marketing facilities. We do not want advice; we want the facilities to carry out the job in the interests of those who produce the livestock of this country and help to feed this country.
  I wish my noble friend would rise when I sit down and would agree to take this back for further consideration. It is important—very important, in my view—and I feel so keenly about it that at the moment I cannot withdraw my Amendment. I hope the Minister will take it back; and, if the wording is not right, the Government can bring it back with new wording. But the point is that I want the Commission to have the power to go into the markets and stabilise them
  1220
  for the benefit of those who get their living through the markets.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD had given Notice of his intention to move the insertion of a new clause after Clause 2. The noble Lord said: Since I put this new clause down on the Order Paper, I have seen that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has put down an Amendment to insert a new clause which substantially covers the point which I was seeking to secure in my new clause. There is one point in his version of the new clause which I do not find acceptable, and I have put down a manuscript Amendment to that, of which I think he has had notice. In the circumstances, I will not take up the time of the Committee explaining my new clause, and will not move it now, but I shall speak to the new clause moved by the noble Lord when it comes before us later.
  Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Systems of classifying meat and codes of practice for butchers]:
  3.18 p.m.
  LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I am sorry to be talking so often, which is not my usual custom, but this Part of the Bill is one which arouses a lot of interest in my mind. I beg to move the first of the two Amendments standing in my name, but perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lorships if I spoke to them together because the second is purely consequential.
  During the Second Reading debate of this Bill I was not able to be in your Lordships' House, and I therefore did not have the opportunity at that time of expressing my full support of Part I of this Agriculture Bill. I think it is an excellent Bill in most respects, but I have just one or two reservations. The first of them I expressed on the last Amendment, moved by my noble friend Lord Wise, but this one is purely and simply from the point of view of the distributors, of which I know something. I am concerned about paragraph (b) in subsection (1) of Clause 7, and I object to it because, as

  1221
  I have already said, of my very close relationship to the trade over very many years. I want to say to the Government as strongly as I possibly can that to put this paragraph into operation is completely impracticable. I believe that it cannot possibly be enforced without an army of inspectors and without a great deal of hardship to honest traders.
  May I read the words concerned, so that what I have to say might be perfectly clear to your Lordships? Subsection (1) says:
  "With a view to assisting persons buying meat by retail the Commission may compile—

  (a) systems of classifying meat and of marking and labelling it in accordance with the classification, and

  (b) standard codes of practice for the way in which meat is cut for sale by retail and for the way in which the cuts of meat are described,

  and may take such steps as appear to them appropriate to encourage the use of the systems of classification and standard codes in all retail meat undertakings."
  This sounds all very well, but it is quite impossible, in my view. I have no objection to paragraph (a)—I believe that qualities should be very definitely stated at all stages in the distribution of meat—but standard cutting is another matter altogether. Customs vary considerably from district to district. I am sorry to be so technical, but the cutting of meat is something I understand. I suppose it is true to say that during the 22 years that I have been a Member of either one House on another I have been the only Member who was a butcher. Therefore, perhaps I might be forgiven for dealing with these technical matters and pointing out the snags which are involved. Descriptions of meat, of all kinds of cuts, vary considerably, for example, between London and many parts of the North—Lancashire and Yorkshire in particular—and some butchers in Lancashire would not have a clue about descriptions of meat as sold in the southern parts of England.
  In a previous Amendment I referred to war-time controls. During that period the Ministry of Food were compelled to issue very different lists in various parts of the country because of the variety of customs which prevailed and because people in the North of England did not understand the terms that were used in the South. Butchers cut carcases in different ways in different parts of the
  1222
  country. With this commodity, we are not dealing with cans and packets that can be lifted from the shelf. Butchers have the task of changing a carcase of meat, which might weigh 600 lb., into half-pound steaks; we have to turn a 50 lb. lamb into lamb chops. This is quite unlike the experience of the grocer, lifting cans and packages from the shelf and handing them over the counter or, in the case of the large multiple stores, putting them on a shelf from which customers can help themselves.
  A butcher must do his cutting in accordance with his type of trade. I want to suggest to my noble friend that standardisation would interfere with costing, very much to the detriment of the consumer. In working class districts—I hesitate to use the term, but noble Lords know what I mean—there is a tremendous demand, dictated largely by the pocket and because of the conditions under which people live and work, for stewing and boiling meat; whereas in other districts, very often to the horror of the butcher, people seem to be able to think of nothing but fillets of steak, roasting meat and beautiful lamb chops. Therefore, the butcher's work must be adjusted accordingly—not only from the viewpoint of different cutting but from the viewpoint of districts where different types of people reside. There is also the problem—and I do not know how the Commission are going to get over it—of the desire for bone-in and bone-out.
  I want to suggest to the Government that in these matters the butchers must have as much flexibility as they can. Laymen do not understand that no two carcases are alike. We are not dealing with motor-car parts. When the meat trader buys a carcase of meat he must sell every part of it—quite rightly—to his own advantage so far as his profits are concerned. He must get the whole of that carcase sold before he can proceed on another one. In my view any compulsion of method would bring the law into disrepute. Regulations on cutting would interfere with the consumers' liberty of choice. Housewives who know what they are buying go to a butchers and ask that meat shall be cut in a certain way to suit their particular requirements. I do not believe that any commission or any Government Department can lay down that the housewife shall

  1223
  be prohibited from asking that the meat shall be cut as she desires. I do not believe the State has any right to interfere with the craftsman's skill, for the industry in which I was engaged was a real craft industry: and a very difficult one at that.
  No other country in Europe—I know little about America—lays down these restrictions and limitations. I believe that the Government are placing an imposition on the retail meat trade by giving the Commission this power. I know the Bill merely says, "the Commission may …"; but why put it there at all if there is no thought or intention of doing it. I believe it is a real imposition on the trade to attempt to compel them to cut meat in a specified way laid down by a Commission somewhere in Whitehall. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Royle.)
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I came in a little late and did not hear what the noble Lord said in the earlier part of his speech. I should like to support the Amendment. It appears to me that if the Bill is not amended in the way the noble Lord desires it is bound to bring the law into disrepute. How can one ensure that the thousands of butchers and their employees are going to cut the standard cuts as laid down? It appears to be quite impracticable. I should also like to say that it appears to me to work against the interests of the consumers. I do not know whether the noble Lord has, already said this—perhaps I ought not to have intervened without hearing the whole of his speech; but he spoke such sense that I felt I had to support him—but in different parts of the country housewives like their joints cut in different ways. For example, some people prefer bone-in and others bone-out. I think it would be a mistake to restrict butchers in this way; and therefore I very strongly support the noble Lord in his Amendment.
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I, too, should like to support the noble Lord because I think that the cutting of meat is very different in Scotland from cutting in parts of England, and very different in Lancashire and Yorkshire from that in Devon and Cornwall.
  1224
  While I am all for classification, marking and labelling so that people know what they are buying, I think it is a different matter to suggest that everybody should buy the same. I intervene also because, although the noble Lord, Lord Royle, may be the only butcher here, I venture to think that I am one of the only Peers able to cut up a carcase. I have done this many times, and I tried to teach other noble Lords when they came to stay with me. I know the extraordinary variety of joints which one can have when cutting up a piece of mutton or lamb, or whatever it may be, and I think that people must be allowed this variety.
  I know that the Royal Commission were very keen about this. I support their view from the point of view of the consumer, that what is required is an accurate description of what one is buying. But I do not think that anyone would want all consumers to have to buy the same cut. I think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, is a very good one, provided that the consumer is safeguarded to the extent that he knows what cut he is buying, that it is accurately described, and that he is not, so to speak, being "led up the garden path" by the butcher trying to sell him a piece of meat which is wrongly described. I think that is quite wrong; but that everyone should have to buy the same cut, or the same weighed cut is, I am sure, a mistake, and I hope that this will be looked at again.
  3.31 p.m.
  BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Royle. It seemed to me that his speech was absolutely full of commonsense—and I speak entirely for the housewife. We should need an army of inspectors to see that what is proposed in the Bill was done. There seems to me no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted by the Government.
  BARONESS HORSBRUGH: I also should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Royle. When I see a piece of meat in a butcher's shop, I like to ask the butcher whether he will cut off a little bit "there"—and I show him where I want it cut. Most butchers will do this. The proposal in the Bill seems to me to mean that you will have to have a particular piece of meat cut in a particular shape, and that consumers will

  1225
  have no choice at all. I am entirely in favour of a standard of quality, but the housewife should be able to go into a shop and tell the butcher what she wants—even though, unlike my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, she may not be able to cut up a carcase herself. Most butchers will cut what a housewife wants, and I think that a housewife should have what she wants and not what the Commission want.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to say a word in this interesting debate in which the noble Baronesses have played such a notable part following the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Royle. I should have thought that there were two separate points here. The noble Lord's Amendment about classification seems to me to be in a different category from the second Amendment which refers to standard codes of practice for the methods of cutting up meat.
  Regarding the second Amendment, I should have thought it extremely unlikely that the Commission would ever be rash enough to try to put out a code, but on the general approach to this clause I should like to give a little support to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, because I think that he may need it. The Commission should try to assist the trade as a whole so that meat is classified in a way which makes it easier to buy; and of course it is easier to produce if there is a closer definition of what kind of carcase is wanted. I think the clause is generally acceptable, because it is entirely permissive and advisory. The Commission "may" introduce the schemes. In line 35 it states:
  "… to encourage the use of the systems of classification …"
  It is entirely permissive. I should like to see the Commission—not immediately, but eventually—come forward with a scheme of classification, at least in the initial stages.
  Some interesting work has been done recently by Newcastle University who have been making a survey of the distributive system with the intention of trying to identify what are the particular tastes of housewives in different parts of the country; what kind of carcase the meat comes from, and what kind of productive systems will best get the meat into the distributive system and on to the counters.
  1226
  To a very large extent this survey confirms exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Royle, has told us: that there are regional differences; that cuts are differently named in Liverpool and London; that cuts at the wholesale stage and at the retail stage are differently named; that prices for the same qualities vary again from Liverpool to London, or Newcastle to London, and that there are different modes of cutting in these different centres. These are the facts of this immensely variegated trade, but there is no doubt that it would be a help to have some classification, say, for tenderness, which is probably one of the few qualities which cannot be observed. One can identify leanness at sight, and all butchers know that in the main the demand is for lean meat.
  LORD ROYLE: If the noble Lord will permit me, I should like to make it quite clear that I have no quarrel with classification at all. That is not what I am suggesting should be cut out of the Bill. It is the codes of cutting that I am against.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Then I am with the noble Lord. I do not personally object to that remaining in the Bill, if the noble Lord, Lord Walston, can defend it, but it will not be very easy for him to do so. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that, certainly at present, a uniform code of cutting would be impossible. It would be quite incomprehensible and inapplicable, and I should think that the Commission would be very unwise to introduce it. But on the general approach, there is no doubt that the Commission should try to identify and to define more precisely in terms of the market what kinds of carcases are wanted.
  To-day the production of beef is coming more into the hands of very large-scale producers who want to know what type of beef to breed and what system of management to employ in order to get just what the market wants, and I think this general approach is helpful. I feel there is no great harm in subsection (1)(b), but if the noble Lord, Lord Walston, thinks it desirable to keep standard codes of practice in the Bill, I hope he will have some very cogent reasons for doing so, because I think it would be extremely difficult for the Commission ever to employ them.
  LORD BALERNO: It had been my intention to keep silent during the discussion on the first Part of this Bill, but I was completely fascinated by the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Royle, about the mystique of the butcher. Never have I heard it better or more clearly expounded than by the noble Lord. But I sometimes wonder how much the butchering trade has profited from having this wonderful, perhaps almost incomprehensible, mystique. I am surprised that my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood should have fallen into the trap so neatly laid for her by the noble Lord, Lord Royle.
  The point I should like to make in support of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is that the word is "codes" and not "code." It is not a question of having one single code of practice, but that it might be necessary to have different codes of practice for different parts of the country, and if the Commission were to embark on this for the more difficult and vaguer forms of butchering—though I very much question whether they would do so in the immediate future—I am sure that the matter would be adjusted territorially, and that we in Scotland would be allowed to retain our curiosities, such as the gigots. But before we can classify we must have some form of code practice. It will be a long time before that can come for ordinary cuts in the fresh meat trade, but I suggest that very early in their career the Meat Commission will be faced with this problem as regards pre-packed meat, which can be described and classified, and as regards bacon, the cuts of which can be precisely determined. For that reason, I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Lord, Lord Royle, in his Amendment. And I have the further reason that in the United States and Canada the Governments have gone a long way in classification, though perhaps not so far as is envisaged in this Bill for the Meat Commission. Perhaps the Commission might send there and inquire how it is done.
  LORD WALSTON: My noble friend Lord Royle started by apologising for speaking too often. I think that the debate (if that is the right word for it) which has taken place as a result of his remarks proves that there was no need
  1228
  whatever for that apology. Without trespassing on the grounds of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as to the true functions of this House, I am certain that one of our functions is to provide an opportunity for those who really know what they are speaking about to express their views, and the expertise of my noble friend on this matter has been of the greatest help to us, as was that of his fellow butcher (if I may call her that), the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. While I am mentioning individual names, may I say that I think it would be a brave butcher indeed who would presume to refuse to give the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, any bit of meat to which she pointed her finger, whatever any Government or Commission might ordain.
  I cannot help thinking that there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the purpose of this clause. I freely admit that it may be due to bad drafting. The Amendment proposed by my noble friend would omit the provisions in Clause 7 empowering the Commission to compile, and encourage—and I emphasise the word "encourage"—the use of standard codes of practice for the cutting of meat into retail cuts and for the naming of these cuts. I could not accept the Amendment, because I believe that these provisions offer real opportunities for improvements in the industry's efficiency and for giving greater assistance and satisfaction to consumers, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has so rightly pointed out. We accept that some differences in cutting methods, and consequently of the names given to the cuts, are laid down by local preferences and methods of cooking. But many differences in cutting practices are disappearing and, with them, some of the reasons for differences of names. The Government take the view that there is a strong case for reducing these differences where they are not justified by variations in local circumstances. In the long run, this will simplify retailing. And from the customer's point of view it will mean that she can be assured that what she is getting when she asks for a particular cut is consistent and is cut to a standard. I am sure that even the three noble Ladies will agree with this and that the fourth noble Lady who is a member of the Party would also agree, is she were here.

  1229
  What appears to me to be the real point of my noble friend's Amendment is the fear, which some butchers have expressed, that they may be forced into practices which are inappropriate to their local needs and circumstances. My noble friend spoke of a whole army of inspectors who would be needed to see that the rigid ruling laid down by the Commission had been carried out. That is where the misconception of this clause comes in. In the first place, the codes must be prepared in consultation with the trade, as laid down in Clause 2. Furthermore, there is no provision whatsoever for adoption of the codes to be made compulsory, so that no one can be forced to do anything. It is purely a voluntary matter. The proposals will not be mandatory upon all butchers, who will not have to adopt these standards if they do not want to do so.
  Moreover—and this is a point which does not seem to be generally understood—the proposals do not mean that there cannot be more than one code of practice applicable to different styles of cutting, just as there are varying codes of practice for bacon-curing—for example, for Wiltshire curing or for Ayrshire roll bacon. Nor will there be attempts merely to standardise the names given to cuts if the Commission, after consulting trade and consumer interests, are satisfied that on balance it is better not to do so. In short, I suggest to my noble friend that the fears of the trade about these provisions are entirely misplaced.
  Certainly there are practical difficulties that would have to be overcome before codes could be developed. But if unjustifiable and misleading variations in cutting and naming can be discouraged, we shall then be in a position where the consumer can have far greater assurance of service from a butcher who cuts and names his meat in accordance with the standards laid down in the codes. Although it is not proposed to make the use of codes compulsory, there will be a considerable incentive for butchers to adopt them and in this way attract customers. The many thousands of reputable butchers in this country will have nothing to lose from endorsement by the Commission of practices which they already follow.
  1230
  I hope that these explanations have allayed the fears which have been expressed by my noble friend and by other noble Lords, and that he will now be prepared to withdraw this Amendment.
  LORD ROYLE: I confess at once that I am greatly comforted by what my noble friend has said. When he talks about the codes being purely voluntary and not mandatory, and about many codes being allowed; and when he uses and stresses the word "encouragement" rather than enforcement—all these give me a great deal of comfort. If I have done nothing else but get my noble friend's statement on record for the future, I feel that I have accomplished something, and, more in sorrow than in anger, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9:
  Powers to meet future developments in livestock and livestock products industries
  9.—(1) With a view to enabling the livestock industry and the livestock products industry to carry out such changes as the Commission may consider to be necessary or expedient, the Commission may submit to the Ministers a scheme (in this section referred to as a "development scheme") for the purpose of conducing to the better organisation, development or regulation of any section of the livestock industry or the livestock products industry.
  (2) A development scheme may make provision for the rationalisation or concentration of a section of either industry, including in particular—

  (a) provisions compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacity,

  (b) provisions compelling or encouraging a reduction in the number of undertakings engaged, and

  (c)provisions requiring permission to be given for the setting up of a new undertaking or the relocation of an existing undertaking.

  3.50 p.m.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved to add to subsection (2):
  "Provided that no provision having compulsory effect shall come into force before the expiration of five years after the coming into force of this section."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This Amendment would have the effect of suspending for

  1231
  five years the compulsory powers which the Bill provides for the Commission to apply to schemes which they may promote. This was the most fiercely contested clause in another place, and outside Government circles I think it received no support anywhere. It brought about, in my experience, the unique achievement of uniting all the 18 different national organisations that take part in this diffuse trade. I have never known them united on anything before, but every one of them has protested to Ministers that this is entirely objectionable to them. The only people who have not protested are the National Farmers' Union, who of course are protected in other ways under the 1947 and 1957 Acts.
  The fact is that this is a most objectionable power which the Government are proposing to give to the Commission. My Amendment does not seek to remove this power altogether; it seeks only to make a marginal reduction of what is provided in the Bill by suspending its effect for the first five years. The whole trade are frightened of this provision of compulsion because they simply do not know what is in store for them. They do not know who the members of the Commission will be, and they do not know, because Ministers have not been able to tell them, how these powers might be used to affect their businesses. All they can see from the terms of the Bill is that the Commission could put up a scheme which would oblige the trade to rationalise their business, either by closing down individual businesses or, in one way or another, by affecting the livelihoods of their tens of thousands of members throughout the country.
  I see that the Minister in another place tried to comfort the opponents of this provision by explaining that the Commission would not be able to introduce a compulsory scheme by their own wish, but would have to submit it to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Minister would then have to move an Affirmative Order in Parliament before the scheme could be brought into existence; and it was maintained that this would be a substantial safeguard. I am bound to recognise that it has some value as a safeguard, and, in principle, it is a substantial safeguard. But, in practice, the vote of the
  1232
  Government in the Commons, certainly under the new régime, with the Prime Minister requiring an automatic vote from his supporters, would automatically ensure that the Commission and the Minister would get their scheme. Very little comfort is to be gained from the value of this safeguard.
  When this matter was discussed in another place the Government used their majority, both in Committee and on the Report stage, to maintain the compulsory powers in the Bill: and because it is obvious that the Government have made up their mind that they want to keep this in the Bill, I have not sought directly to reverse it and take the compulsory powers out, but have only sought by this relatively small Amendment to suspend the application of such a scheme for the first five years. I do it in this way because I believe that a Meat and Livestock Commission is a good innovation, and that in the long term it will have a most valuable function to perform for this most complicated industry. But I am quite sure that its path to success is going to be a long and difficult one, and its first task will be to learn all about this immensely complex industry. An interesting speech like that of the noble Lord, Lord Royle, this afternoon is just one facet of this complicated industry. The first job of the Commission will be to try to win the confidence of the hundreds of thousands of men and women who work in the industry.
  All I am trying to do is to give the Commission—the noble Lord's Commission—a clean start, and no more, so that for the first five years, at any rate, they shall not be trammelled up with the possibility of compulsory powers. I should think that it is exceedingly unlikely, if the noble Lord is able to get the right kind of chairman and members, that the Commission will ever put up compulsory schemes. For my part, I cannot see a compulsory scheme working in this industry. But, in any event, if we make sure that they cannot for the first five years, we shall ensure that they really understand the complexities and problems they are dealing with before they consider doing this. That is the basis of my Amendment, and I earnestly hope that the noble Lord will take it in good faith.
  I should like to add a word or two about the structure of the industry in order to make plain to your Lordships its vast and complex nature. Starting with the farm, with which most of us are very familiar, the next stage is the auction; the next stage is the slaughterhouse; the next stage is the wholesaler, and the last stage the retailer. Between these different stages there are all kinds of complicated sub-stages. Each one of these stages is divided up into literally thousands of different private businesses, all interlocked and related to each other. If one were setting out to devise a structure for producing and distributing meat, one certainly would not devise something like this.
  The noble Lord, Lord Royle, spoke earlier about the attractions of the Ministry of Food structure in war time, and this I recognise. But that structure is completely impossible in times of a sufficiency of supply in order to give housewives choice over the counter. As soon as there is to be choice over the counter, there has to be flexibility right through the whole system back to the farm. This is why, some 13 years ago, we decided that to give that choice we must dismantle the State trading system which we had in war time and get back to a free market system, which, on the whole, has worked extremely well.
  It was interesting to us all to see that the Verdon-Smith Committee, with the extremely acute and penetrating mind of its chairman, came to the conclusion, after a thorough examination of this extraordinary structure, that, despite all the defects in it—and, Heaven knows!, there are plenty of them—it was still the best system that we could have, and the right thing to do was to set up a national body to look after it, guide it and gradually develop it over the years. All the attractions of theoretical schemes, which would get all the meat on the hook so that you can really see what you have before you sell it, must break down on the gigantic practical difficulties of handling a very perishable product in literally thousands of different cuts all over the country.
  Referring to the Verdon-Smith Committee, it is relevant to remind the noble Lord—I think he knows it already—that that Committee specifically advised against giving the Commission compulsory powers. I hope, therefore, that the
  1234
  noble Lord will have that point in mind in considering my Amendment. On the whole, this system succeeds in getting the meat on to the counter fresh and relatively cheap—certainly cheap when compared with European prices—and this is the flexibility that we wish to continue.
  There is a further point here. It is known to all in the industry—and I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, will agree with me here—that every investigation that Governments have set up to look into the margins on which the various stages of the industry operate has confirmed that these margins are small. On the whole, they are smaller than most distributive industries work upon, and the industry is intensely competitive. I know personally—and I dare say other noble Lords do—groups of farmers who have tried to go into the wholesale meat business in recent years in order to market their own meat, as they hoped, more successfully, but instead, without exception, they have "burnt their fingers". They have discovered that this is an intensely expert and highly competitive trade and it is much better to leave it to the professionals to handle. In this trade it is far easier to make a loss than a profit.
  I am going into this in a little detail because I wish to make the point that there is no need for rationalisation in this trade. The penalty for inefficiency is rapid insolvency, and to think that the Commission will need to set up a scheme which will compel the closing down of a business is quite contrary to the whole experience of the trade. In fact, they are much more likely to need additional funds in order to support particular sections of the trade to whom they introduce schemes, such as national codes of cutting, and so on, where they think they might make improvements if they get these innovations introduced. This really is how the trade lives. It is highly competitive and many newcomers who enter it go out of business very fast.
  This applies also to the slaughterhouse position. There are large numbers of private slaughterhouses still working and playing an essential part in the system. The last thing I wish to see is these closed down, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will confirm that he does not want to see it either. Surely the right

  1235
  thing to do is to establish the right standards of hygiene and handling and then leave the economic forces to determine which ones shall continue to exist and which shall go out of business.
  With regard to compensation, I should have been far happier if the noble Lord had not drawn the compensation terms so tightly. As the Bill is drafted, compensation for a business which is closed down under a compulsory scheme has to come out of the central fund which is provided for out of the levies which the trade itself has to pay, and it seems rather hard that the trade should have to furnish a fund in order to enable the wholesale closure of its own members. This is really the classical tradition that when the moment comes one has to apply to one's own lips, the poisoned chalice. I have not sought to move an Amendment to the compensation clauses because it would be touching the Commons' Privilege and would undoubtedly get short shrift there, but it is because the trade is being made to provide its own compensation that I think it is even more necessary to introduce a safeguard to ensure that the Commission do not consider putting up a scheme of this kind in the early days. I feel this is most formidable and I earnestly hope noble Lords will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 30, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
  4.4 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who after all is himself a keen and able agriculturist, will accept this Amendment. It does not say that compulsion is never to be used. I hope it never will be, but what are we doing here? We are setting up a Commission which I am sure will be highly competent, but one of the tests of the Commission is that nobody on it is to have any interest in agriculture. One might almost say that nobody on it is to know anything about agriculture. The members are to be completely independent. I am not quarrelling with that, because if we are to have an independent Commission then we must have people who are independent of any interest in the industry. However, we do want this
  1236
  Commission to have the good will of everybody engaged in the industry, and things are not too easy in farming today.
  Great efforts have been made to respond to what I think is a sound policy of the Government, and I know from my own experience how important it is to have co-operation between holdings, but I also know what an enormous amount of money is involved in this. One amalgamates several holdings, puts up large buildings and adopts things such as new storage facilities for barley, and so on. All this is sound and economic, but the whole of the capital has to be found by the man who is doing the farming. The Government want his co-operation. After all, he may know as much about it—certainly in the initial stages—as the Commission. I hope very much that the noble Lord will not give the Commission these powers at the start. As my noble friend said, I doubt whether a wise Commission will ever wish to use them, or will ever need to use them. In agriculture a number of people tend to be conservative (with a small "c") but at the same time they are doing extraordinarily efficient farming at their own cost. There is a good deal of suspicion about compulsion, and certainly to give this Commission compulsory powers is not the way to start it off.
  Why cannot the noble Lord accept this Amendment, and put up tentative plans voluntarily in the first instance? If they are good plans, I am perfectly certain the industry will carry them out. I know we shall be told that of course it will be all right and the Commission will behave sensibly. I may have said that as a Minister fairly often, but I never got away with it, and I ought not to have got away with it because one has to legislate for odd people as well as for superlatively good ones. We get Ministers who are as sensible as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, but on the other hand I have seen people in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who certainly do not possess the necessary qualities.
  If we tell a man that he has to shut down a large part of an undertaking into which he has put a great deal of money it is going to be costly for him, and, after all, there is always the sanction that if people are producing too much they will stop producing. I wish the Government

  1237
  would realise that the law of supply and demand applies to those of us who put our money into business and into farming, and that if we find we are producing something which is not wanted then we reduce our production of that commodity and produce something else. For all these reasons, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment, and I am quite sure the noble Lord will be doing the Commission a real service if he does not put compulsion in at the start.
  EARL FERRERS: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford in this Amendment because I think he has put a formidable case. I do not like Clause 9, for the very reason that it allows the Commission to "compel and encourage", and it seems to me sinister that the Government have chosen that way of placing those two words. One would have thought they would have said "encouraging" first and "compelling" afterwards. One wonders why they have chosen to put these two words in that particular order. The Bill gives the Commission powers to make:
  "provisions compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacity".
  This is not the elimination of excess meat; it is the elimination of the excess capacity to deal with it. In other words, presumably, possibly, slaughterers or wholesalers. What else does it mean?
  Again, paragraph (b) refers to:
  "provisions compelling or encouraging a reduction in the number of undertakings engaged…"
  That can mean only putting a person out of business. I may be wrong, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would enlighten us upon it. What is the meaning of the word, "undertaking", because, as I see it, an "undertaking" can be any link in the chain from the farmer right down to the retailer. It can be a farmer, a butcher, a wholesaler, an abattoir, a retailer, a slaughterer; any of these particular people run undertakings, and under this particular clause the Commission can compel any of these people to go out of business. I think this is a very unsavoury aspect of it.
  What, therefore, is the purpose of this clause? It has been said, both on Second Reading here and in another place, that the reason is that we must give the Commission plenty of powers to cope with any
  1238
  unforseen circumstances that may appear in the future. Frankly, I do not believe that is a good enough excuse. For this kind of clause to be included, the Government must have in mind some specific idea. If they have a specific example, will the noble Lord tell us what it is. If they have not a specific example, it seems to me that these powers are unnecessary. I seriously doubt whether control is the right way to deal with a perishable commodity.
  My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has said that this is a very tenuous market, and anyone who has had anything to do with it knows that the price of meat fluctuates violently up and down, both daily and within the day; and this is, of course, done by competition and by the operation of the law of supply and demand. After all, nobody wants to be left with a hunk of decaying meat on his hands, and if the Government are to eliminate competition and replace it with controls, this possibility becomes very much greater.
  The meat trade is very alive and alert, and very sensitive to the fluctuations of supply and demand. I should have thought that every encouragement should be given to people, whether big or small, whether the large chain store or the small individual butcher, to enter this trade, to keep it alive and keep it sensitive, and so to make the business of supplying meat all the more competitive and all the more vigorous.
  As I see it, this clause proposes to replace that competition with controls, and is giving the Commission powers to put a person out of business. I think that these are crippling powers; they are powers to cripple the individual and deprive him of his livelihood. All my noble friend is doing by this Amendment is to say: "Let the Commission first start by encouraging; and if, after five years, they find that all their encouragement and exhortation have proved useless, they may have to compel". I should have thought that in all the circumstances that was the most modest Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord will say that he can accept it. I should not like to be a producer, a retailer or a butcher who was compelled to go out of business by a Commission having all the powers which this Meat and Livestock Commission are to

  1239
  have, and I should have thought that their encouragement would be sufficient.
  4.15 p.m.
  LORD WALSTON: We started with the sweet reason of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, followed by the honeyed words of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and then we came to the blunt phrases of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, all in their different ways singing the same song. In effect, they were saying of the clause: "This is not all that bad. The Commission as a whole are fairly reasonable; we do not even mind their having compulsory powers one day, but we do not want them to have them to-day. They must wait five years, and then we are prepared to give them the powers sought."
  I think I should say straight away that I am unable, and unwilling, to accept the Amendment. I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I explain why. You will appreciate, from what has been said in another place—and I am sure most of your Lordships will have read the Report of the proceedings—and from what has been said elsewhere, that it is the intention of Clause 9 to provide powers to allow the Meat and Livestock Commission and the industry to meet future developments by submitting to Ministers and to Parliament schemes to bring about the better organisation, development or regulation of the industry. And it is important to realise that, and always to bear it in mind. Listening to some of the phrases used by some of the noble Lords who have just spoken, one might have got a quite different impression.
  One would have thought that the Livestock Commission, instead of being a body of reasonable people set up to promote the efficiency of the livestock industry in all its aspects, with the object ultimately of giving the consumer better quality at lower price, and thereby helping the producer to get a better living, and helping all the people who come in between—a body with strictly limited powers, subject, in this particular instance at least, to the very detailed control of the appropriate Ministers and of Parliament itself—was an autocratic, dictatorial and completely autonomous body set up with the express idea of antagonising the industry and ruining certain members of it. I know your
  1240
  Lordships had no intention of giving that impression, but I am afraid that some people, listening to some of the phrases used, might have gained that impression.
  I want to emphasise that the Livestock Commission are there to help the whole industry and, in the final analysis, the consumer in this very complex and complicated matter. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, used a phrase, to the effect that, "If one were starting from scratch one would not devise a complex and complicated structure like this." Indeed, he almost went so far as to suggest that it was an unnecessarily complicated structure; he said he would have devised a simpler one had he had an opportunity—and I wish he had—many years ago to do so. But I would suggest to the noble Lord that the more complex an industry is—and we all agree it is highly complex—the less the Commission must be fettered at this stage by being told just what they can and what they cannot do. The industry must have the maximum degree of freedom to get on with its job, subject to the overriding authority, first of the Ministry, and ultimately of Parliament.
  With the greatest respect to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, with his very great experience in these matters, I would take issue with him when he says that one must legislate for odd people. With the greatest of respect, I would say that in legislating for the powers of a Commission to be set up by Her Majesty's Government one must not legislate in the expectation that the members of that Commission are going to be odd people. One must expect them at least to be ordinary, intelligent, common-sense people—
  THE EARL OF SWINTON: Even those people do very odd things.
  LORD WALSTON: Even those people do very odd things from time to time, that is perfectly true. But it must be remembered that they have not only the normal checks, due to inertia that exists in any Government or quasi-Governmental body, but also the checks of Government Departments and of Parliament. This clause has been deliberately drafted to meet as wide a range of eventualities as possible, and it therefore contains very broad powers. It would permit a development scheme to include

  1241
  certain types of compulsory provisions. I do not deny that for a moment. This is an essential part of this scheme. But we must get these powers in perspective, and we must remember the safeguards which are built into this scheme and which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, mentioned in passing; in particular that any development scheme would require approval by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
  From the way the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, spoke, I was glad to realise that he was confident that five years from now we should have the same Government as we have today. But whatever Government may be in power, they have the ultimate authority in deciding whether or not the proposals put forward by the Livestock Commission are reasonable and workable. I am quite certain that no scheme would be able to go through all the procedures laid down in Schedule 2, and become law, unless it was a good scheme and one that commanded a pretty wide measure of support.
  It is in this context that Lord Nugent of Guildford's Amendment should be viewed. I certainly do not accept that there is any justification for including an embargo for five years of the kind he proposes. The powers can be used only for the improvement of the industry. That is provided in the clause, and they are properly safeguarded. If these powers can be used only for the improvement of the industry, what the noble Lord is here suggesting is that the industry should not be improved for five years. We say to your Lordships that if the Livestock Commission, plus the Minister, plus Parliament, feel that a certain compulsory proposal is in the interests of the industry, and will improve it, it is right that it should be put into force at any time which the Commission considers reasonable.
  The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, says No; even though the Commission believe that a certain scheme, involving compulsory powers, is desirable for the improvement of the industry after three years, after four years, after four-and-a-half years; even though that scheme has been properly put out by its experts, has been approved by the Minister of Agriculture, and accepted by both Houses of Parliament, it should not
  1242
  come into force at once but must be delayed until the five years are up. That is a completely untenable and unrealistic attitude to adopt. After all, this is a rapidly changing industry, both in structure and in method. Who can say at this moment whether a scheme containing certain compulsory provisions for rationalisation or concentration of the industry will or will not be appropriate to the needs of the industry in a year or two's time? I do not think that even the noble Lord, Lord Royle, with all his experience, would be prepared to do that. Certainly I should not be prepared to do so, particularly as this period of change is likely to be of vital importance to the development of the industry for a great many years ahead.
  I do not want your Lordships to misunderstand me on this aspect. What I have said does not mean that I have any specific scheme in mind, or that I think there will necessarily be need for such a scheme. I answer the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, categorically by saying that there is no such scheme in mind in Whitehall, or elsewhere. All I am saying is that the Livestock Commission, when set up, must not be hampered and fettered by having these reserve powers, if they are considered necessary, denied to them for a period of five years. I therefore ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment which would in my view make Clause 9 far less adaptable to meet the needs of the industry during this very important period.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his very informative reply, but express my regret that it was so negative in its final outcome? I think that, in order to try to build up some sort of argument for himself—which he was hard put to do—he had to distort the picture completely by indicating that no improvement could take place in the industry except by compulsion; and of course that simply is not true.
  LORD WALSTON: May I correct either myself or the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Whatever I may have said, that was certainly not my intention. There are many ways in which the industry can be improved without the use of compulsory powers. This is merely one of the many methods open to the

  1243
  Commission, and I do not see why we should pick just one and deny it to them.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord for giving me my case, which is that in their early years the Commission would do much better to proceed by voluntary methods. And I am quite sure that is right. The Commission will have a very difficult job to learn all about the industry, keep in touch with it and win its confidence. When they do decide to start a scheme they should try it first on a voluntary basis, on the lines of Clause 7. This is the
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [New provision for payment of beef cow subsidies]:
  LORD HILTON OF UPTON LORD HILTON OF UPTON moved, in subsection (1), after "calf" to insert:
  1244
  right way to start. They will also need to undertake a great deal of research, because very little is known about most of these things. I am quite sure that it would be a mistake even to consider a compulsory scheme in the first five years. I am sorry that the noble Lord was wholly unable to accommodate us, and I must advise my noble friends to divide on the Amendment.
  4.28 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 35.

  CONTENTS

  Aberdeen and Temair, M.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Jessel, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Drumalbyn, L.

  Kilmany, L.

  Albemarle, E.

  Dudley, L.

  Mar, E.

  Allerton, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Ampthill, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Molson, L.

  Atholl, D.

  Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Blackford, L.

  Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

  Oakshott, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Ferrers, E.

  St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

  Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

  Foley, L.

  St. Helens, L.

  Buccleuch and Queensbury, D

  Fortescue, E.

  Sandford, L.

  Buckton, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Somers, L.

  Clwyd, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Strange of Knokin, Bs.

  Crawshaw, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Daventry, V.

  Horsbrugh, Bs.

  Thurlow, L.

  Denham, L. [Teller.]

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Ilford, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Digby, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Faringdon, L.

  Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

  Archibald, L.

  Gaitskell, Bs.

  Royle, L.

  Arwyn, L.

  Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  St. Davids, V.

  Blyton, L.

  Henderson, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Bowles, L. [Teller.]

  Hilton of Upton, L.

  Silkin, L.

  Brockway, L.

  Hughes, L.

  Stow Hill, L.

  Burden, L.

  Hunt, L.

  Strang, L.

  Campbell of Eskan, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Summerskill, Bs.

  Champion, L.

  Latham, L.

  Walston, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Lindgren, L.

  Williamson, L.

  Collison, L.

  Maelor, L.

  Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

  Crook, L.

  Pargiter, L.

  "or has, in the opinion of the appropriate Minister, been brought into a herd to replace one which has borne a calf."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, the purpose of which is to remove a limitation which Clause 12, as at present drafted, would impose on the arrangements for paying the subsidy. Clause 12 provides for payment of the beef cow subsidy introduced by the Government last year. Pending

  1245
  passage of the Bill, the subsidy is being paid under the authority of the Appropriation Act. The intention is that subsidy should be paid on cows which on a prescribed date are comprised in regular herds maintained over the year primarily for the purpose of breeding calves for beef. As drafted at present, the clause would enable payment to be made on a replacement animal that had been brought into a herd during the year to replace a cow, provided that the replacement was itself a cow or, although a heifer at the time it joined the herd, became a cow by bearing a calf by the prescribed date. But the clause as now drafted would preclude payment of subsidy on a heifer replacement which was in the herd on the prescribed date but had not had its first calf by that date. Thus we could have a situation where, for example, a spring-calving heifer brought into a herd during the autumn to continue the calving pattern of a cow which it replaced, would not be eligible.
  The Amendment is designed to prevent anomalies of this kind arising. When the appropriate Minister considers that a heifer in a herd on the prescribed date is a proper replacement for a cow which has left the herd, then subsidy may be paid. There will thus be no question of a farmer, who has had a cow, reared a calf from it and replaced it with a heifer which will continue the breeding cycle for the next year, losing subsidy simply because his pattern of calving and replacement does not fit in with the date prescribed for administrative purposes. The Amendment is designed to meet the practical conditions of husbandry and management in beef herds, and I hope it will be acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 31, after ("calf") insert the said words.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
  LORD ROYLE: May I say one word on this? I am delighted to see the definition that a "cow" means "a female bovine animal which has borne a calf." My deep regret is that it does not go further and say that a heifer is a female bovine animal that has not borne a calf. I should like to get away from the term "cow heifers" about which we have
  1246
  heard so much in the past. I regret that the definition has not gone further.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for his explanation of the meaning of this Amendment. I welcome the Amendment as a valuable slight extension, which will prevent an unwelcome anomaly occurring.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Levy on industries to meet Commission's expenses.]:
  4.40 p.m.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved after subsection (1) to insert:
  "() in this section the expressions 'livestock' and 'livestock products' include home-produced and imported livestock and home-produced and imported livestock products."
  The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is a simple one. It is to empower the Commission to impose a levy on imported as well as home-produced livestock. I noticed that during the Committee stage of this Bill in another place the Minister there explained that the Bill provided already that the Commission have power to impose a levy on imported as well as home-produced livestock, although it does not specifically say so. Therefore my Amendment is not altering the substance of the Bill, but simply seeks to alter the presentation.
  I should make plain that I have an ulterior motive in seeking to do this, because I want the Commission to design their system of levy so as to cover all livestock, imported as well as home produced. It seems to me that if this is not done, the home-produced carcases will be at a price disadvantage as compared with imported meat if it is levy free. Therefore, I should like to see these additional words included in order to bring to the attention of the Commission when they are designing their levy scheme the fact that they can extend the levy to cover imported as well as home-produced carcases. I hope that the Minister of the day will have the wisdom to approve the scheme in that form. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
  LORD BALERNO: I should like to support my noble friend as strongly as possible on this point. It is important for the Commission to be quite clear on this, otherwise one can see points being raised in dispute afterwards. Therefore, it is most important that it should be explicit in the Bill. This is the only way in which one can get equity for the home producer.
  LORD WALSTON: I am glad that my own advice is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to the effect that, as the Bill is at presnt drafted, a levy under Clause 13 would be competent to cover traders in respect of imported livestock and livestock products just as it would be in respect of home-produced products. So far, at least, we are in complete agreement, which is a pleasant situation to be in. I would go on from there to say that, as a means of permitting such a levy, this Amendment is unnecessary. In moving the Amendment, the noble Lord was honest enough to say that that was not really his objective. But I want to make it quite clear that the Government have no intention that such a levy should be imposed upon imported meat. I will come to the question of imported livestock in a moment, but first of all I shall try to dispose of the question of meat.
  It is true that imported meat may to some limited extent benefit from the work of the Commission, but it would not benefit from any of the functions relating to livestock production and slaughter. But it would be extremely hard to assess the amount of that benefit, and it is very difficult to envisage a levy of more than a very small sum on traders who are actually handling imported meat. This would be quite disproportionately expensive to collect, since there would have to be separate machinery for collection. So the net benefit to the Commission, after paying the cost of collection, would almost certainly be negligible. We therefore concluded that, in practice, a levy on imported meat would not be worth while.
  If I may come to deal with imported livestock, here one has a different situation since such livestock would undoubtedly benefit from a wider range of the Commission's functions, and the collection of a levy on such stock would not
  1248
  need any separate machinery. It would be collected in exactly the same way as the levy on home-produced stock. Moreover, to a large extent it is not possible to draw a clear line between imported and home-produced livestock since imported livestock would include the stores "imported" from Northern Ireland as well as those from Eire—stores on which a large sector of our cattle-fattening industry depends. It would therefore be inappropriate at this stage to say that imported livestock should or should not be subject to a levy. Such a levy might very well be appropriate, but, as I have said, we have concluded that a levy on imported meat would be unwise. I hope that the noble Lord, having received this explanation, will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for his explanation of his policy, and I recognise that we are not arguing about that because I cannot here determine what his policy is in that matter. All that I am trying to do is simply to put this explicitly in the Bill. I am not persuaded that it would not be better to be in the Bill, and even if the Government have made up their mind now not to impose a levy on imported carcases, and have not made up their mind about imported livestock, I still should like to see it in the Bill. I should have thought that it looks right in the Bill, and that the Bill would be better for it. Although I am not going to ask noble Lords to press this to a Division to-day, as I do not feel it is a matter of sufficient substance, I hope that the noble Lord will confer with his advisers, and perhaps with the Minister of Agriculture, in the interval before Report stage to see whether it might not be included in the Bill. There cannot be any objection to it in principle because the Bill already implies it; it is only a matter of presentation. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.49 p.m.
  LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved to add to the clause:
  "() Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, no charges under a levy scheme shall be imposed twice on the same carcase or any part of a carcase upon which a levy is imposed."
  The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment, and I hope my noble friend will be able to accept it. It is a matter of making quite sure that there shall be no duplication in regard to levies. This kind of Amendment was moved in another place on Report, and the main objections to it were, first, that the levy would actually be imposed on persons and not on carcases; and, secondly, that to operate such an Amendment would mean restricting the method of imposing a levy solely to the imposition at the point of slaughter. I would attempt to counter that argument which the Minister then put forward by saying that, although the levy is strictly imposed on the person, it is the person in relation to the carcase or part of a carcase. Therefore this is merely a matter of terminology.
  What is to be created again is a financial levy imposed on the same piece of meat on more than one occasion. This does not preclude other methods of imposing a levy, apart from that at the point of slaughter. The present P.I.D.A. levy scheme, for example, is imposed by deduction from the subsidy, and there is no reason why that method should not be used. There are other methods also which could be used for imposing a levy.
  I would point out to my noble friend that in the wholesale market, and in a great market like Smithfield in London, the custom is for carcases or even quarters of beef to be sold between one wholesaler and another. In some cases, the second wholesaler, the jobber, might conceivably cut up a carcase or a quarter of meat before it is passed on to the retailer. These are the problems, in a complicated trade such as this is, which make it just possible if great care is not taken for a levy to be imposed, quite accidentally, more than once. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment in the hope that it might clarify the position, and I ask my noble friend whether he would be prepared to agree to this subsection.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 18, line 39, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Royle.)
  LORD WALSTON: This Amendment is similar to Amendments which have been discussed in another place, and I had hoped that what was said then would have cleared up what I think one can
  1250
  justly describe as misunderstandings. Perhaps we are a little unfortunate over this matter of double-charging, though I doubt very much whether there is, in fact, any real problem here. But in so far as there appears to be a problem, I think it arises because, as a result of representations from the meat trade and other interests—and we always do our best to listen to representations made from such knowledgeable people—the provisions of the Bill have been considerably widened.
  From the very beginning no secret has been made of the fact that we think the most practicable and equitable method of imposing the levy lies in a single payment on all animals when they are slaughtered. That would appear to be the logical and simple way of imposing it. But the various interests concerned asked us not to rule out the possibility of splitting a single payment of this kind; for example, between producers and the trade. The Government accepted this, they listened to the representations of the interests concerned, and Clause 13 was drafted specially in order to make such a split possible. I am advised that the effect of my noble friend's Amendment is somewhat ambiguous, that it would probably prevent a scheme from providing for payments in relation to a carcase coming from more than one source, and it is clear that many of the interests concerned would therefore oppose such an Amendment.
  So much for the effect of the Amendment. If I may, I shall add a comment on what I assume is really the intention behind the Amendment, that is to say, to ensure that a scheme with unfair provisions involving double-charging could not become law. The implication is that at some stage in the course of consideration of the draft scheme by the interests concerned, the Commission, Ministers and Parliament, the possibility of double-charging became apparent, and that the scheme would then need to be revised to conform to the provision which the Amendment proposes to add to the Bill.
  But, surely, if the possibility that a draft scheme would permit double-charging became apparent, no one would be prepared to approve the scheme in any case, whether double-charging were expressly prohibited in the Statute or not.

  1251
  This would be an administrative nightmare for the Commission, obviously objectionable to the interests concerned, and equally abhorrent to Ministers and to Parliament. Therefore, in my submission such a scheme would have no chance of becoming law, whether or not the Statute expressly prohibited it. In practice, therefore, if there is any danger of double-charging, it arises not so much from the possibility of a deliberate provision in a levy scheme, but because of some flaw in the scheme itself; and a provision of the kind proposed in the Amendment would no more prevent this than would any statement made by me at the present time.
  To sum up, this Amendment would have the undesirable, though, I am quite sure, unintended effect of ruling out any form of levy scheme which allowed for payments in respect of a single carcase being split between two persons. It would be ineffective in preventing any accidental double-charging which might arise from a flaw in the levy scheme. Also, as a means of preventing deliberate double-charging, or even just as a statement of intention, in my view the Amendment is unnecessary, since in any case there would be no question of a scheme with such a provision becoming law. I therefore hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment.
  LORD ROYLE: My noble friend speaks much more quickly than I think, and I must confess that I do not have a clue what he has been talking about. But as the matter is not of very great importance and we can probably get over it, I will read with great care what he has said and will consider the situation before Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Inquiries by Commission]:
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved to insert after subsection (1):
  "() The Chairman at such inquiry shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and shall be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing and shall be assisted by such members of the Commission as the Commission may nominate."
  The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment would be to provide that at an inquiry held by the Commission the Chairman should be a qualified barrister, advocate or solicitor of not less than 10 years' standing, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Bill as drafted provides that the Chairman of the Commission shall always take the chair at inquiries. That has the advantage that naturally the Chairman knows all about the subject under inquiry. Part of the object of holding such an inquiry is to carry public confidence, and quite the worst way of doing that would be to have as its Chairman the Chairman of the statutory body which is itself carrying out the inquiry. I should have thought that all experience had shown that by far the best way of winning public confidence was to have an independent qualified Chairman, which is really the basis of my Amendment. I know that this Amendment was moved in another place and was rejected, but I feel that it is a good point and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will look at it again and not simply reject it.
  In most inquiries—I accept, perhaps, not all—inevitably in the nature of things the Commission will themselves be heavily involved in the matter under inquiry. Therefore, they will have a case to put before the inquiry in the same way as the complainant or the other parties who come to the inquiry. Presumably in those cases there will be witnesses from the Commission who will come and make out their case. This will be an informal kind of inquiry, although it will be set up under an Act of Parliament. But it will inevitably give the impression, since it will have in the chair the Chairman of the Commission as one of the parties involved, that the Chairman is both plaintiff and judge in his own cause. Therefore, as a device for winning the confidence of the public, it really would be hard to design a worse one. This would be the same as if, in the case that is now before the nation of the "D" notice inquiry, the Prime Minister, instead of appointing Lord Radcliffe as chairman, had decided to take the chair himself. It would be completely ridiculous and laughable, and yet this is really what the Government are commending to us.
  There is a secondary point which is just worth making, and it is that having

  1253
  an experienced lawyer in the chair ensures that the order of an inquiry is properly observed, that witnesses give their evidence in an orderly fashion and that the whole thing is conducted in a satisfactory way. I think that from every point of view it has been found—by, after all, many years of experience—that this is the best form for such inquiries, and I urge the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to accept this Amendment as being a very sensible one. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 22, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
  5.2 p.m.
  EARL FERRERS: May I support my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford in this Amendment, because I think the Amendment is good and is also important. He has said that, as it stands at the moment, it gives the impression that the Meat and Livestock Commission will be acting both as plaintiff and as judge in its own case, and I think that this is very true, because the Bill says:
  "The Commission may hold such inquiries as they consider necessary or desirable for the discharge of any of their functions".
  One can well visualise a certain case coming about in relation to Clause 9, which we were discussing earlier. I do not wish metaphorically to rub the noble Lord's nose into Clause 9, but the fact is that the Commission may wish to reorganise some of the functions of the meat trade, and that reorganisation may put a person out of business. This person may rightly object, and so an inquiry would be held. The person being put out of business would be represented at the inquiry, and against him would be representatives of the Meat and Livestock Commission; but the chairman of the whole inquiry would be someone representing one side in the dispute. I think this would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and that it would be in the interests of everyone that an impartial chairman should be there so that fair play not only can be known to be done but, as usual, can be seen to be done.
  LORD WALSTON: I fully appreciate the motives which have prompted both noble Lords who have spoken to this Amendment. They are admirable motives, but I myself believe that they are based on a misconception of the type of
  1254
  inquiry for which this clause provides. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said that the chairman of the Commission would be both plaintiff and judge, and he compared it to the "D" notice proceedings: but the inquiries referred to in this clause are in no way designed to penalise any person who comes before the inquiry to give evidence; they are simply to ascertain facts. It is not correct to say, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, suggested, that if there was a question of closing down a certain section of the industry there would be an inquiry at which both sides were heard and the chairman, having himself been the plaintiff, would then make his decision. That is not the way this would operate, as I explained when we were discussing an earlier Amendment. There are other procedures after a recommendation has been made by the Livestock Commission for any such drastic action.
  The object of these inquiries is solely to enable the Commission themselves to find out what the situation in any given section of the industry is at any given moment. They will therefore be concerned essentially to obtain information in order to enable the Commission to discharge their functions properly. As I say, there is no question at all of the inquiry penalising or prosecuting witnesses, or making judgments in individual cases. Therefore, while of course the interests of witnesses must be safeguarded, it would in my view be entirely inappropriate to demand or to make provision for an independent legal chairman. These inquiries will be technical rather than legal in character.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one minute? I wonder whether he could give us an instance of the kind of subject that might be inquired into, so that we could perhaps be the better able to follow him.
  LORD WALSTON: That is a little difficult to do off the cuff, but I would imagine that the type of inquiry envisaged here would be some investigation to gain information about, for example, the cuts of meat that are required and are desirable in certain areas. The Commission would then be empowered to summon witnesses to come and tell them how they cut up lamb in

  1255
  Lancashire, beef in Warwickshire, and so on. It is that type of case I have in mind. For that, a legal chairman would be entirely inappropriate, and there would be no question of any need to safeguard witnesses.
  These inquiries will of course be only a small part—I guess a very small part—of the general process by which the Commission acquire their information. Even then, most of the inquiries which the Commission pursue are likely to be on an informal and voluntary basis, and the provisions for a summons and for the taking of evidence on oath would be used in only very special cases where more formal proceedings were necessary. The Commission, of course, would have legal advice to ensure that the proper procedures were followed when subsections (2) and (8) were being used, and witnesses would at all times have the right to be represented legally.
  Furthermore, to bring in an independent legal chairman specially for an inquiry in which a summons had to be issued would obviously interrupt the Commission's progress in gathering information. However eminent the independent chairman, it would not be conducive to efficiency to introduce him at what would probably be quite a late stage in the course of the consideration of a particular subject. He would inevitably be unfamiliar with the subject matter—which, incidentally, all concerned have agreed is extremely complex, as the noble Lord himself pointed out on an earlier occasion—and would tend to give the proceedings a legal emphasis which, in my view, would be inappropriate to their purpose or their circumstances.
  The Government fully recognise the fears of some members of the meat trade that they would be put on trial, as it were, before the Commission, but I hope I have made very clear to the meat trade that there is no question whatsoever of any inquiry putting individual traders in peril in this way. These are not disciplinary inquiries, or inquiries at large. They are—and under subsection (1) can only be—"for the discharge of any of" the Commission's functions. That puts the emphasis on finding the technical facts, and on ensuring that when the Commission act it is on the basis of
  1256
  knowledge about what is going on in the industry.
  I hope I have allayed the noble Lord's fears, and have convinced him that, while I share entirely with him the desire—indeed, the insistence—that justice must always be seen to be done, this is not a question of doing justice between one side or another in a dispute, but merely of gathering information for the proper discharge of the Commission's functions.
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: May I just ask one question? I have listened to the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, has given; but the same clause later refers to the summons specifying the hour and the day, et cetera, and further on it says:
  "Within fourteen days of service of a summons under this section, the person served may appeal to the High Court …"
  From the words used in these later subsections it does not look as though the Commission are going to inquire merely into whether or not meat is being cut up in a particular way in Liverpool or in London. We are here dealing, according to this very Bill, with summonses which involve the High Court, and so on. I am sure that anyone who thinks that he is being wrongly summoned or wrongly dealt with can simply go to the courts under Common Law; nevertheless from the wording of Clause 21 it looks as though a good deal more is involved than just collecting a little information for the ordinary working of the Act.
  LORD WALSTON: Perhaps we have erred here in safeguarding the individual unduly, and therefore raising unnecessary fears. The example I gave "off the cuff" to the noble Lord was of the type of thing that might take place. One could go on to say, for instance—and again I am thinking as I speak; which is not to suggest that I frequently speak without thinking—that there might be an inquiry into retail margins. One or two individual butchers might decide that they do not want to give information for personal reasons of one sort or another. The majority may willingly give information, but there might be a minority who would stand out. There are powers to force those people to come and give evidence. Then, if they believe their liberties are being infringed they have the right to appeal to the High Court, which means

  1257
  a Judge in Chambers, a simple procedure. It is still with the hope of eliciting information for the proper functioning of the Commission and not in any way to assess blame or to penalise. I hope that that explanation is satisfactory to the noble Baroness.
  EARL FERRERS: I, too, have listened with interest, and I should like to push this a trifle further. The noble Lord said that this kind of inquiry was not the type of inquiry to which I had referred, deciding whether or not a person should be put out of business. That may be so. I am glad to know that that is not so. But one can visualise, for instance, a situation where the Meat and Livestock Commission had in its wisdom taken a survey of an area and considered that there were, let us say, for want of a better illustration, too many abattoirs in the area for their successful operation and that the number should be reduced. The Meat and Livestock Commission may call an inquiry and invite people to come and give information as to how many bullocks a week they were slaughtering. In fact, under the next subsection they could subpoena them and they would have to come, including, possibly, the rather smaller slaughterer who would have to give information which may result in his being put out of business—the decision for doing so having been taken in the light of information given at the inquiry. What one is really doing is making it entirely legal for the small producer (or the large producer who thinks he may be penalised as a result of the decision) virtually to put the knife in the hands of the person who is going to slit his throat. I am not convinced in my own mind that such an inquiry should be headed by one who has a loaded interest; namely, the Chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I was about to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the answer he has given us, but I think he will have sensed from the words of my noble friends, Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lord Ferrers, that we do not feel very happy about this. While we understand the advantages in having the Chairman of the Commission conduct a technical inquiry, the noble Lord's second illustration—and again I can understand the
  1258
  necessity for an inquiry into, say, retail margins—takes us into a different field, one where the living of the butcher concerned may be at stake (or he may think so), and it becomes rather an inquisitorial inquiry if the Chairman of the Commission himself with the powers that this clause gives him is in the chair. I am bound to say that I feel uneasy and unclear about the form of this clause, and not very clear about how the noble Lord intends the Commission to work. I feel that what would be most helpful would be an informal discussion with the noble Lord between now and Report stage so that he could tell us, in more detail than is possible in debate, exactly how this will work and the nature of the inquiry. We could then consider whether or not to put this Amendment down on Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Dissolution of Pig Industry Development Authority]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I just say one word on P.I.D.A.? It has done a noble job for the pig industry under the admirable leadership of the chairman, Sir Richard Verdin, and with the distinguished membership of my noble friend Lord Balerno. Its work has not been dramatic, but I feel that it should have a word of praise before passing into limbo. It has done ten years of very valuable work in the breeding, management and marketing of the pig industry, and this has already yielded valuable results. Now, as P.I.D.A. is merged into the Commission—and I am sure this is a correct decision by the Government—the results of its activities will be immensely valuable for the Commission to take over and to build on as they phase it in with the development throughout the whole livestock industry. I should like to put on record my praise to the board and the officers of P.I.D.A. for the valuable job they have done.
  LORD WALSTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for what he has said. We certainly echo it from this side. P.I.D.A.—and that

  1259
  means its members: the board, the chairman and those working with it—has done a great job in helping the pig industry attain still higher standards. Although its formal work will shortly come to an end, I am sure the members will all realise that their true work will continue, in a new guise but largely with the same people and with a much wider scope than in the past. I am certain that the new Meat and Livestock Commission will benefit greatly from the experience and expertise that P.I.D.A. has acquired during the past ten years. I hope that none of those formerly, or still associated with it will feel that they are being pushed into the limbo of forgotten things, but rather that they will be the catalyst that will stimulate the larger, wider-ranging Meat and Livestock Commission to progress even more rapidly than would otherwise be the case.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clause 23
  Power of entry
  23.—
  (2)An authorised officer entering any premises by virtue of this section may take with him such other persons as may appear to him necessary.
  EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved to leave out subsection (2). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is quite simple. It possibly reflects the slight nervousness that some of us feel over the inquisitorial powers of the Commission. This particular subsection allows an authorised officer to take into any premises anyone whom he may choose. This may be fine for the Commission, but it may be very unsatisfactory to the person whose premises are being entered.
  Frequently, information and data of a confidential nature is held in these places—possibly information about market trends or sale prices, and so forth, which could well prove to be of commercial use to a rival competitor. It is not impossible to imagine an inspector taking with him, to help him in his inquiries, somebody expert in one specific part of, say, the butchery trade. Under the provisions of the Bill this person could be engaged in a private business; or he might be a person whose business could
  1260
  be advantageously affected by information which he might obtain in the course of his inquiries. If it is necessary for an authorised officer to take someone else with him, there is nothing to stop him from taking another authorised officer, and one would have thought that that would be preferable. The fact that the Government felt it necessary to put in this subsection indicates that they have in mind the possibility of an authorised officer taking with him someone who has superior knowledge or is more expert than the authorised officers. Such people could well be engaged in a rival business. This seems to be undesirable and I hope, therefore, that either the noble Lord will accept the Amendment or he will be able to give a very good reason why he feels it necessary to retain the subsection in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 42, leave out subsection (2).—(Earl Ferrers.)
  5.22 p.m.
  LORD WALSTON: Once again I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Earl is getting at in this Amendment, because I do not think any of us would be happy about any unnecessary invasion of privacy. Nevertheless, as Ministers have explained when discussing similar Amendments in another place, the powers contained in subsection (2) are essential to the efficient operation of the Commission's activities. It has been emphasised that we should expect the occasions on which authorised officers of the Commission exercised their powers of entry under the provisions of this clause to be very few, and the occasions on which they took other persons with them to be even fewer. So this power is not something that one would expect to see widely used or gravely abused. I should expect the Commission to keep a very close eye on the way in which the powers were used, just as the Ministers themselves keep similar powers under close control. I do not think there is very much objection or complaint about the way in which such ministerial powers are used. I agree entirely with the noble Earl that they must not be abused; but they are essential.
  Subsection (2) is needed because it will sometimes be necessary, as the noble Earl suggested, for authorised officers of the Commission to take with them on a

  1261
  visit someone who might well be an expert, and who would be able to act as a witness and provide corroborative evidence in any subsequent legal proceedings that might prove to be necessary. On the basis of the Ministry's experience I expect that it will sometimes happen that a witness is needed urgently. In other cases it may be necessary for a headquarters officer to be accompanied by a local officer. The effect of the Amendment would be to prevent persons from accompanying authorised officers unless they were already authorised officers of the Commission or could be specially authorised for this purpose. In practice, the Commission would be faced with the alternative of either arranging for all authorised officers to work in pairs, which would clearly be uneconomic, or giving a much more general authorisation to a very much larger number of officers who would need to use the powers only very rarely. I suggest that neither of these developments would be desirable, and that the second would be directly contrary to the purpose behind the noble Earl's Amendment, which is to keep a close central control and limitation on the use of the powers.
  The subsection does not extend powers of entry to persons at large. It does not give carte blanche to anyone to walk into private business premises. It is confined to permitting an officer, who is himself thought to be sufficiently responsible to be authorised to exercise powers of entry, to take someone else with him. There are not to be two entries, but one entry; but it is to be of two people instead of one person. If the officer is responsible enough to be authorised to exercise powers of entry, surely we can expect him to be responsible enough to exercise with equal discretion a power to take in the other person. I do not think that the noble Earl would seriously suggest that a responsible officer who had this authority to enter on his own would be likely to bring in a business rival to gain information which would be of benefit to the second person in his own business enterprises. It is, I grant, legally conceivable, but I do not think that, in practice, it is conceivable.
  EARL FERRERS: I think that the noble Lord has slightly misconstrued the point. He said that he did not think
  1262
  the officer would bring in a person to gain information. Of course I do not think the officer would deliberately do that. What I had in mind was the possibility that the other person, as a result of going into the premises, might gain information. That would not be the object of his visit but the information could be used in a prejudicial manner.
  LORD WALSTON: I should think that an officer having sufficient responsibility to be allowed powers of entry would be sufficiently aware of the rivalries which might exist in these different enterprises to enable him to avoid making such a mistake. If by any chance he did fall into that trap, I should certainly expect his superiors to take steps to see that it did not happen a second time.
  In this connection, too, it is worth emphasising that both the officer and the person accompanying him would be bound by the provisions of Clause 24 relating to the disclosure of information; so that the other person would be, as it were, under a seal of professional secrecy with regard to any information which he might acquire as a result of his entry.
  I hope that I have been able to convince the mover of the Amendment, and your Lordships, that we are all on the same side in this matter. The Government do not wish to have unfettered powers of entry. This is something which will be very closely and jealously guarded, but it is a practical and common-sense way of obtaining sufficient control without undue delays or paraphernalia. I hope that the noble Earl will now be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I ask the noble Lord a question? He has been speaking about "such other person". Subsection (2) refers to "such other persons". Is there to be any limit on the number of people whom an officer can take into premises? As the subsection is worded, it appears that an officer could take in twenty people with him, if he wanted; or perhaps 100. I should like some clarification about that from the noble Lord. Why is the word "persons" used?
  LORD WALSTON:The short answer to the noble Viscount is that an officer will be authorised to take in with him one person.
  EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of the subsection. I understand the points which he has made, but I am bound to say that I am not wholly happy about the situation, for the reasons I have given. I cannot help feeling that if it is a matter of obtaining evidence or corroboration, or of having witnesses, as the noble Lord suggested, it would be more satisfactory if the authorised officer took a colleague with him. One still wonders what kind of inquiry will require a witness with superior knowledge, knowledge that an authorised officer does not have. However, the noble Lord has done his best to give an assurance that this power will not be abused. I sincerely hope that it will not be, because if it is confidence will go completely. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 23 agreed to.
  Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Grants for amalgamations and boundary adjustments]:
  On Question, whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
  5.30 p.m.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Clause 26 is the first clause of Part II on farm structure. I am sure that noble Lords recognise its importance. I certainly welcome the principle of giving grants for amalgamations, but I have a major question which I wish to put to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, one which gives great anxiety throughout the farming world.
  The trend in post-war years has been for bigger units. By their farms becoming larger, farmers can get full advantage of modern machinery and methods. This trend has been going on quite satisfactorily. As the noble Lord knows, in his part of the world, East Anglia, some very big units have been formed, running up to 10,000 acres. This has resulted in extremely efficient cereal production. I think that it would be right to claim that our cereal producers now are the most efficient in Europe. I applaud the Government's recognition in this clause of the wisdom of encouraging amalgamations—at any rate, the smaller ones—in the way they
  1264
  propose to do. It is a fact that with reduced profit margins, which has been the trend, unless there can be a bigger volume of production a farmer cannot get a living out of his holding.
  This is all fine. However, the point I have to put to the noble Lord is that there is a major inconsistency in Government policy. Their fiscal policy is apt to have exactly the opposite effect to what Clause 26 sets out to do. In the past year, as I expect the noble Lord knows, farmers have become aware of the devastating effect upon their farms of the combination of capital gains tax and corporation tax, on top of estate duty when they die. They realise that their farms will inevitably be broken up on their deaths in order to pay the enormous taxes which this Government have imposed.
  This unpleasant pressure was recently emphasised at the Oxford Farm Conference, with which the noble Lord has been connected in the past with such distinction. If he was not there, I do not doubt that he has read the papers and will know that the most telling paper at that high-powered conference was a paper by an accountant, Mr. Canamile, under the title, Pronouncing on the Future. He cited what he regarded as the typical farm of 400 acres—a fair-sized unit, though not big compared with the East Anglian units. He postulated that it was bought in 1955 for £40,000—that is, at £100 an acre, which would be about the right figure. Twenty years later, in 1975, the farmer dies. The lecturer computed that at the normal rate of appreciation of land values which has been going on over recent years, the estate duty and capital gains tax together could be no less than £82,000. It would be completely impossible to pay this off out of profits by instalments over the permitted period subsequent to the farmer's death and it would be equally impossible for the farmer to have accumulated an annual sinking fund out of profits during those twenty years sufficient to meet this huge liability.
  The result is that there are two choices before the executors, the widow and the family. The first is to sell the whole farm and rent it back, if they can, but that is not easy, indeed seldom possible, and if it is being done generally, it certainly will not be possible. The second

  1265
  choice is to sell off a piece of the farm in order to pay off this huge debt to the Inland Revenue. In this case, they would have to sell off about half of the farm. This example is fairly drawn and moderate in terms. There would be many farmers' estates, much bigger than this, which would give far more dramatic results, but I think that this example is all the more cogent for this moderation.
  The simple truth is this—and I put this most cogently to your Lordships—that Government policies have now reached the point where the liquidation of capital is so severe that it far outweighs all prospects of the formation of capital. As the noble Lord, with his expert knowledge of farming, knows, it is impossible to operate a farm without large amounts of capital. It follows that most medium-sized and large-sized farms are inevitably going to be broken up in the coming years. This point has, as the saying goes, been taken on board by the farming community now, and they feel intensely depressed.
  Therefore I put this question to the noble Lord. In putting this admirable provision in Clause 26 on the Statute Book, what is the Government's answer to this major point, that their fiscal policies are going to have a shattering effect on the size and structure of farms over the coming years? How do the Government propose to deal with this? Clause 26 could not begin to. If it is the Government's wish that farms should be brought up to the most economic size possible, how are the Government going to meet this? Is it to be done by wider extension of the provisions of Clause 26? I really think that the noble Lord owes us an answer to this.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: May I add a few words on this important matter? I think it is being widely realised that while in this Bill the Government are arranging a beneficial increase in the size of farm holdings in order to make them more economic and more productive, their other policies are moving harmfully in the opposite direction. I expect that the noble Lord will have received, or will have seen, strong representations from many organisations, including the National Farmers' Union, and I hope that he will support their requests in any
  1266
  discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I submit that there is a real problem here which requires attention in the immediate future. It may apply more to owner-occupiers, but it goes wider than that. We know that capital investment and expenditure are urgently needed for farm operations and equipment. Yet in different forms of new taxation the Government are nibbling all along the line, and are reducing what is available, overlooking the costs on the land, including the provision of houses, buildings and other things, which increase just as fast, or almost as fast, as the value of the land that is taxed. It may not matter to Parliament whether so-and-so is unable to make a profit on his farming, but it is important from the economic point of view of the country that farmers should have an opportunity to grow food profitably, and that proprietors should not be prevented from doing their share of the capital expenditure by the removal of what is needed to spend on the land.
  EARL FERRERS: The point which my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and the noble Duke have made needs strongly underlining. This clause does a great deal for farming. On Second Reading I gave an example of what is happening, whereby the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are paying grants to farmers joining together, whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer is deliberately splitting them up. These two policies are working in absolutely diametrical ways. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has asked the noble Lord, Lord Walston, to say exactly what is the Government's idea, and what is going to happen. Are farms to be encouraged to get bigger—which is economically sensible, and which the Minister is encouraging in the Bill—or are they to get smaller?—which is precisely the effect the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having with his capital gains tax and death duties. There should be a clear line on which farmers and landowners can go. At the moment there is no clear line, because the policies of the Government are working in opposite directions.
  LORD WALSTON: I should dearly love to spend many hours discussing these matters with noble Lords, and perhaps we can do so on some other occasion.

  1267
  To-day I shall have to confine myself to answering their very real points as briefly and as clearly as I can. The short question, put succinctly by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was: What is the Government's policy? Is it to encourage (as I think he said the Minister is attempting to do in the Bill) farms to get larger, or is it (in the noble Earl's words, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is attempting to do) to encourage them to get smaller? Oddly enough, the Government are somewhat less dirigisté in this matter than noble Lords opposite appear to want us to be. We do no say that such and such is the correct size for a farm; that a farm of 500 acres must get larger and become 750 acres, or a farm of 1,000 acres must become 1,500 acres, or whatever it may be. We believe that the force of economic circumstances, the ability of the farmer himself and all these other things are the right guide as to what is the correct size of farms at that level. What we are doing in the Bill, and in this clause, is to ease the otherwise rugged path which economic forces impose upon some farmers, so that instead of slowly going bankrupt, slowly withering away, and slowly undermining their capital and the country's capital, they are enabled to get out of farming with the least loss of economic resources to the country and the least amount of human suffering to the farmers themselves.
  For all this talk about the 1,000 acre farms in East Anglia, these provisions apply to the small marginal farms of 10, 15, 40, and perhaps 50 acres. So we are really talking about entirely different things. The type of amalgamation which will take place under this scheme is not the type of amalgamation which will be seriously affected by estate duties, capital gains tax, and the rest of it. Also, to get this matter in proportion, it must be remembered that, in spite of the growth of large farms, and the larger number of large farmers that are coming along, speaking from memory, the average size of a farm in England to-day is somewhat below 150 acres. So there are relatively few farms of this great size where the matter of estate duties, capital gains tax and the rest comes in.
  I would, however, agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that undoubtedly efficiency is increased as
  1268
  units get larger up to a certain unspecified point; and it is hard for anybody to be dogmatic as to what that point is. I think it is significant to the noble Lord's argument—it in no way supports it, but, on the contrary, refutes it—that this type of argument has been used over many years. When estate duties were first introduced, and were strengthened as time went on, it was said: "This will cause the break-up of large estates and make farming less efficient. It will make the units smaller, and make us less competitive". In fact, for one reason or another, we know, as the noble Lord has said, that the trend has continuously been, over the years that these penal death duties have been in operation, and getting more penal every year, under almost every administration—
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, and possibly upset his argument. However, the two new features which are really causing the calamity are, on the one hand, the capital gains tax and, on the other hand, corporation tax, most of these farming companies being treated as closed companies. It is the combination of these two on top of estate duty that will cause the calamity.
  LORD WALSTON: That does not upset my argument. The noble Lord need have no compunction about interrupting. The point is that over the years, in spite of the cries of woe that we have been hearing for a long time, the size of farms has become larger, British agriculture has got stronger, and our position, both internally and externally, has become more competitive. So far as the specific points which have been raised are concerned, there are various facts which I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention. First of all—and, unfortunately, I have not the exact figure in my head—there is an exemption from capital gains tax to agricultural holdings up to a certain figure, which I believe (I shall be corrected if I am wrong) is £10,000. This therefore exempts a large number of holdings—admittedly small holdings—and plays some part in the argument.
  Secondly, the interesting figures which the noble Lord quoted from the Oxford Farming Conference compare the value

  1269
  of the land as between (I think it was) 1955 and 1975. In fact, as the noble Lord knows full well, when capital gains tax is assessed, it is based on the value in 1965 when the Act came into force. Therefore, it is misleading to refer to 1955; and I think the noble Lord will agree that the capital value of land, for one reason or another, has not risen significantly over the past two years. Therefore, there may well be some advantage to an estate that there is capital gains tax. There may even be a capital loss in this, and the estate duty and the total tax payable may be thereby reduced. So it is not a picture of unadulterated gloom here. It is perhaps paradoxical that a drop in the value of some of your major assets is a matter for rejoicing rather than for pain.
  Let me remind your Lordships, also, that after capital gains tax has been assessed the actual estate duty payable is reduced by that amount. So the tax is not added on top of estate duty. It could happen, and very often does, particularly in the case of large estates, that it results in a lesser liability to estate duty than if there had been no capital gains. Thirdly, let me remind the noble Lord that payment of the tax on gains accruing on land on death may be spread over eight years. Therefore there is a fairly generous treatment for land to enable a working farmer to pay the tax out of profits. Admittedly he would have to live more leanly in order to do this, but at least it does not present the inheritor with the stark alternative of having to sell his land and get out because there is nothing else that he can do.
  With regard to corporation tax, I am not really sure that this is the right place to discuss it in all its complicated details. I will simply say that relatively few farms in this country are companies of the kind which are liable to corporation tax; and although undoubtedly it affects some of them, it in no way affects them all.
  I have one further point. If the noble Lord is advocating that agricultural land, or agricultural holdings or farms, should be exempt from capital gains tax, what in fact would be the result? Clearly, the result would be that more people—particularly rich people—would want to put their money into agricultural land in order to minimise their liability to estate duty. There would be a greater demand for
  1270
  land, without, of course, an increased supply. As a result, prices would rise, and therefore the level of estate duties and death duties would rise, too, and the position of to-day's owner of land would in no way be any better than it is under the present system.
  All I can say to the noble Lord, and to those who have supported him in this matter, is to repeat what I said at the beginning: that the Government are perfectly prepared to allow the large farmer to grow larger or to grow smaller; to divide his farm up among individual members of his family in any way that his lawyers, accountants or anybody else advise him so to do. The Government are prepared to allow him to become a private company, a partnership or anything else he likes. There is complete freedom within the law to do any of those things, and if the farmer thinks he will become more efficient by so doing then I say: good luck to him! The clause we are discussing is designed solely to make amalgamation easier among those people who are hovering on the edge of amalgamation, because we believe that this is a socially desirable objective and, at the same time, in the economic interests of both agriculture and the country.
  5.54 p.m.
  LORD MOLSON: As I listened to the penetrating questions asked by my noble friends on this side of the Committee, questions really dealing with the high policy of the Government as a whole, and to what extent the right hand of the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows what the left hand of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is doing, and to what extent they are in conflict with each other, my heart went out in sympathy to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was being called upon to try to give an explanation. After listening to him for the last ten minutes or so, I was filled with admiration at the ingenuity with which he skated round all the penetrating questions which had been asked. It was a good opening gambit to say that this Government are less "dirigisté" than the Conservative Party might have supposed. But I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that the word, "diriger" has two different meanings. One, of course, is "dirigisté", in the sense in which he used the word, of a Government giving

  1271
  detailed indications to all people inside the country as to what they are to do. But "diriger" also means "to steer", and what we should like to know is in what direction the Government are steering.
  Are they steering in the direction of larger and more viable agricultural units, or are they really, for socialistic and ideological reasons, perfectly prepared—not deliberately to break up estates, but to view with complete indifference the fact that estates will be broken up by the effect of the taxation which is being imposed upon them? After all, in law individuals are expected to intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions. And although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade may feel it a little hard that the same criterion should be applied to the Government of which he is a member, I think it is only reasonable that this should be so.
  When he concluded his speech by saying that the Government are perfectly prepared to allow farms and estates to grow larger or smaller in accordance with the forces operating upon them, he seemed to have forgotten that the policy of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been greatly to increase the burdens upon land, with the almost inevitable consequence that when the owners of these estates die, the estates will have to be broken up. He went on to suggest how this burden might, in some degree, be reduced. For instance, death duties could be spread over seven years; and, as he said, farmers will have to live more leanly during the intervening time out of the profits of those years, and they are expected to try to pay off the large capital sums which the taxation that has been imposed will oblige them to pay.
  I quite realise that the Parliamentary Secretary is hardly in a position to give an authoritative answer as to what the policy of the Government is going to be. He rightly confined himself to the comparatively modest proposals of this Bill, which are intended to deal with small farms. But it is impossible to deal with agriculture and to draw a distinction between the small farms which this Bill will try to amalgamate and enlarge and all the farms in the country which, because of the death of the owners of the estates, may become liable to death duties, with the result that they have to be broken
  1272
  up. This is an extremely serious matter, and I quite realise that it is a major matter of policy. I should like once more to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary upon the ingenuity with which he concealed the fact that neither he nor the Government is in a position to explain in what direction they are trying to go.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for the answer which he gave. My noble friend Lord Molson has already commented on it.
  Clause 26 agreed to.
  Clause 27:
  Grants for individuals relinquishing occupation of uncommercial units
  27.—(1) The appropriate Minister may in accordance with a scheme make a grant by way of a lump sum payment or an annuity to or for the benefit of an individual who in prescribed circumstances relinquishes his occupation of an uncommercial unit of agricultural land—
  (a) where the relinquishment of all or any part of that uncommercial unit is effected as part of an amalgamation to which a scheme under section 26 of this Act for the time being applies, or
  (4) Grants shall not be payable under this section to any one individual in respect of more than one uncommercial unit, and a scheme under this section shall contain provisions for securing that the amount of the grant payable in respect of an uncommercial unit occupied by more than one individual is an amount which is not more than approximately equivalent to the amount which would be payable if it had been occupied by a single individual.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBURY THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBURY moved, in subsection (1), after "occupation", to insert "or tenancy". The noble Duke said: In the first place I must declare an interest in the subject. There is agreement that it is sensible to assist the voluntary amalgamation and reorganisation of small farms which are now clearly uneconomic in their present form and acreage, and some financial inducement is offered to occupiers to encourage them to give up. I am sure that all who are concerned in agricultural advancement will wish to help in the establishment of better units, and I hope to find out more clearly what are the best ways in which maximum efficiency can be achieved.
  Not very much information was given on Second Reading about these important

  1273
  clauses, and when I put the Amendment down I was not quite sure whether the proposals were intended mainly for small farms in owner-occupation or for every small and uneconomic holding, and how much they will be applicable—and are intended to be applicable—also to tenants of rented farms on agricultural estates. I was not sure whether the word "tenancy" was needed or would be helpful as well as "occupation". Keeping in mind the requirements of the regulations, it appears that the procedure must be complicated, and that, with the subsequent restriction, can be discouraging. I understand that it is intended that landowners should co-operate actively in the carrying out of the proposals, but it seems that they will have to continue to do more by voluntary amalgamations without grants in view of these regulations. If so, the progress may not be as rapid as is desired, but it would seem to be advisable not to impede them by too much restriction.
  I should like, as an example, to refer to a type of farm holding which was formed many years ago by the splitting up of large arable farms into small tenanted holdings of 50 acres or less. Few of these can now be a success and gradual amalgamations are now taking place. I presume it is within the national policy now that proprietors should endeavour to build them up more rapidly into fewer and larger units, even though they were split up before by Government action. Am I correct in the interpretation that a farm tenant will be entitled to outgoer grant or pension provided the proprietor respects the restriction on subsequent sale of the holding, even though he does not ask for or accept any grant for the amalgamation of the holding? Since putting down the Amendment I have had more information about the working, and I am sorry if I have gone rather too wide, but I should like to ask whether "occupation" in line 4 of Clause 27(1) includes "tenancy" or whether more attention should be given to the word "tenancy" as well as "occupation". I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 31, line 4, after ("occupation") insert ("or tenancy").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)
  LORD WALSTON: I am glad to be able to tell the noble Duke that this clause as drafted does provide just what he wishes it to; in other words, that "occupancy" does in fact include "tenancy". It is the Government's intention that the person who can qualify for grant is the person who has the right to farm the land, and this will be made clear in the scheme itself. Therefore, whether a man is owner-occupier or tenant he will be entitled to the grant provided the other requirements are fulfilled. I hope that that is the assurance the noble Duke wants, and in the circumstances I hope he will withdraw his Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.3 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLLmoved to leave out subsection (4). The noble Duke said: This is a simple Amendment which I have no intention of pressing in any way at all, because I do not think if I did it would serve the purpose I want to serve, but I should like to raise a small point on this subsection. I gather it is the intention of the Government to pay grants for amalgamation in the form of both a lump sum and an annuity based on the acreage that the farmer concerned has given up in order to facilitate the amalgamation. In many cases small farmers have farmed two or three units and those units may not even be contiguous. Although two or three units might sound very grand, in fact in many cases they amount to only thirty or forty acres all told, and this is still, of course, a hopelessly uncommercial farm within the definition of Clause 39.
  I should therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Walston, whether this subsection is intended to enable these farmers to claim an annuity on only one unit or on all units provided they give them all up together, or whether this subsection is designed to stop a farmer, having been paid his grant for amalgamation, from taking on another equally uneconomic farm and two or three years later coming along and saying once again, "I wish to be paid for assisting an amalgamation by giving up a unit." If it is the latter case that the clause is designed to stop, I think

  1275
  the Government are right to put it in. If it is the former case of the farmer who farms two or three units and is to get an annuity on only one, I hope they will reconsider the wording of this subsection so that he will get the annuity on all farm units, regardless of how many he has, if together they are uneconomically small. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 31, line 39, leave out subsection (4).—(The Duke of Atholl.)
  LORD WALSTON: I am grateful to the noble Duke for raising this point, because I think there will be others besides himself who are not entirely clear about the provisions of this subsection. I can give the noble Duke both the assurances he wants. It is laid down in this subsection that a person shall not be entitled to receive outgoer's grant in respect of more than one uncommercial unit; in other words, having once received a grant for an uncommercial unit he cannot go back and buy another one and claim it again. The purpose of the grant is to enable him to re-train or re-settle or retire and not to go on cashing in year after year. I can assure the noble Duke on that point.
  Similarly, I can assure him that, provided the outgoing owner-occupier or tenant, or whatever he may be, is running two or even more very small holdings as one unit and gives them all up at the same time, he will receive such compensation as is due to him in respect of his whole unit, which will be considered as one unit even though the parts are a few miles apart. I think this gives the noble Duke the assurance he requires, and I hope he will feel his Amendment is not necessary.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I thank the noble Lord for the assurance and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps I may add that I wish to say something on the Question, Whether the clause shall be agreed to?
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should hate to ask the noble Lord to divulge anything that his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be
  1276
  proposing to do in the Budget, but I should like to make a plea that, if this clause is really going to have the success I think we all hope for, the lump sums payable under this clause should not be subject to capital gains tax, and even more important, in my view, that the annuities paid to those farmers who retire should not be taxed as unearned income but taxed at the earned income rate. This, I agree, will probably not be important in the majority of cases, but there may be certain cases where this will be a fairly important factor and definitely assist several very small farmers to retire. With that plea, I would ask him to consider this matter and pass on that request to his right honourable friend. I fully realise that he will not be able to tell me anything about it this evening.
  LORD WALSTON: The noble Duke is the soul of tact and kindness in this matter. I will happily see that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is fully aware of this point, which is a very worthwhile one, and I hope that it may add some influence to those who decide these matters.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 [Loans to assist amalgamations and boundary adjustments.]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Clause 28 gives the Minister power to make loans to assist amalgamations. So far, I think, there has been remarkably little indication what rate of interest these loans are likely to carry. I was wondering if the noble Lord could enlighten us whether these loans are likely to be at what might be described as the "going rate" that a bank would charge or whether they would be at a somewhat less fearsome rate, because if it is at a going rate they will not have any effect at all. But if they are at a somewhat less fearsome rate, I think that they will have quite considerable effect.
  LORD WALSTON: I am afraid that I am not in a position to enlighten the noble Duke on this matter. I have no doubt that before anybody wishes to make application for such a loan he will be made very well aware of what rate of interest he is to pay for it.
  Clause 28 agreed to.
  Clause 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30:
  Grants for long term improvements for the benefit of agricultural land
  30.—(1) With a view to assisting in the making of long term improvements for the benefit of agricultural land the appropriate Minister may make out of money provided by Parliament grants towards the cost of such improvements of a kind described in Schedule 4 to this Act as he may approve for that purpose.
  (4) The appropriate Minister shall not approve any improvement unless he is satisfied—
  (c) that the improvement is such as a prudent owner-occupier would be willing to make, having regard to its cost and to all other circumstances, but disregarding benefits derived from the improvement other than the benefit in the farming of the agricultural land.
  6.14 p.m.
  LORD CRAWSHAW LORD CRAWSHAW moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "long term improvements" and to substitute:
  "improvements with an estimated useful life of five years or over".
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I wish to draw particular attention to those improvements which are mentioned in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4, which covers the larger type of constructional improvement possible to farmsteads around farm houses. I am aware that the Amendment may appear a little shortsighted, but my intention is simply to try to make agriculture more flexible. Building to last a lifetime was the policy of our forbears, but I do not believe that that would be possible to-day, because of the rapid changes in farming technique. For instance, we at home have separate stalls for work horses and other buildings that are now out-dated and quite unsuitable for any form of conversion. Again, many ranges of buildings are designed for the smaller farms and are not suitable for the proposed schemes for amalgamation which we have been just discussing. These amalgamations will, of course, be a continuous and gradual process.
  My contention is that when applications for grants are being considered less emphasis should be placed on the more elaborate buildings of steel and concrete and the like. Even if an expensive single-
  1278
  span covered yard can in theory be used for several purposes, the site itself may not be suitable for a variety of purposes. For instance, a milking set-up may need to be surrounded by grass, and corn storage by arable land. At this moment, when capital is short, and when farmers have had two exceptionally wet seasons, I feel it would be wiser to encourage cheap and simple buildings. Cheap and simple need not mean shoddy, and the agricultural land service of the Ministry of Agriculture can ensure this before approving a grant. I feel that if this sort of building were formulated it would be a valuable outlet for home-grown timber.
  Such things as second-hand railway sleepers can be extremely effective and not unsightly. Many such buildings could well last ten, fifteen or fifty years or more. But their useful life might only be five years. I should like to feel that anything erected with a grant could pay for itself in five years, because of the rapid changes that are taking place in agriculture at present.
  I have studied this particular problem in this country and in the United States during the past year and I have seen all sorts of milking parlours, feedlots, grain and sileage stores, piggeries, et cetera. I have seen cattle housed at £120 per head and £20 per head. My conclusion is that we must do all we can to keep capital costs down from the point of view of the taxpayer, the Exchequer, and the farmers.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 36, line 2, leave out ("long term improvements") and insert ("improvements with an estimated useful life of five years or over").—(Lord Crawshaw.)
  LORD WALSTON: I am afraid that, in spite of the cogency of Lord Crawshaw's arguments, I am still unconvinced that the Bill should be amended in the way he desires; in other words, that farm improvements with an estimated useful life as short as five years and up to ten years should rank for grant. Let us look at the real purpose of this scheme. It is in fact to encourage improvements which will benefit the agricultural land concerned as distinct from the business operated on that land. What is more, it is intended that the benefits to the land should endure so as to be available to a

  1279
  succession of occupiers over a somewhat longer term.
  As your Lordships are aware, under the previous legislation for this scheme, one of the statutory tests was that the improvement must be such as a prudent landlord would carry out. That came in for a great deal of criticism because there are many things that a good farmer would wish to carry out but which a prudent landlord would consider unwise. There were, therefore, certain schemes desirable from the agricultural point of view which were not included in this scheme. But because it was the prudent landlord which was the criterion in such cases, it was felt that a man would look for the return on his investment by way of increased rent which would last for at least 15 years.
  Under the present Bill, however, the prudent landlord is replaced by a prudent owner-occupier, who may be expected to write off his investment rather more quickly. The term has been reduced to ten years. This is a substantial change, a change which I think your Lordships agree is a change for the better. But I do not think it would be right to go below this period. Of course, we are aware that there are many low-cost buildings which can be erected and will serve a useful purpose, and whose capital cost can be recovered over their shorter life. But to admit buildings of this kind as permanent improvements would change the whole character of these grants. I hope that, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will realise that his Amendment could not be accepted without distorting the whole purpose of this scheme and necessitating further substantial changes, and that he will therefore feel able to withdraw it.
  LORD CRAWSHAW: I must thank the noble Lord for his answer. I simply wanted to draw attention to this particular point in farming, which I expect all your Lordships are aware of in any event. In the circumstances, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.20 p.m.
  LORD MOLSONmoved, in subsection (4)(c), after "circumstances" to insert "including planning requirements". The
  1280
  noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. I drafted this Amendment with the hope of raising again a point which was raised both in Committee and at the Report stage in another place. I have drafted it in a slightly different form. I see that my noble friend Lord Ferrers has the Amendment following this one, which I think deals with the same point, and it may well be that the two Amendments taken together would be more effective than either of them alone.
  I have in mind particularly cases where planning authorities are able to impose the requirement in National Parks and places of outstanding natural beauty that particular materials should be used in order to preserve the character of the countryside. These planning rules apply in the Peak District and in the Lake District. One of them, a requirement which is of great importance, but which imposes considerable additional expense, is that a farmer or landowner who wishes to re-roof a barn is not allowed to use asbestos which is much the cheapest form of roof, but is required to use particular materials. It appears to be only fair and reasonable that when someone lives and works in a National Park and is required by the planning authority to build up to a higher standard than would be required for purely agricultural purposes, the grant from the Government, which is payable in respect of the agricultural benefit which he seeks to obtain, should include also the extra cost which is involved in complying with the requirements of the planning authority.
  In another place it was stated that, under the Agriculture Act 1957, if the owner or occupier of a building incurred expenditure over and above what was required for purely agricultural purposes, no grant was payable. It was claimed on behalf of the Government that under this Bill there is an improvement because, under the wording of this clause the grant may be paid in respect of the agricultural benefit which is obtained, but not in respect of the additional expenditure which is required in order to comply with the requirements of the planning authority.
  I am not at all clear as to what exactly is the position, because the explanation given in the Committee stage does not appear to me to be wholly consistent with

  1281
  what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary on January 17 at col. 261 in the Report stage. As he is a Minister, under the Rules of your Lordships' House I think I am entitled to quote the exact words that he said. They were:
  "On the other point, I said that where there is a statutory requirement and where the work gives a reasonable agricultural benefit in relation to its cost, we will pay grant on the full cost."
  Whether there is a distinction drawn between a statutory requirement and a planning requirement, I do not know; but in view of the fact that planning requirements perhaps have to be made by delegated legislation under the authority of the Statute, I should have thought that that covered the point. But that is not what was generally understood, and the Amendment which had been moved in the hope of obtaining from the Government a concession upon that matter was in fact withdrawn.
  Therefore, in the first place I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to explain clearly the meaning of this Bill. If as at present drafted it does not include the provision that I am asking for, I hope he will be prepared to accept Amendments to give that effect. It seems to me quite illogical and unreasonable that, where a farmer is farming in one part of the country where he is not required by a planning authority to build to specially costly standards, he can receive a grant in respect of the whole of his expenditure, but if he is farming in a National Park, in one of the particular areas which are subject to these planning rules—he has no option in the matter; he is obliged to incur this additional expenditure—that under the Statute, as I understand it, and under this Bill as at present drafted, he will not be able to obtain a grant in respect of the additional expenditure imposed upon him by the planning authority. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 36, line 39, after ("circumstances") insert ("including planning requirements").—(Lord Molson.)
  6.26 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: I should like to support the noble Lord in this moderate attempt to help those who are concerned with farm buildings in these particularly sensitive parts of the country. As I
  1282
  understand it, under the original Act of 1949 which established the National Parks and brought them within the planning Act in respect of these sorts of matters, the National Parks, wherever they came into existence, were wholly protected. But a little later on—I think it was by an Order made in 1950 in respect of agricultural buildings—these restrictions were removed, apart from certain special areas to which the noble Lord has referred, particularly the Peak District Park and the Lake District Park, and I rather think Snowdonia where there are certain additional restrictions.
  As to the addition of the words "including planning requirements", I am not really clear how far this goes, and whether in fact it will help any other National Parks apart from those to which the noble Lord has referred. I should like to ask the Minister's opinion about this matter. It seems to me, at any rate, and I think to all those who are concerned with the National Parks movement, that in these most sensitive parts of the country there ought to be additional safeguards which are in fact being imposed, certainly in the Lake District, by the Joint Planning Committee of the three counties which are concerned with the Lake District National Park. Apart from those which have been specially mentioned, those powers do not exist for the other National Parks, and if possible I should like to have the other National Parks protected in this way.
  Whether the Amendment will go so far as this is not clear to me, and I should be glad if the Minister would give us an assurance on that part, certainly in regard to these three particular National Parks which are, in a sense, more important than the others—the Lake District, Snowdonia and the Peak District. It is really most important that requirements in regard to repairs and alterations to be carried out in the local materials should be enforced, and that those owners and farmers who are required to live up to these high standards should have reasonable financial assistance in doing so. I hope that the result of the noble Lord's Amendment will be to ensure that that is done.
  LORD BALERNO: I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Molson, and to extend it

  1283
  beyond just the National Parks. So far as Scotland is concerned, under the previous legislation which this Bill supersedes, this point has been looked after very well. In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is sitting opposite, I should like to cite my own personal case, which involved the re-erection of a dairy cow byre beside a 17th century house. When it was put to the Department of Agriculture that for the sake of amenity the byre should be reconstructed in stone as it was before at additional cost, there was no difficulty in increasing the amount of grant in proportion to the additional cost of the stonework. So the point has already been conceded by this Government on past legislation, and one would hope that it will be continued into the future.
  LORD WALSTON: I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wishes to move his Amendment now together with this one, or whether he would rather deal with it separately?
  EARL FERRERS: The point I wish to make is rather different from that in the present Amendment, and if I may I will move it separately.
  LORD WALSTON: Yes, of course. While I cannot promise to accept this Amendment, I hope that what I have to say will convince the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and others who have supported him, that in fact the Bill as at present drafted goes a very long way to meet his very reasonable requests. All of us have the greatest sympathy with those who want to see the amenities of the countryside preserved so that ugly farm buildings, however economic and efficient they may be, are not put up in places where they will spoil the beauty of the countryside. Similarly, we do not want to see a farmer or a landowner penalised by the fact that his farm happens to be in one of those areas of particular beauty so that he has either to pay more for his buildings or not put them up at all.
  Without going into a great deal of complication on the drafting of this matter, I would remind your Lordships that the earlier Act, the 1957 Act, laid down that grants could only be paid for improvements which would normally be made by a prudent landlord. A prudent landlord is a man who insists on getting
  1284
  a reasonable return by way of increased rents on the capital which he puts out in new buildings. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible for a prudent landlord to expect that he can extract a higher return from his tenant because he puts up attractive buildings in costly material rather than the cheapest form of building. It was therefore necessary, as a result of that Act, to turn down many applications for better quality buildings, and it was sometimes even impossible to pay even a part of the grant.
  Under this Bill the position is entirely different, because the criterion is not now the prudent landlord, but the prudent farmer, the owner-occupier. Therefore, one is presented with the problem—let us take as an example the National Parks—of the prudent farmer who wants to put up a new cowshed and who is debarred from doing so unless he constructs it in certain expensive materials. The criteria we have to follow then is whether in this case this prudent owner-occupier will say, "I will not put up the building at all; it is not prudent to do so", or, "I will still put up this building even though I shall have to pay more, as it is still worth my while to do so". If we are satisfied that the latter is the case, the grant has to be made to the full amount because it is an essential part of the building which the prudent owner-occupier feels should be constructed. In other words, in such a case, where expensive materials may be a statutory requirement, we shall approve the cost in full if we are satisfied that a prudent owner-occupier, given the choice between building in that way and not being allowed to build at all, would incur the higher cost for the sake of the benefit of the farm.
  I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that any planning requirements are always among the circumstances which we take into account in deciding whether or not a prudent owner-occupier would make a given improvement in the way he proposes. These requirements may bear on whether he can make the improvement at all, and will certainly affect its reasonable cost. Even where we are forced reluctantly to the conclusion that the agricultural benefit is too small to justify the full cost, we shall in future under the provisions of this Bill, though we were debarred from doing it

  1285
  under the provisions of the previous Act, be able to make some contribution where before we should have had to reject the application outright.
  What this Amendment appears to be seeking is that we shall pay not just on that part of the cost which can be justified agriculturally, but on the total cost in all cases. Whatever may be the aesthetic merits of these very expensive buildings, it would be wrong, I am afraid, to agree to grant-aid them automatically, however small the agricultural benefit. What we propose in the present Agriculture Bill will enable us to go a long way in the direction the noble Lord wishes. In other words, where we are satisfied that it is agriculturally desirable that the building should be put up, the extra cost of complying with the planning authority's requirements or the Statutory regulations or the National Park requirements, will in most cases, not inevitably in every case, be met in full. I hope that, in view of this explanation, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD CHORLEY: May I repeat the question I put to the Minister? What I am not clear about is whether this applies throughout all the National Parks, or whether it applies only to the three National Parks in which there are special requirements as to the exteriors of agricultural buildings. My noble friend has not answered that.
  LORD WALSTON: I apologise to my noble friend. It applies wherever the type of construction and the use of materials is imposed upon the owner of the land by the fact that he is in a National Park, or because of various planning legislation. If he happens to be in a National Park where there are no such regulations and it is not incumbent upon him by law or by Statute to use particular materials, but it is only advisory, then it does not apply.
  LORD CHORLEY: I am much obliged.
  LORD DERWENT: The point is not quite clear to me. It may be that the planning authority will have means of insisting without there actually being a local by-law. That can occur in certain buildings, and presumably then the grant would be made towards the full cost.
  LORD WALSTON: Yes; where the alternative with which the owner-occupier or would-be builder is presented is the alternative either of building in a certain specified more expensive form or not building at all, then in general, subject to the reservations I have made, the extra cost will be met.
  LORD MOLSON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. In order to clarify the point, may I say that under the Town and Country Planning (General Development Order) 1963 agricultural buildings throughout the country were exempted from planning control. But in the case of certain areas in the National Parks, under the operation of the Town and Country Planning (Landscape Areas Special Development) Order 1950, various restrictions were applied in the three National Parks—the Peak District, the Lake District and Snowdonia. It is really with regard to the obligatory conditions which are applied there that I was moving my Amendment. I was doing so on behalf of the Friends of the Lake District and various other amenity societies, and I shall naturally inform them fully of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said.
  I must naturally reserve my right on their behalf to raise the matter again on Report stage, but my first impression is that the Parliamentary Secretary has made quite clear what I think, after fairly deep study of the proceedings in another place, was very obscure. I am extremely grateful to him for doing so, and my own impression is that the answer which he has given is wholly satisfactory. In view of those facts, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.41 p.m.
  EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved, in subsection (4)(c), to leave out from "circumstances" to the end of the subsection. The noble Earl said: Having been invited by two noble Lords to address the remarks which I was going to make on this Amendment to another one, dealing with something totally different from what I have in mind, I have become thoroughly nervous as to whether my interpretation of the Bill is right—and, of course, it could well be wrong. I put this Amendment down for two reasons, one of which was to find out exactly the meaning of the words which

  1287
  I have suggested should be excluded. The second reason is that if they mean what I think they mean, then they should be excluded.
  If the Amendment were accepted, the subsection would read:
  "The appropriate Minister shall not approve any improvement unless he is satisfied…

  (c) that the improvement is such as a prudent owner-occupier would be willing to make, having regard to its cost and to all other circumstances."

  This seems entirely reasonable, but the Government have qualified this by the addition of the words:
  "but disregarding benefits derived from the improvement other than the benefit in the farming of the agricultural land."
  My interpretation of these words—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—is that they are put in in order to exclude payment of a grant to what are commonly known as "intensive" agricultural buildings. If this is so, one wonders why a more specific description of intensive buildings has not been given.
  One knows, of course, that broiler houses are intensive buildings; one knows that battery houses are intensive buildings. But buildings such as piggeries were never in the past described as "intensive" buildings, although nowadays, when 400 or 600 pigs are kept in one building, it is quite posible that it could be described as an intensive building. Then one comes to cowsheds and cow yards and parlours, all of which are subject to the farm improvement grant, although in many ways they are intensive buildings and are likely to become more so. One wonders, therefore, whether it is right to exclude intensive buildings from the farm improvement grant.
  As regards the problems which these intensive buildings have created, one has merely to look at the rating of them. And here I must declare an interest, because I have intensive buildings which have been rated; and they are rated because they have no direct connection with the agricultural land upon which they are used. If a man has, for instance, a poultry house and allows his birds to walk out on the land, then this is perfectly all right from the point of view of rates, and he does not have to pay rates because the poultry house has a direct connection with the land, since
  1288
  the birds walk out on it. But if he is efficient, and keeps his birds in the house because they do better that way, then this is described as having no connection with the agricultural land and the building is therefore rated.
  But what is the value of any animal, be it a bird or a pig, or a cow walking upon the land, if it is not for the muck which a bird, pig or cow drops upon the land? The typical situation is that, if a man runs his farm inefficiently, and has his birds or pigs depositing their muck individually and inefficiently by themselves, then he is not rated. But if the birds or animals drop their muck efficiently in one place, and the muck is carted on to the land, he is rated. I feel that this same principle is being used in this Bill by the words which I have suggested should be eliminated, because it seems to me that the intensive buildings are deliberately being excluded from receiving the farm improvement grant.
  The Government have made a very significant change in this Bill by allowing the farm improvement grant criterion to be changed from the prudent landlord test to the prudent owner-occupier test. Many improvements went by default previously, because the Ministry of Agriculture said, "This is not what a prudent landlord would do", though it may well have been what a prudent farmer would do. If a farmer put up an intensive building, it was a typical example of the sort of case in which the Ministry could say, "A prudent landlord would not put up this building, and very few have done so." But when the test becomes that of the prudent owner-occupier it is a very different matter, because this is the kind of building which a prudent owner-occupier would put up, should put up and will put up.
  I think it highly likely that in the future each farm will have upon it an intensive unit, which is just as important, from the point of view of running the farm, as are its extensive uses; it is merely a different facet of the whole farming enterprise. I should have thought that if we were trying to improve agriculture and to improve its structure, intensive buildings should not be specifically excluded. After all, this is going to be the pattern of farming, whether one likes it or not. I know that there are many noble Lords, and many people in

  1289
  the country, who do not like intensive buildings and intensive livestock farming; but that is a totally different matter. Intensive farming is something that has come to stay, and if this Bill is to be forward-looking, as the Government wish, I should have thought it must include intensive buildings.
  I quite see that the Government cannot give grants, and should not give grants, for buildings which are intensive buildings but which are erected on individual sites having nothing whatever to do with any farming land. But where a building is put up on a piece of farming land, as a facet of the farming enterprise which goes on upon that land, then I think that it should be included. The object of my Amendment is not to include such buildings but to ensure that they are not specifically excluded, which, as I see it, the paragraph as drafted will do. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 36, line 39, leave out from ("circumstances") to end of line 41.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  LORD WALSTON: I must confess that I was taken in by the noble Earl's Amendment. I thought it referred to something very similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was raising. But he has made it very clear that that was not the case, and he has made his point very forcibly and with great clarity.
  I would say, first of all, that this scheme does not provide grants for specialist equipment for livestock businesses that do not depend on farming the land but depend in purchased feedingstuffs—the factory type of farming. They are excluded from this scheme. But I agree entirely with what the noble Earl has said about the future of farming, about looking forward and about the importance of these schemes. It is for that reason that, although such completely specialised buildings as factories, divorced from the agricultural land, are excluded from this scheme, they do qualify for the investment grant made under Clause 31. Therefore, although they appear to lose out on this particular clause, they are included in the general ambit of the Bill.
  The reason is that these grants are intended to encourage the modernisation of basic farm buildings, which are part
  1290
  of the farm unit as a whole. Piggeries can qualify if the farm produces enough feed. What happens if a farm produces enough feed but elects not to use that feed but to buy some other feed is a question which has to be resolved; but I imagine that, so long as it could produce enough feed, that qualifies it for this particular grant. But for the purely intensive business, where one needs very little land—and indeed where it could be run without the land itself—I would suggest to the noble Earl that the investment grant seems more appropriate to what is in fact a business investment rather than the farm improvement grant under this particular clause. So, although this clause does not go as far as he would like it to, I hope the noble Earl will agree with me that the Bill as a whole provides for these very examples that he has given us.
  LORD BALERNO: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether it is not proper agricultural use if the land is able to make proper use of all the dung that is produced by the intensive unit; and whether that is not the proper measure, rather than whether the land is able to raise the grain or the feed for the animals? After all, there are modern ways of organic irrigation whereby virtually the whole of the dung and the whole of the virtue of the dung can be put back on to the land. Indeed, it may be the salvation of certain types of light soil farming to be able to do that; it can be an integral part. But, to my mind, the criterion should be whether the dung produced by an intensive unit can be profitably used on the land.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Ferrers on the point that he has made, and bring in with it, if I may, a reference to the very cogent point made by my noble friend Lord Crawshaw, because I think these two things are related. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, well knows, the trend to-day is to these intensive methods of stock-keeping. Not only is this so in the case of pigs and poultry, but also now, of course, beef lots are appearing in this country; there are intensive methods of keeping sheep and there is zero grazing for dairy cows. These are, in appropriate circumstances, the most economic methods of livestock keeping,

  1291
  and I am sure it must be the concern of the Ministry of Agriculture to see them encouraged rather than discouraged.
  In many cases the point made by my noble friend Lord Crawshaw is of course applied in practice. To-day farmers often find it far better value to put up one of these cheap, light-weight buildings with a short life, and forego any prospect of grant, whether they could get it or not, because the capital cost is so much lower, it fully meets their purpose and they can write it off very quickly—over five years, or over five to ten years at the very outside. This is the trend, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, is aware of it. This is what is going to give us the most economic production, because, apart from labour costs, capital costs are a very heavy part of the total cost of production.
  If I may say so in passing, the investment grant is not really very much consolation because, after all, the investment allowance has been taken away, so in many cases we have been given something which is worth less than what we had before. But, if I may return to the substance of my comment, it is that the time has come to take an independent look at this farm improvement scheme. So much has happened in these last tenor twenty years, especially in the last ten years, since the scheme was introduced, and the speed of change is so rapid, that I think consideration should be given to whether the farm improvement grant scheme is now being applied in exactly the best way to suit the development of our farms in the most economic fashion.
  I wondered whether the noble Lord would consider—or, rather, would ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider—setting up an independent Departmental Committee to examine this problem, to see what the right balance is to meet the the economic trend of farm development, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to satisfy the very proper considerations of securing that the fixed equipment that is put on the farm is going to be something of, I was going to say permanent, but at any rate of semi-permanent value to the farm. There is a real problem here, and I think this would be the right way to tackle it. It is more than time it was tackled in this way, and it would
  1292
  be very helpful. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would consider this approach.
  LORD MITCHISON: I hesitate to intervene in an agriculture debate, and this is not of course a discussion of the very difficult rating problems about this kind of farming. This is simply a discussion of what is to be done by way of improvements for the benefit of agricultural land. Listening to the noble Lord who has just been speaking, I noticed that from time to time he seemed to me, from the question of the improvement of land, to get on to the question of agricultural production, which, whatever its merits one way or another, hardly arises, I think, in that form when what we are considering is grants for the benefit of agricultural land.
  I have been listening to this debate for some time, and I am a little puzzled that nobody has yet referred to Schedule 4, which gives some pretty clear illustrations of what can be done under this clause. It is in fact a limiting Schedule to say what can be done. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee now by discussing the matter in detail, but I hope that when the Government are considering it they will remember both the broad purpose of the clause and the way in which questions of this sort are treated in Schedule 4 itself, which enumerates the kind of improvements that can be dealt with under this clause.
  Again without going into it in detail, it seems to me that such paragraphs in Schedule 4 as No. 5 and both parts of No. 16—those in particular but the others in general—throw considerable light on the broad intention of the clause, and that if it were to be extended as suggested by the speeches that have been made as much as by the Amendment itself we should really be going beyond it and crossing the narrow and difficult line between the improvement of the land and the improvement of agricultural methods. Your Lordships will notice a reference to new methods in one of the paragraphs in Schedule 4.
  7.0 p.m.
  LORD WALSTON: On this Amendment we have heard a great deal to make us think. I was particularly impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said. I would agree with him

  1293
  that the criterion, if it is to apply as it should, to the improvement of the land, can equally well be, shall we say, a market garden which produces no feeding stuffs but keeps pigs in order that the dung may go out to improve the land although the food is bought from outside. As the Bill now stands I do not know whether this would be included or not; I think not. Therefore, I would suggest to the noble Earl that he withdraw his Amendment and that we consider its implications in the light of the debate which has just taken place.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Would the noble Lord be good enough to say that he would invite the Minister of Agriculture to give further consideration to this point?
  LORD WALSTON: Yes, I will certainly do that also. I apologise for not mentioning it earlier. I would also go so far as to say—and it is indicated in the Bill by the reduction of the 15-year period to 10 years—that we realise that the life of buildings for improvement is undoubtedly shorter than it was. I think the whole of agriculture suffers from having buildings built far too permanently; we are now saddled with 50year-old buildings. Whether in fact the ten-year period is the correct minimum I should not like to say. My own impression is that at this stage we should not go less than 10 years; although we may do so later. I think the noble Lord's suggestion of a committee to inquire into this is a valid one which I should pass on.
  EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this discussion. I think it has been very interesting and also very important, for this is a completely new side of agriculture to which we are coming. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balerno for re-emphasising the tremendous value which the dung and the muck from intensive buildings have on the land; because here there is a specific connection between intensive buildings and the land. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that from the point of view of a piggery you would get a farm improvement grant if you used the corn from your land; but he doubted by implication whether you would do so if you bought your corn and took the muck on to the
  1294
  land. This seems to be quite ridiculous. By using the corn you are taking something from the land; if you purchase concentrates and put the muck on to the land you are giving something to it.
  From the point of view of the rating of intensive buildings, the only trouble is that the value of the muck was described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when he gave his judgment—and it went all the way up through the courts—as de minimis. That may have been so in that particular case; but I think it is wholly wrong if, as a result of that judgment, it should be considered that muck on the whole from intensive buildings when applied to agricultural land is de minimis. I do not think this would necessarily obtain. I should like to support the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, that possibly a departmental committee should look into this problem. It is a very real problem and one that is likely to become more acute as time goes on. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31:
  Grants towards expenditure on fixed equipment, etc., and improvements for purposes of agricultural businesses
  31.—(l) The appropriate Minister may, out of money provided by Parliament, make to any person a grant towards expenditure incurred by that person on or after 17th January 1966 in or towards—
  (a) providing or installing fixed equipment, fixed plant or fixed machinery for use wholly or partly for the purposes of an agricultural business, or
  7.6 p.m.
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOODmoved in subsection (1)(a) to leave out the first "fixed". The noble Baroness said: I move this Amendment—there are six Amendments omitting the same word—because I want to have a discussion on this whole matter. I think it is something which is worth looking at. One of the main objects of the Bill—and it has been stressed throughout—is to modernise agriculture. From the debate which has just taken place, to which I listened with interest, I think everyone realises that we are talking now of an industry which is eager to modernise,

  1295
  eager to take on new ideas and new methods, and an industry which is doing so, in my opinion, faster than the Ministry of Agriculture are drafting their Bills. I think that the trouble with the Ministry of Agriculture—much as I love it; for I spent a lot of my life happily in close association with it—is that it still very often thinks in terms which belong to a year or two ago, or even more.
  I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said at the end of his remarks. He said that agriculture was suffering from too permanent buildings. Things go on for so long, and some of us have not the capital needed to scrap and rebuild. I wish to bring before the Committee this evening the matter of describing machinery. Clause 31 of the Bill describes how you can get assistance towards machinery, all of which must be fixed. In Clause 32 there are two items specified for grant which are anything but fixed. I suggest that the word "fixed" is old-fashioned, outdated and altogether unsuited for use in a Bill which is designed, and rightly so, to modernise agriculture. One of the biggest changes in my lifetime as a farmer—and I am sure this applies to many noble Lords—has been the development of machinery. Every year something new comes up, every year some inventive person produces a new or better type of machinery. One has only to think back for a moment to things like the immovable threshing machinery inside the great stone buildings, and then to look at the modern methods which one uses for harvesting. One only has to look back at dairy farming, at the old-fashioned byres where the cows came in, were milked and went out. Now one sees the milk parlours, the mobile milk parlours of to-day.
  Then there is the question of climate. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, knows, this is one of the biggest problems of farming in the North; one is for ever struggling against rain. One of the methods by which one can now combat some of the downpours from which we suffer—particularly in August, when one wants to get on with the haymaking—is to have a strong blower or drier which one can put into the fields, push with a tractor and take all over the place. It is an extremely useful machine in helping
  1296
  one counter the effects of the weather. About five years ago it was impossible to get a drier which was not fixed in a barn; you took the corn into the barn and used the blower to dry it in the barn. To-day, the ingenuity of man is such that this blower can be carted around and used all over the place. It is every bit as effective as before—if not more so—and it is movable. If it were fixed in the barn, as it used to be, it would rank for a grant, but because it is 100 per cent. more useful, because you can push it around, it does not rank for the grant.
  I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Stone haven, is not present. During the Second Reading debate he said that he had installed some new machinery on one of his farms, and was able to obtain grant aid in respect of one part of it but not in respect of another, simply because of the idiosyncrasy about this definition of "fixed" machinery. Nowadays it is possible to get one drier which may be used in two or three silos. In the old days the driers were fixed. Admittedly they ranked for grant, but because they were fixed it was necessary to use a blower for each silo. I could go on talking for a long time on this subject, but I am addressing Members of your Lordships' House who are interested and know about farming, so I need not to elaborate the point.
  The fact is that nowadays every invention which results in the modernising of machinery makes it easier to use the machinery. It is possible to move machinery about the farm, and that makes it infinitely more valuable. We hope that this Bill will become a really modern Act of Parliament, but here we are faced with this restriction on grant aid because it may be given only in respect of machinery which is fixed.
  During the Second Reading debate I was told that the line had to be drawn somewhere and that it was not possible to have all machinery ranking for grant. That may well be so, but I suggest to the noble Lord that the Ministry should look at this point and decide that there are more machines which might be added to the category referred to in Clause 32, where tractors and harvesters are specified. Both, of course, are movable, and both rank for grant. Driers, fans and silos might be included in that category

  1297
  as well as other machinery of the same type which is essential for modern farming. In my opinion, it should all rank for grant aid.
  Capital expenditure on these items is extremely high. It costs between £700 and £800 to acquire a movable blower, but it can be used for far more purposes on the farm. It would cost the same if the blower were fixed in a barn. It would then be possible to obtain a grant in respect of it, but it could not be used half as much. This is a matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister and his Department. Here we are suggesting something which would be of enormous benefit, and the acceptance of the Amendment would show that the Ministry recognise the revolution which is going on in respect of farming machinery. When I read the clause I asked myself whether the Government realise what is happening every year; that a real revolution is going on. What is the point of having a Bill with all these clauses init when you do not recognise what is happening in this world of mechanisation?
  Other points have been made on this subject. Noble Lords have referred to new types of farming, including intensive poultry and pig production, which is all part of the farming revolution. The whole thing has got to the point where movable machinery is a current investment for all modern farmers. Nobody would dream of buying fixed machinery if it was possible to obtain movable machinery. It would not make sense. I think that the criterion that the grant shall be paid only in respect of fixed machinery is extraordinarily out of date. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter, because the inclusion of the word "fixed" makes the Bill look very old-fashioned. Every year, every day, new and more important things are being invented which farmers want to use.
  What is more, we in this country are well ahead in the production of farm machinery—hence our huge export trade; and it will not help that trade if people are not encouraged to use modern machinery. No one will be prepared to buy old-fashioned machinery merely because that is the only way to obtain a grant. I want the Minister to realise that here we are on a very good wicket.
  1298
  We are beating the world and our exports are tremendous. I should like to see the investment grant given in respect of the most modern machinery.
  My suggestion is that we omit the word "fixed" and refer to grants towards essential machinery. In any case, in ten years' time there will be hardly anything which is fixed anywhere, except, perhaps, the roof over one's head. But, as has been said, even the roof could be pulled down when it decays; so that even the roof may not be a fixture for more than the next five or ten years. Changes are being made all the time. I beg the noble Lord to ascertain whether or not the Minister will reconsider this clause and redraft it in a way that will bring it up to date in respect of machinery in the farming world. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 11, leave out first ("fixed")—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
  7.15 p.m.
  LORD MITCHISON: With great respect to the noble Baroness, I am afraid that her Amendment is hopelessly wide. I think she realises it, and I shall take but a minute to give her an illustration. At present, as I see it, a fixed shelter or shed might attract a grant if used for an agricultural purpose. The noble Lady would include equipment which is not fixed and used wholly or partly for an agricultural purpose. I suggest that that would include—at any rate in the case of a bald farmer—an umbrella.
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has not looked at the clause to which I am speaking. It does not refer to umbrellas; it refers to machinery which is essential to the modernisation of agriculture. The noble Lord may or may not be a farmer, but I would say this to him. When it is suggested that one should modernise one's farm and then, in answer to an application for a grant for a blower, or something like that, one is told, "If it is fixed you will get a grant, but if it is not, you will not", all I can say is that one is being asked to do something which is so old-fashioned as to be useless.
  LORD MITCHISON: I would not pretend that an umbrella is "plant" or "machinery". But I think that it is "equipment".
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: No, it is not. The noble Lord is wrong.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, even if the definition did include umbrellas. I think that most farmers would appreciate the inclusion of umbrellas during some of our summers. But I should like to support my noble friend for a reason which I do not think she has mentioned. Partly due to Government policy, and partly due to economic circumstances, farms are getting bigger the whole time. We have not yet seen the effect of capital gains tax which will no doubt tend to reduce this trend; but certainly at the moment farms are getting bigger the whole time. The bigger the farm, the more essential it is that the equipment on it should not be fixed. It is thoroughly uneconomic to cart an enormous tonnage of oats or barley from one end of the farm, perhaps four miles, to where a drier is. It would be far easier to cart the blower the four miles on a tractor to where the barley happens to be grown. I hope that the Government will consider this point. The Amendment may go too far, and may include things which the Government definitely do not want to include. I suspect that a farmer's motor car could be included were the Amendment to be accepted. But I think the Government might make the Bill less restrictive than it is by deleting this provision that a grant is available only for fixed machinery.
  LORD BALERNO: Coming from the same cold and wet part of Scotland as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, I should like to support what she has said. I detect from debates in another place that this matter has already received very sympathetic consideration by the Government. The difficulty seems to be one of semantics and of getting a definition. The Government agree, particularly in the case of driers, that it is an advantage to have a drier which can be moved from one bed or silo to another, and not a separate drier for each position, which adds considerably to the cost and will, if this is done by the farmer, add to the amount of Government grant. I suggest that instead of the word "fixed" we might use the word "static". If we use "static" and then define it as "machinery which when in use is in
  1300
  a fixed position"—that is, machinery which cannot be used when it is in motion—we shall have a quite precise definition. Therefore, it cannot be a tractor or any of the main range of farm machinery. It seems to me not too difficult a definition, and that it goes a long way towards meeting what I know is the general desire of the Government to help farmers.
  As I am speaking, may I ask a question on another point on these grants? In future they are to be direct grants for improvements instead of income tax rebates. The question I should like to ask the Government, which I have not seen debated anywhere, is whether these direct grants would be permissible in the Common Market. If we joined the Common Market should we have to revert to income tax rebates to get the same payments back to the farmer? I am almost certain that income tax rebates will come within the scope of the Common Market regulations, but these direct grants might well be excluded. So ought we not to have another look at this in regard to the Common Market regulations? I apologise for bringing up this question without notice.
  EARL FERRERS: I think that the noble Baroness has a good point here. On the last Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that buildings were being made to last too long. A building needed to last only ten years because, after ten years, it would be no longer suitable for what would then be required of it. This is the case with a great deal of equipment nowadays. The purposes for which it is required are relatively small. It seems extraordinary that when there is a chance of extending the use of equipment farmers should not be able to do so, or indeed should be penalised for doing so.
  I was looking through the Farmers Weekly last week and cut out an advertisement which said, under a big photograph:
  "Lister moisture extracting unit—patented. With wheels for mobility, £706; as fixed equipment, £670".
  So the machine with wheels costs £36 more, but does not count for grant, which would be to the tune of £125. The man who buys his machine with wheels for mobility has to pay about £200 more than the one who buys a fixed machine. That seems to me a pity.
  7.24 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES: As the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said, she has been in correspondence with me on this subject for some time. In fact I have with me, to refresh my memory, copies of the correspondence, which I find consists of three comparatively long letters from the noble Baroness and three comparatively short ones from me—because one does not take so long to say, "No" as one takes to put up reasons for saying, "Yes". In the course of that correspondence I told the noble Baroness what the Government's intention was in introducing investment grants. It was simply to provide and distribute a sum which was broadly the equivalent in value of the old investment allowances.
  If we are to increase the number of items of equipment which can count for grant, obviously it is not going to be possible unless we do one of two things—either increase the total amount of money to be distributed or decrease the rate of grant payable. I can assure your Lordships that under existing circumstances the first is a non-starter. The amount of money which will be available will be related broadly to the amount which was available under the old scheme. Having decided that, we had to find the best way of distributing it. Naturally the Government did not do this off their own bat. There were consultations with the farming and land-owning organisations. It was felt that the best way to start was to find out which were the most important and widely used pieces of equipment which could be aided, and aided at a reasonable percentage, which I would remind your Lordships is just now 10 per cent., but will be temporarily increased in 1967 and 1968 to 12½ per cent.
  The noble Baroness referred to Clause 32 and the two items of mobile equipment which are added there. This brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, about defining the equipment as "static" instead of "fixed". This does not really help. The reason why harvesters and tractors were brought in for grant was that, after allocation had been made on items of fixed equipment, there was some other money available and it was agreed between the interests concerned that the best way of using it was to help to provide the most widely used pieces of mobile equipment—tractors and harvesters.
  1302
  What also influenced the decision was that tractors and harvesters could be easily policed because they are subject to an Excise licence. As soon as one imports into grant-aided pieces of equipment something which is mobile but not easily checkable, one introduces into the whole operation a policing expense which would add to the administrative costs a considerable amount of money which under the present set-up goes directly in grants. The ideal position when a given sum of money is to be spent is that the greatest possible percentage should go to the farmer and the smallest possible percentage to administering the scheme.
  It is wrong to conclude, as I think the noble Baroness has done, that because the Government are not giving grant for certain pieces of equipment, we do not approve of them. There is much which is being done in farming and elsewhere of which the Government fully approve but to which the Government do not give grant. We accept that the equipment to which the noble Baroness referred is extremely useful and frequently secures economies in investment and the use of manpower, but we cannot distribute the money available in the way which is most acceptable to the farming community as a whole if we bring in a range of mobile equipment.
  The noble Duke said he suspected that if this were done it would be too wide. This, of course, is the difficulty. Once you go beyond the type of equipment requiring an Excise licence how do you make a distinction? Obviously if we are going to make the grant much less than 10 per cent.—if it is getting down to an average of 5 per cent. grant, or 7½ per cent. grant—in many cases it will not be worth operating, and we should be depriving many farmers of the opportunity of getting a share of this money. For these reasons, I must advise your Lordships that in the view of the Government movable equipment other than tractors and harvesters must remain in that category.
  Before I conclude, I would say that it is quite obvious from the remarks of certain noble Lords that they are not thinking of the effect that they might have on Scotland's tourist industry. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, indicated a heavy downpour in August; the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl,

  1303
  referred to "the wet weather we are accustomed to get in Scotland"; and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, "coming from another wet part of the country". I wish to make it quite clear that it does not rain all summer in Scotland, even in particular parts of it.
  LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood on moving this Amendment, and my noble friends who supported her. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I did not find his answer very convincing. His argument that it would be unduly expensive administratively to have the additional burden of checking mobile machines if the grant were extended to them seems to be a most feeble argument to come from the Government Front Bench. This form of grant was decided upon by the Government as a matter of major policy, to take the place of the old investment allowances, which were quite simply administered by the Inland Revenue at no cost at all.
  For some reason, which has never been convincing to me, the Government decided to make this change, and if it is more expensive to administer, that is what we always told them it would be, and it would have been better to have stuck to the old arrangement. Under the old arrangement these mobile machines qualified for income tax investment allowances in so far as the farmer concerned could satisfy the Inland Revenue inspector that the equipment was required for the farm. They are now losing it. So it is completely inequitable, quite apart from all the other arguments that have been adduced. The noble Lord says that it is the broad intention of the Government to see that this scheme replaces the benefit that farmers were getting before, but it just does not do this because the administrative arrangements are that much less efficient. The responsibility for this is with the Government.
  I warmly support my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood on the general argument that she has put before the Committee. The trend is to use mobile equipment wherever possible, so that it can be used as much as possible. In case the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is still feeling anxious about his umbrella, he is an even cleverer man than I thought
  1304
  if he can persuade an Inland Revenue inspector that this is a necessary part of farming equipment. If he can do that, good luck to him. Everybody knows that what my noble friend has said is right: that wherever possible one tries to avoid fixed equipment because it is limited in use.
  When the Government decide to make a major change in policy, and remove one form of benefit through the income tax allowance which we had in the past, and give a new one, it seems most unfortunate that they should cut off from benefit a considerable range of equipment which is the part in which modern developments are taking place. I should certainly advise my noble friend, if she decides to withdraw the Amendment now, to come back to it again on the Report stage.
  LORD HUGHES: Before the noble Lady returns to it, I must correct a misapprehension under which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, appears to be labouring. I did not say that it was costing more to administer the present investment grants than it did to administer the previous scheme. I advanced two reasons for not doing what the noble Lady asked: first, that if we were to bring in these pieces of mobile equipment, the percentage grant would be diminished on all items, because there would be many more items coming into it; and, secondly, that the cost of administering a scheme with all these items in it would be much greater than the cost of administering the Government's scheme.
  It is really late in the day to start arguing the merits of investment grants as against income tax allowances, but there are obviously two points of view about this among the farmers. Those who were receiving the full benefit of investment allowances because they were in the proper tax bracket perhaps preferred the other scheme. But there are a number of farmers who will get better benefits under grants, because they did not participate under tax allowances which were previously available. The fact is that the Government sought to make certain in their scheme that the total sum available continued to be available, although it did not follow that it was the same farmers who were receiving it.
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I must say that I am disappointed with the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. In answer to his last words about the total amount of grant, all I can say is that it is a pity that it is not more, because if it were it would be of much greater use. I do not want to argue the merits of income tax allowances versus investment; there are too many sides to it. I must say that I have yet to find anybody who prefers this, but there may be some who do. But in my part of the world, where such a large area is farmed, the income tax rebates were much more popular. However, as I say, I do not wish to argue that point.
  But on the question of saying that a grant is payable in respect of an old-fashioned piece of machinery which is static (which is what the Government are saying), I would say this. The inspector who came to look at my blower said to me: "Lady Elliot, if only you had screwed it to the floor, I could have given you a grant; but because you pull it about with a tractor, I cannot." That is a premium on screwing it to the floor. It is a great pity that a new Bill which encourages people to do new things should, at the same time, contain Clause 31, which is definitely going to encourage people to do something out of date and old-fashioned, because that is the only way in which they will get a grant. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say to us that we cannot have any more money. But the Government are going to give money under this scheme to people to put in machinery which is out of date. That is the answer.
  LORD HUGHES: The only reason I seek to interrupt the noble Lady is that I do not wish to appear to be depriving her of the last word, and if I interrupt her she can answer me. We on the Government side do not accept that "fixed" necessarily means "old-fashioned" and that "mobile" necessarily means "progressive". There are cases where, obviously, a piece of mobile equipment, such as the mobile blower to which the noble Lady referred, is much more suitable. But that is only one item of equipment, and over the wide field "fixed" equipment is by no means a piece of old-fashioned equipment. So we must not be led into the mistake of thinking that
  1306
  "fixed" is "old-fashioned" and "mobile" is "up to date".
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: On that I disagree with the noble Lord, and I should like the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to look at this matter again. I do not believe that in twenty years' time the machinery for which grants are given to-day—that is, fixed machinery—will be in use. By that time everything will be constructed so that it can be used universally. I am not discussing buildings, but referring to machinery. And here, in this 1967 model of a Bill, we are asked to approve a piece of legislation which refers to the type of machinery which, in terms of the motor car world, probably would be way back about 1920. It is quite clear that it did work in the past, but it does not work so well now.
  I do not propose to press this Amendment to-day, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, that it is too wide, but it has brought the discussion that I wanted to the notice of the noble Lord. I warned him that I was going to do this, so he was not taken by surprise. I am attracted by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, that we should use the word "static" and see whether something of that kind could go into the Bill, rather than the Amendment I have moved. I will certainly consider this at the next stage, but I believe that, everything considered, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have a good look at this whole matter and not just say that this is something for which they cannot make arrangements in this Bill. Finally, may I say that I am delighted to hear that it does not rain in Dundee, because in my experience it rains in Dundee as much as it does in the Borders.
  LORD HUGHES: I was not saying that it never rained in Dundee, but that it does not rain any more in other parts of Scotland.
  BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.43 p.m.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLLmoved, in subsection (1)(a), after "agricultural" to insert "or silvicultural". The noble Duke said: First, I think I should declare an interest. If the Government were to

  1307
  accept this Amendment it would obviously benefit me to a certain extent financially, and I feel that I must declare this fact. I also think that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to consider at the same time Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, as they are all on the same point.
  If this Amendment were carried, machinery used for forestry as well as for agriculture could be eligible for the grants which we have just been discussing. In support of this Amendment I should like to quote what the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, speaking on behalf of the Government, said on the Industrial Development Act (as it now is) in reply to an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who was trying to bring forestry within the provisions of that Bill. I may say that your Lordships were good enough to approve that Amendment, but unfortunately another place had different ideas. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, said:
  "The scope of the present Bill is, broadly, to provide investment incentives for industry in the sense of manufacture, construction and mining. The Bill is not designed to provide incentives for agriculture, horticulture or forestry, which might be described as the cultivation and harvesting of crops. Now we made it quite clear in the White Paper on Investment Incentives that separate arrangements are being made for agriculture as a key sector of economic activity. Provision for investment grants for agriculture and horticulture is made in another Bill which is at present before the House of Commons and will in due course come before the House of Lords. It is on that Bill that attention as regards this particular subject, which comes outside the scope of this present Bill, should be focused."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/8/66, col. 1263.]
  I am doing exactly as we were instructed by the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes—I am trying to focus it on this Bill. The Government have apparently forgotten that we might perhaps focus it on this Bill. It is essential for private forestry to have confidence in the Government, and they are rapidly losing it at the moment. Before this Government came into power forestry received investment allowances; now, apparently, it is to get absolutely nothing.
  The pool to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has referred, although it included forestry before, does not appear to have enough in it to include forestry now. This is remarkable, as he said that
  1308
  the pool was more or less the same. I have yet to meet anyone who has benefited from the new system, except perhaps some small farmers, and the amount of investment in plant which they make is minute. I have been into this with a certain amount of care, and even an industry in a development area was better off under the old system than under the new. The only industries which benefit are those which were not in the old development areas and are now in the new development areas; and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will no doubt produce this as one reason why he cannot accept this Amendment.
  I think it is unfair that forestry should be cut out of this so-called "pool". In forestry one has to budget sixty years ahead, and the budgeting was based on the fact that we received a certain amount of aid towards this sort of equipment, preferably by tax allowances or otherwise by direct grants. I should also like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that thanks to this change the Government are having the use of this money for approximately a year longer than they did under the old system, under which income tax allowances were offset against the tax which one had to pay straight away. So at the very worst the Government ought to have been a shade more generous, instead of which they appear to me to have been much more mean. Therefore I think that this Amendment is a fair one; that it will go some way towards restoring confidence in the private sector of the forestry industry, and that it ought to be accepted by the Government. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 38, line 13, after ("agricultural") insert ("or silvicultural").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
  THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I should like to say one thing in support of this Amendment. It is a little suggestive of sharp practice, although I am sure it is not so in fact, that we should first of all be told that this could not come under the Industrial Development Act because it was going to be in the Agriculture Bill, and now we are told that it cannot be in this Bill, for some reason that we have not yet heard.
  Of course it is likely that this Amendment will not be consistent with the

  1309
  Commons Financial Resolution. However, that is no reason why it should not be discussed in your Lordships' House, and the Government would then be able to move a new Financial Resolution in another place, if they thought it right. I hope we shall have from the Government some indication that forestry—which we thought was going to be encouraged when this Government came into office—is not going to be the one thing left out in the cold.
  LORD HUGHES: In moving this Amendment the noble Duke ranged over a wide field, including the Industrial Development Act, the previous Amendment, and some other things as well. In one way I am glad that he did so, because in replying to the previous Amendment I omitted to reply to a pertinent question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and which could perhaps equally well apply to grants under this Amendment. The noble Lord asked whether grants would be permissible in the Common Market. I can give him a simple, but completely unsatisfactory, answer. We do not know. We understand that the Six spend a good deal of money on grants to improve farm efficiency, so we hope they will be permissible. I cannot take it any further than that.
  I am not in the same position as the noble Duke, for he has gone back and looked at the debate on the Industrial Development Bill and is seeking to found on that for the Amendment which he is now moving. For that reason, I am quite certain that he will not be very happy about what I am about to say, because I am going to say what he suspected I would say. That is, the position of forestry in relation to investment grants was considered when the House was considering the Industrial Development Act. The decision of Parliament on that occasion was that the grants would not be extended to forestry. It was explained then, so I am assured, that the Government had considered the present system of assistance to forestry and had concluded that it would not at present be justified in supplementing this by something comparable to the special arrangements for agriculture. To admit forestry to that grant would in fact go beyond the scope and intention of this clause.
  1310
  The considerations which apply to agriculture are essentially different from those relating to forestry which by its very nature is a long-term activity. A long time must pass before trees planted now can make any contribution to import saving, and it is doubtful whether any increased production would be achieved in existing woodlands if that grant were available. Having said that, however, as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, knows, I am in complete agreement with him in seeking to expand forestry as much as possible both in the Forestry Commission sector and in the private sector, because I think it has a great deal to offer for the future development of the economy of the country in general and of Scotland in particular. But I am very sorry that on this Amendment the most I can say is that we will watch the position very carefully, and I hope with that somewhat faint assurance, I must admit, the noble Duke will feel able to withdraw his Amendment, which I am quite unable to accept.
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I cannot say that I am altogether happy about that assurance. It seems very long term, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made no attempt to explain why forestry should not share in this pool, except that he says it will make no difference to the immediate outlook for forestry in this country. I agree that if you go into a form of culture which has a 60-year cycle, as on the whole forestry does—even pulp mill timber has a 25-year cycle—it is obviously not going to make a great deal of difference to our balance of payments to-day, to-morrow or next year if a grant is given to increase and mechanise forestry. But it does seem to me very short sighted, and I am very surprised the noble Lord should try and defend it on those lines.
  Since the noble Lord does not seem to think that the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, gave us that encouragement—which I assure him he did, although he qualified it slightly afterwards—I would quote the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who said exactly the same four columns later:
  "Is it not a fact that the Ministry of Agriculture has been paying out grants consistently over many years for the future development of the forestry industry?"—(col. 1267.)

  1311
  This was his reason why we could not have grants under the Industrial Development Bill, because it came under the wing of the Ministry of Agriculture. We now have a Bill which appears to have emanated from the Ministry of Agriculture who seem to be equally disinterested in forestry, except to make absolutely sure that none shall take place in the areas of the Rural Development Boards.
  I must say that the noble Lord has not convinced me that we should not do this, and the only reason why I propose withdrawing this Amendment is that I suspect that it might involve a Money Resolution, and I should hate to cause a row with the House of Commons over a comparatively small thing like this; also, the noble Lord has said he will keep his eye on the position. I think he should also try and introduce a Bill to do something about it as quickly as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall be agreed to?
  THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I would raise one point. Industrial grants are taking eighteen months to be paid. Could the noble Lord tell us whether they anticipate that grants under this Bill for agricultural purposes will take as long, or whether farmers might get them rather more quickly and thereby not be out of pocket for quite so long?
  LORD HUGHES: I think the furthest I can go is to give an assurance that we will not delay any more than absolutely necessary.
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 [Grants towards expenditure on agricultural tractors and harvesters]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall be agreed to?
  LORD BALERNO: May I ask the Minister a question relating to forage harvesters? One can have a forage harvester as well as a cereal harvester. Most of the forage harvesters are pulled by tractors and therefore do not qualify under the Vehicles Excise Act 1962. But there is a type of forage harvester which would qualify under that Act, and that is the self-propelled lawn mower, provided it collected the crops. It would qualify
  1312
  under the Vehicles Excise Act and it would also be technically a forage harvester. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government are aware of this point, and if they are, whether this was their intention, provided of course it was a farmer who used the forage harvester on his own farm.
  LORD HUGHES: The fact that the noble Lord did not give me notice of that question gives me reason to believe he did not seriously expect to get an answer to it to-night. I will, however, look into it and let the noble Lord know in due course.
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Supplemental provisions as to grants under Part II and application of capital on works there under]:
  7.58 p.m.
  EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved, after subsection (5), to insert as a new subsection:
  "() Whenever a person having a limited interest in agricultural land or in the rents and profits until sale of such land pays any yearly or other periodical payment due under a mortgage or charge created under the Agricultural Credits Acts, 1928 and 1932, or either of such Acts, or the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, that person shall be entitled to recoupment, out of such land or the proceeds of sale thereof or out of capital monies subject to the trusts of the settlement affecting such land, of such part of such yearly or periodical payment as represents repayment of capital."
  The noble Earl said: This is quite a simple point although it looks rather complicated, and I hope it will give the Government a chance to show how conciliatory they are. It deals with one specific type of complication. Many farms are improved by finance from the Agricultural Mortgages Corporation or the Land Improvements Company. This entails paying back the capital and the interest in annual instalments. Where, however, land is settled land the trustees of the settled land offer the land as mortgage to the Agricultural Mortgages Corporation or the Land Improvements Company, who in turn produce the capital, and the tenant for life has to pay back both the capital and the interest out of his own private money, and he cannot be recouped from the capital of the trust.
  At the end of the period of payments the land which resides in the hands of

  1313
  the trustees is benefited by the improvement which the tenant for life has paid for out of his own money. The effect of this is one of two things. First, there is the possibility the improvement will not be done; and secondly, if it is done, the tenant for life suffers because he has been depleted of his own money. His direct successor may not suffer because he will have the advantage of the improvement if he inherits the land, but the other children of the tenant for life will suffer by virtue of the fact that his money has been used for this purpose. But there is another quirk to this. If the loan is for a period of, say, 20 years, and the tenant for life wishes to redeem the loan after, say, 7 years, he will have paid seven annual instalments. The redemption figure, which represents the 13 instalments that would have been paid if he had continued with the agreement, can be recouped out of the capital of the trust, but the 7 instalments which have already been paid cannot.
  This is an anomaly which I believe is not in the interests of the life tenant or the life tenant's successor, the trustees of the land in question—or, indeed, of the Government. It is highly likely that at the time when the Settled Land Act of 1925 was considered it was anticipated that repayment of such a loan by instalments was a proper charge against the settled fund. Unfortunately, when it came up for interpretation it was held that the word "redemption" referred to the compounding of all future payments, and that the tenant for life was not entitled to be recouped out of capital money in respect of the payments which he had already made. This is an uncontroversial Amendment which I believe can be only in the interests and to the benefit of all concerned. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 43, line 20, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Ferrers.)
  8.3 p.m.
  LORD WALSTON: The noble Earl has introduced this Amendment by saying that it is a simple matter. He has certainly expounded it with great clarity, but I must confess that, to me, it is a somewhat complicated matter, although one of very considerable importance, not only, in certain cases, to the estates them-
  1314
  selves but to the beneficiaries, and also to agriculture. Therefore, it is appropriate that it should be considered when we are discussing this Bill.
  The difficulty which the Amendment seeks to remove is caused by the wording of Section 73(1)(xiii) of the Settled Land Act, 1925, the effect of which, as the noble Earl has pointed out, is to prevent the use of capital money arising from a settled estate for the repayment of rent charges by instalments. I understand that this provision has a particularly unfortunate effect in the case of improvement rentcharges resulting from loans for improvements made for agricultural purposes.
  As the noble Earl has pointed out under Section 3(2) of the Agricultural Credits Act 1932, such loans can, if secured by a mortgage which is repayable by instalments, be treated as an improvement rentcharge. But the Act of 1925 has been held, as the noble Earl has reminded us, not to permit the application of capital money under it to the repayment of such charges. This is because the 1925 Act limits the use of capital monies in this context to redemption of a rentcharge and under a recent judgment, to which the noble Earl has referred, the word "redemption" has been held to refer to a compounding of future payments and not to the capital element in the normal periodic payments. The result is that repayments of capital instalments by the tenant for life must be found either out of his income or out of free capital, and this, of course, has discouraged tenants for life from borrowing money for agricultural improvements.
  It may well be that it was Parliament's intention that Section 73 of the 1925 Act should have reproduced the effect of Section 1 of the Settled Land Acts (Amendment) Act 1887. That Act included not only redemption but also any other provision for the payment of rentcharges, and so would have enabled instalments towards repaying rentcharges to be paid out of capital. Normally, a statutory defect of this kind ought to be put right for all purposes. But, of course, that is not possible in an Agriculture Bill. One can argue that it is not right under an Agriculture Bill to attempt to put right in a specific area something which applies to a far wider area. The noble Earl does not hold that view, and I share his opinion.

  1315
  This Bill affects the productivity of the land. The present Amendment seeks to remedy matters, so far as agricultural estates are concerned. I think it would be a pity to miss the chance of correcting this anomaly at least within the field covered by this Bill, and I hope your Lordships will agree. The Government are therefore prepared to accept this Amendment in principle, if that is the wish of the Committee. We should, however, like an opportunity to consider the precise wording and placing of the Amendment in the Bill, and perhaps we can arrange to do that at some later stage.
  EARL FERRERS: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. As his speech progressed I thought that I was going to be disappointed; then, all of a sudden, at the end the rabbit came out of the hat. I am grateful to him, and on his assurance that he would like to discuss it, I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 36 agreed to.
  LORD WALSTON: Perhaps this would be an appropriate moment to resume. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

TEACHERS OF NURSING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eight o'clock.