Sitting of 14 March 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read a Second time; to be considered Tomorrow.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Derelict Land (Restoration)
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what would be the estimated cost of extending to all local authorities the 85 per cent. Government grants made to local authorities in the development areas for the restoration of derelict land.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Frederick Wiley): The total cost to the Exchequer of making 85 per cent. grant available to local authorities outside development areas is estimated at £35 million. Of this figure £14 million represents the cost of raising the existing levels of grant outside these areas to 85 per cent.
    Mr. Fowler: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the estimate of the National Coal Board that two-thirds of our derelict land could be restored in 10 years at a cost of £40 million? Would not such an expenditure be justified from the point of view of improving the aesthetic appearance of the country and that of saving agricultural land from development?
    Mr. Willey: Not only am I aware of that estimate but also of the work which the National Coal Board has done in
    192
    expediting the clearance of derelict land. However, we have to consider this along with other priorities.

    Private Housing Development, Salop (Agricultural Land)
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, how many acres of land previously in agricultural use in the county of Salop have been used for private housing development since the end of the Second World War.
    Mr. Willey: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

    Rate Assessment (Appeals)
    Mr. Maddanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he is satisfied that the present arrangements for appeals in respect of assessments for rating are fair to all classes of ratepayer; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): My right hon. Friend believes that the present arrangements are generally regarded as satisfactory.
    Mr. Maddan: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that all gross values tend to be under the true letting value? While this helps nobody, it has the effect, in the case of a given property which is valued rather under the true value, that it is very hard to establish a case for it to be put right.
    Mr. MacColl: In the absence of a lot of free letting, it is difficult to do. But there is machinery in the Act for this to be put right by the appeals procedure.

    Market Rents
    Mr. Maddanasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether, in view of the postponement of the 1968 revaluation, he will set up an inquiry to examine hardship which may be caused to various classes of ratepayer as a result of the inadequate evidence of market rents; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend recognises that shortage of evidence of market rents creates difficulties, but

    193
    revaluation would not have removed them. He does not think there is a case for a special inquiry.
    Mr. Maddan: But is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the postponement has, in fact, exacerbated and will exacerbate the unfairness of the present system, and that we must recognise that this system will be with us still for some years yet?
    Mr. MacColl: As we are still wrestling with the backlog left by the last revaluation, it would not be wise to have another valuation at the moment. It certainly would not speed up machinery.

    Empty Properties (Rates)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what has been the response by local authorities to his circular on the rating of empty properties.
    Mr. MacColl: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of authorities who have sent my right hon. Friend copies of resolutions adopting these provisions.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of feeling in many places that local authorities are not taking sufficient notice of this circular? Is he further aware that in Croydon there is a very good case for these powers to be used in view of the empty office blocks in the town?
    Mr. MacColl: I would rather that my right hon. Friend was ahead of local authorities in reform, than behind them.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London Borough of Bromley has refused to make use of the powers conferred on it by this Act, in spite of the fact that there are many properties vacant in the borough which could be put to useful purposes? In view of the social advantages which would be brought about by the rating of vacant property, does not he consider that this should be made mandatory?
    Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. I think that this is a matter for the electorate to consider in April.
    Mr. Rossi: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recent meeting of treasurers came to the view that the exercise of
    194
    this Parliamentary provision would cost more than the money collected would make it worth while to do?
    Mr. MacColl: It is interesting to notice that two of the county boroughs which have decided to use this power are not county boroughs normally regarded as having extreme Left-wing views.
    Following is the list:
    Local Government Act 1966
    Rating of Unoccupied Property
    Copies of resolutions under section 20 of the Act applying the provisions of sections 21 and 22 had been received by 8th March from the following rating authorities in England and Wales:
    County boroughs

    Bournemouth; Eastbourne; Exeter.

    London boroughs

    Waltham Forest.

    Non-county boroughs and urban districts

    Barry.

    Cannock; Coalville; Chepstow; Crawley.

    Keighley.

    Loughborough.

    Melksham; Melton Mowbray.

    Newcastle-under-Lyme.

    Petersfield; Potters Bar.

    Stevenage.

    Todmorden; Tonbridge.

    Watford; Wisbech.

    Rural districts

    Vaynor and Penderyn.

    West Dean.

    Local Authority Building Departments (Cost Control)
    Mr. Eyreasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will publish the Society of District Auditors' Report to him on the accounting system of direct labour authorities.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Mellish): The District Auditors' Society, acting on its own iniative, has made an interesting study of cost control in local authority building departments. The study was prepared for the benefit of the Society's members, but the Society has kindly made it available to the Department. My right hon. Friend has just received it, and he will consider with the Society the question of publication.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have been recent reports of very serious cases disclosing waste and inefficiency in these Departments? In the light of these abuses, will he consider

    195
    restoring public confidence by withdrawing the 1965 circular?
    Mr. Mellish: We had some interesting debates on direct labour when we were considering the Housing Subsidies Bill. I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that much of the argument on his side of the House was over-stated.
    Mr. Heffer: is my hon. Friend aware that the building industry as a whole suffers from precisely this question of waste and inefficiency, and that it is not confined to one or two direct labour authorities? If he is to institute an inquiry into this, will he institute it into the whole of the building industry?
    Mr. Mellish: On this matter my right hon. Friend and I are already on record as saying that we are not prepared to support inefficiency whether from direct labour or from private enterprise.
    Mr. Rippon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we will all be very happy if the report is published in due course? So far from having over-stated the case, we on this side of the House have probably under-stated it. Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the output per man, both for new work and for maintenance, in direct labour departments is far below that of the private sector?
    Mr. Mellish: No, Sir. I do not accept that, and I say again that the party opposite over-stated its case, because last year, out of the total of 185,000 public authority houses. 16,000 were built by direct labour. Two individual direct labour schemes were bitterly attacked. The truth is that the vast majority of them are efficient and are doing a first-class job of work.

    Local Authority Members (Release from Employment)
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation to make it obligatory for employers to release employees who are members of a local authority for duties connected with that authority.
    Mr. Greenwood: This question is within the terms of reference of the Committee on Management in Local Govern-
    196
    ment under the Chairmanship of Sir John Maud. I shall, of course, consider any recommendation which it may make on the subject in its report, which is likely to be published in the summer.
    Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is quite unreasonable to expect the quality of representatives of local government to improve simply through the interim report of the Maud Committee by giving them some sort of financial allowance, and that it is important to make employees—both wage earners and salary earners—feel some sort of obligation to local government in being released for this sort of duty?
    Mr. Greenwood: This is one of the questions that we shall be in a better position to answer when we get Sir John Maud's report.

    Covent Garden Area (Development)
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what discussions he has had with the local authority about the way in which the present Covent Garden area will be developed when the Market is moved to Nine Elms; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Willey: None, Sir. Redevelopment of the area is the responsibility of the Greater London Council as local planning authority. The consortium it has formed with the City of Westminster and the London Borough of Camden expects to produce a preliminary scheme at the end of this year; and its proposals will come to my right hon. Friend under the statutory procedures, in due course.
    Mr. Hall: Does the Minister agree that the removal of Covent Garden Market and the development of the site have been under discussion for many years? Does he also agree that there is an opportunity for an imaginative development of the site which would be of tremendous benefit to London as a whole? Is the House to understand that the Ministry is not the slightest bit concerned about this question, and is prepared to leave it entirely to local authorities?
    Mr. Willey: The Ministry is very much concerned. As the hon. Gentleman has

    197
    said, this is a very important site in London. But we must wait for the plans to be submitted by the consortium.
    Mr. Rippon: Surely the Ministry can initiate some discussions on this matter. Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that many people, not only in London but throughout the country, would like to see Covent Garden restored as a fine arcaded square?
    Mr. Willey: I know the right hon. Gentleman's views. They have been noted elsewhere. But he will know that the consortium is well able to put for-word imaginative proposals.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Greater London Council under its present beneficent control, which will continue after the next election, is perfectly capable of carrying out this sort of function? Is it not surprising that hon. Members opposite should seek all the time to give further powers to Whitehall and to be unable to trust local authorities?
    Mr. Willey: I share my hon. Friend's confidence in the consortium which is considering this matter.

    National Parks (Developers)
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will estimate the extra expenditure imposed on developers inside national parks by means of conditions laid down by the planning boards which would not normally be insisted on outside the national parks.
    Mr. Willey: I regret it is not practicable to make the suggested estimate.
    Mr. Jopling: Does the Minister agree that it is unfair that the whole of this extra burden should be borne by private developers? Should it not be shared by the nation as a whole, for whom these national parks are to the benefit? Will he reconsider the problem to see if he can shift the burden, if necessary by legislation?
    Mr. Willey: I am always willing to look at anything which the hon. Member invites me to look at, but having looked at this matter so far I am convinced that
    198
    the present situation is not unfair. The purchaser gets a far more attractive building.

    Leisure in the Countryside (White Paper)
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why, in the Conclusion in the White Paper on Leisure in the Countryside, he speaks of England and Wales as one nation.
    Mr. Willey: The White Paper was presented by the Minister of Land and Natural Resources and the Secretary of State for Wales. Neither my right hon. Friend nor I thought the paragraph in question was likely to be misunderstood.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister realise that this typical blindness in the face of the fact of Welsh tradition lies at the root of the atrocious Government from which Wales suffers under the English system, which explains why the Welsh nearly won the Rhondda? Is he aware that if he recognised Wales as a nation he could not deny Wales a separate Countryside Commission?
    Mr. Willey: What the hon. Member fails to recognise is that the sentence of which he complains makes it clear that the primary responsibility for countryside policy will rest on local elected authorities. It was this Government which established the Secretary of State for Wales as responsible for the national parks in Wales.

    Catering Staff, Canterbury Technical College (Selective Employment Tax)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, whether he is aware that an application by the Canterbury City Corporation for a refund of Selective Employment Tax in respect of catering staff at Canterbury Technical College, provided by the Lancashire Catering Service (Southern) Limited, has been refused; and what steps he will take to review the matter in view of the fact that catering employees at the technical college are employed in the public service.
    Mr. MacColl: The staff concerned are employed by the company. My right

    199
    hon. Friend does not accept that they are employed in public service
    Mr. Crouch: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is an anomaly here, in that, if the catering service were provided by direct employees of the technical college, they would be entitled to a refund, but, because it is provided by a catering service, they are not? This is surely a case of the unfairly selective nature of the tax.
    Mr. MacColl: In one case they are the employees and in the other they are independent contractors.

    Wash Barrage (Feasibility Study)
    Mr. Derek Pageasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice he has received from the Eastern Regional Economic Planning Council regarding the advisability of instituting a feasibility study for a Wash Barrage.
    Mr. MacColl: The East Anglia Planning Council has recommended that a start should be made on a feasibility study for the Wash Barrage.
    Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent thinking on this subject involves consideration of factors much wider than pure water conservation, such as new port facilities and the drainage of vast areas? Will he ensure that these new considerations are properly considered by his Ministry in setting up any feasibility study?
    Mr. MacColl: We should want to take everything into account before reaching a decision.

    New Towns Staff (Pay)
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he will take to ensure that the new town staff pay scales do not fall behind those relating to local government officers of similar grades.
    Mr. Carlisleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government why he will not implement the agreed pay award for employees of the New Town Development Corporations, in view of the fact that a similar award for employees of local authorities in England and Wales has now been implemented.
    Mr. Carlisleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will give an assurance that the agreed pay award for employees of the New Towns Development Corporations will be implemented not later than 1st July, 1967.
    Mr. Mellish: Both sides of the Whitley Council for New Towns Staff have been told that new pay scales may be implemented on and from 1st July, 1967, although it is possible that payment might have to be made in instalments. From that date new towns staff will have pay parity with local government officers of similar grades. Earlier payment would not be in accordance with the requirements of the White Paper on the Period of Severe Restraint (Cmnd. 3150).
    Mr. Dance: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's pay freeze has put these excellent public servants at least five months behind their colleagues in local government?
    Mr. Mellish: The question of local authority salaries was settled before my right hon. Friend announced the pay freeze on 20th July, 1966. The new towns agreement had not been agreed at this time. This is the difficulty which we have had to face. However, after 1st July this year, the parity I spoke of will come about.
    Mr. Carlisle: As the New Town Development Corporation's pay award was agreed on 31st July, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that these people are another group which is being unfairly and unjustly penalised as a result of the Government's economic policies?
    Mr. Mellish: Because this Government have had the courage to try to govern this nation and control inflation, of course some people have suffered some hardship, which we are prepared to justify.

  HOUSING

    National House Builders Registration Council
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied with the rate at which builders are joining the National House Builders Registration Council following the suggestion of legislation made by his predecessor in this House on 7th March, 1966.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): Registration is going ahead at a good rate and has almost doubled in the last 12 months; I hope those builders still outside the scheme will join quickly.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the Minister aware that there are many good house builders who are not satisfied that this Council is capable of ensuring the high standard of which he talks, and, furthermore, that they very much resent the blackmail inherent in the threat made by his predecessor, when he said that, if they did not join voluntarily, he would introduce legislation?
    Mr. Greenwood: There is no question of blackmail, and I am sure that any lack of confidence on their part is not justified. Ninety per cent. of the largest builders already belong to the Council.
    Mr. Graham Page: Would the Minister agree that the 10-year guarantee now offered by the Council is a great improvement on the previous two-year guarantee which used to be offered?
    Mr. Greenwood: Yes. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that.
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is satisfied that the National House Builders Registration Council has sufficient inspectors to ensure the maintenance of the standards of workmanship his predecessor was anxious to achieve when he suggested legislation on 7th March, 1966.
    Mr. Greenwood: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Dr. Gray) on 7th March.—[Vol. 742, c. 242.]
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the Minister aware that, whilst his Council is supposed to inspect buildings every three weeks during construction, I am told that there are many buildings in my constituency which are nearly completed without having had a single inspection?
    Mr. Greenwood: The Council is doing a great deal of this work. It has 16 supervisors, 88 inspectors and 14 field officers. Ten more inspectors are being appointed by the end of this month in order to
    202
    expedite the work to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will introduce legislation to prevent builders and speculators from charging house buyers six guineas for the National House Builders Registration Council's certificate when the recommended charge is only 1s.
    Mr. Mellish: No, Sir. The Council will shortly be promulgating a new form of agreement between builder and purchaser, and it will be a condition of this agreement that the certificate be issued on payment of one shilling. At present this is only a recommendation.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that hopeful answer, but is he aware that we have been trying to do this for some time? Is he further aware that builders are charging 10 and 12 guineas for this certificate and, having had their money back once, they then charge a further 10 and 12 guineas over and above that at the end of the deal? Will my hon. Friend ask the Council to speed up its action?
    Mr. Mellish: I understand that the new agreement will be introduced on 1st August, 1967. I certainly will discuss with the Council many of the anomalies to which my hon. Friend has referred.

    Local Authority Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what advice he will give to local authorities regarding the housing of council tenants who are able to afford to buy their own homes.
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make a statement on the guidance he proposes to issue to local authorities regarding the sale of council houses.
    Mr. Eyreasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make a further statement concerning his policy on the sale of council houses.
    Mr. Rossiasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether

    203
    he will make a statement on the sale of council houses.
    Mr. Greenwood: I intend to issue a circular advising local authorities on this subject. Meanwhile I repeat that in general local authorities ought not to sell their houses where there is still an unsatisfied demand for houses to let at moderate rents and where a substantial programme of building houses to let is still needed. There will, of course, continue to be exceptions to this general rule where the sale of particular properties is warranted in the normal course of housing management.
    Mr. Allason: Will the Minister recognise that leaving comparatively wealthy tenants in subsidised council houses does absolutely nothing to help those on the councils' waiting lists? Has he now abandoned the belief that subsidies should go to those in need?
    Mr. Greenwood: I still believe that subsidies should go to those in the greatest need. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there should be eviction of the tenants to whom he refers. I would remind him that local authorities have adequate powers to help people in this position with mortgages to buy their own homes.
    Mr. Murton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to issue the circular before or after the G.L.C. and municipal elections?
    Mr. Greenwood: I hope within the next few days.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister aware that during the long years of Socialist control in the City of Birmingham, the building of new houses for sale has reduced to a mere trickle and that it is necessary now to restore a proper balance? Would he not agree that there is a widespread desire for extra home ownership, and that this is a right and proper policy?
    Mr. Greenwood: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is speaking for the 38,000 still on the waiting list in Birmingham.
    Mr. Rossi: Will the Minister give local authorities the assurance that he will leave with them full freedom of action dependent on their local conditions consistent with the policy he has laid down of noninterference over rent rebate schemes?
    Mr. Greenwood: I think that the hon. Gentleman had perhaps better wait for the circular.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Would my right hon. Friend watch the position in Birmingham very closely and remind the Council of the very serious situation which could arise in five years' time when many of the council houses now being sold off could, in fact, go on to the open market and be completely lost to the council for the very large waiting list they will no doubt still have at that time?
    Mr. Greenwood: I will watch very carefully all areas where there is a serious housing shortage, as there still is in Birmingham.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister take all steps to rebut the curious suggestion that rented council houses shall be confined to the poor, and assure the public that council tenants and applicants should be regarded as any other citizens and exactly equal?
    Mr. Greenwood: I quite agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the council estates will be socially balanced to a much greater extent than has been the position in the past.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Greater London there are no less than 150,000 families on the waiting lists? Will he, therefore, discourage the Greater London Council and the borough councils in Greater London from adopting this stupid policy?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He will recall that I have stressed the importance of not selling houses where there is a substantial waiting list.
    Mr. Graham Page: But ought not the right hon. Gentleman to appreciate the fact that many of these people got on the housing waiting lists many years ago? Ought not local authorities to reexamine their need, including their means, at the time they reach the top of the list?
    Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is an entirely different question.
    Dr. Ernest A. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that he would expect a local authority to sell a

    205
    house only in exceptional circumstances, and that there is a great demand for rented accommodation and ample opportunity for any person to buy a house if he so wishes?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have stressed that there are exceptional cases where the sale of houses can be justified. I hope that hon. Members who arc falling for the argument advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember the possible consequences of increasing rents and rates by selling council houses.

    Rents (Assessment Committee Decisions)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will state the number of rent assessment committee decisions up to a recent date; how many varied the rent officer's determination in the landlords' favour and how many in the tenants' favour t and why in some areas they varied them five times in the former direction for every one in the latter.
    Mr. Greenwood: In 2,055 cases decided by rent assessment committees up to 28th February the rent previously registered by the rent officer was reduced by the committee's decision in 328 cases, unchanged in 683 and increased in 1,044. The original rent was reduced by the committee's decision in 1,525 cases, unchanged in 84 and increased in 446. Each individual case is of course decided impartially on its merits.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that many Labour M.P.s are very deeply perturbed about this matter? Would he therefore put the position right by making a public statement, which the rent assessment committee members can read, that the 1957 Rent Act encouraged exorbitant rents and that the intention of Labour's Rent Act was to restore the balance in favour of the tenant?
    Mr. Greenwood: I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that, while accepting what he said, the original rent has been reduced in the substantial majority of cases. I think this is the most important aspect of it. I am aware of the anxiety that he and others of my hon. Friends feel about this. I share it. I am in constant discussion with representatives of the rent assessment panels
    206
    and the rent officers, and I am keeping a very close watch on the situation.
    Mr. Graham Page: Will the Minister confirm that what the rent assessment committee has to discover is a fair rent—not a rent favourable to either side, but a fair rent?
    Mr. Greenwood: That is what the Act says, and I fully accept it. I have to be careful not to interfere with the discretion which resides with the rent assessment committees or to seek to influence them in their decisions.
    Mr. Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some properties are so bad and in such disrepair that, were it not for scarcity, they would not attract tenants? Does he not agree that, if the element of scarcity were deducted from the rent, the rent would be nil and any tenants would live there rent-free? Would he consider setting up an inquiry to advise him on what is meant by the word "scarcity" in the Act?
    Mr. Greenwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have any information about any specific case which he has in mind, and I will see whether any conclusions can be drawn from it.
    Mr. John Fraser: Is my right hon. Friend aware that rents, which were fixed when there was the control, are now going up? Under the system of regulation, the scarcity element appears to be ignored. Perhaps he will institute an inquiry into that.
    Mr. Greenwood: I think that is rather a sweeping judgment, but that is a point which I have very much in mind.

    House Improvements (Loans)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will seek powers to require local authorities to provide an estimate of the number of houses in their areas requiring installation of baths, hot water and inside water closets, and also submit their proposals for dealing with them; and if he will consider taking steps to enable councils to lend property owners the money to cover the owners' half of the cost, where loans are necessary.
    Mr. Mellish: Census returns already show for each local authority the numbers of houses that lack these amenities and

    207
    authorities have powers to make loans to owners to cover their share of the cost of providing them.
    Mr. Allaun: Would my hon. Friend agree that the reason that so few councils have so far used the compulsory powers now open to them is the lengthy, cumbersome and involved procedure which they are supposed to follow?
    Mr. Mellish: While not accepting the whole of what my hon. Friend has said, I would say that my right hon. Friend agrees that existing legislation has to be changed, and this we hope to do in the very near future. My hon. Friend will be aware of the fact that within the existing legislation, some councils and some owners have done an extremely good job.

    Controlled Rents
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how long he will require the Rent Act, 1965, to be in operation before he will make an order bringing controlled rents into the rent regulation system.
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he proposes to make an Order under the Rent Act, 1965, to transfer existing controlled tenancies into the new fair-rent class of regulated tenancies.
    Mr. Greenwood: I cannot add anything to my reply to the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) on 7th February.—[Vol. 740, c. 1338–9.]
    Sir R. Russell: Is the Minister not aware that many landlords are suffering from hardship under this, even more than the tenants? Would he look into this again? As my hon. Friend said, we want fair rents for both sides.
    Mr. Greenwood: I think that there could be hardship on both sides in cases of this kind, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that we have embarked on a publicity campaign to make sure that the public make full use of the fair rent machinery that is available to them. I would sooner not change the situation until we have further information about the use which is being made of the rent officers.
    Mr. Graham Page: Is it not true that many of the rent officers are far from overworked, in the provinces at any rate, and the same with rent assessment committee, and that they could undertake the work of regulated tenancies if the controlled tenancies were converted?
    Mr. Greenwood: The burden which is falling on rent officers and assessment committees is very uneven, but the next step is to try to spread the burden more evenly by organisational changes, rather than change the status of the tenants.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: In view of the vast number of tenants paying unfairly high rents, who have not taken their cases to the rent officers, will the Minister resist the proposal that has just been made and, instead, go ahead along the lines he suggested of a much bigger publicity campaign on television so that tenants will know their rights?
    Mr. Greenwood: I have already resisted the suggestion, and I hope that the publicity upon which we have embarked will produce useful results.

    Distrained Tenants (Rented Television Sets)
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will issue a circular to local authorities to the effect that when distraining on council tenants in arrears with their rent their bailiffs should be instructed not to seize rented television sets.
    Mr. MacColl: No, Sir. The law already provides protection from distress for goods belonging to third parties.
    Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many television sets in local authority houses are rented? Should not the local authority set a good example by instructing its bailiffs not to take television sets before they have inquired whether they are rented, because dealers are making a great loss on this?
    Mr. MacColl: There is provision in the law whereby third parties can protect themselves by making declarations at appropriate times.
    Mr. John Fraser: Will my hon. Friend realise that the problem could easily be

    209
    solved by local authorities not using bailiffs at all?
    Mr. MacColl: The validity of distress was looked at by the Law Commission only last year and it came to the conclusion that power to distrain should be retained pending more efficient remedies.

    Building Societies (Mortgage Advances)
    Mr. Murtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will now make a statement on his discussions with representatives of the building societies regarding the level of mortgage advances in any one year.
    Mr. Greenwood: The building societies estimate that their advances in 1967 will exceed £1,300 million. This is more than the record amount they lent in 1966. I shall be having further discussions with them very shortly.
    Mr. Murton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect a speech made by his predecessor on 6th October, 1965, in relation to house building and the general level of advances, in which he suggested that they should be regulated each year? If the right hon. Gentleman remembers it, in view of his reply, does he think that it is one of these new concepts which the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President has made which change from month to month?
    Mr. Greenwood: I do not recollect the speech, but I shall look at it and profit from it, as I usually do from speeches by my right hon. Friend.

    Housing Programme
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what figure of completions of houses will be required in 1967, 1968 and 1969 if there is to be orderly progression to a figure of 500,000 houses in 1970.
    Mr. Mellish: Progress towards 500,000 houses in 1970 will depend to a large degree on performance in the private sector. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to make any forecasts on what figures will be reached in particular years.
    Mr. Allason: Is it not desirable to have an orderly progression forward rather than to hope for the best? Is it not in
    210
    the interests of the construction industry that it should have a target to work to year by year, and should it not be a very much better target than the figures which it is getting at the moment?
    Mr. Mellish: It is interesting to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite talking about planning. For the first time we have given local authorities long-term programmes on their side of the industry, and I have no doubt that our targets for 1970 will be reached. We have now to ensure that funds are available to the building societies to enable them to give money to the private contractors who I believe are ready and able to do a first-class job.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that no real progress can be made towards these target figures unless drastic steps are taken to employ the 1,000 million bricks lying surplus on the floor at the present time, all due to the ineffectiveness of Government policy?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman has been out of the House for quite some time, and he is trying to make his name again. He will be unaware of the fact that last year 385,000 houses were built in this country, which is the highest figure ever known in the history of the country.
    Mr. Rippon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is inaccurate to say that his Government have given local authorities firm long-term programmes for the first time? Would he agree that if he had carried forward with his Government the firm long-term programmes which the Conservative Government provided we would have had 500,000 houses this year?
    Mr. Mellish: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. The truth is that we have given to 140 priority areas where slum content and over-crowding is there to be seen three-year and four-year programmes for the first time in their history. We are establishing progress chasing to ensure that they keep to the targets, and by 1970 we will prove that we have done a first-class job.
    Mr. C. Pannell: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the last year during which the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was Minister we could not build houses because we had run out of bricks?

    Empty Houses
    Mr. Harold Walkerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he is taking to diminish the number of empty houses and bring more into occupation.
    Mr. Mellish: A margin of vacant houses is always required to facilitate mobility and the smooth working of the market, and in most parts of the country the vacancy rate is still inadequate. Local authorities now have powers to levy half rates on second-hand houses that have been standing empty for more than three months and on new houses that have been left unoccupied for more than six months.
    Mr. Walker: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this is going far enough, particularly as the 1966 census is likely to reveal an all-time record for the number of empty houses? Is it not critically important that we make the best use of the available housing resources so that we have fewer cases of "Cathy come home"?
    Mr. Mellish: Local authorities have powers of compulsory purchase subject to confirmation by the Minister. They have power to negotiate with the owners to purchase property of this kind. I think that my hon. Friend had better direct his question to local authorities which do not seem to be aware of some of their powers.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the chief reason for the emptiness of houses in Liverpool is that the direct labour department of the corporation is months behind with its repairs and maintenance programme?
    Mr. Mellish: I am not aware of that, and I do not accept it from the hon. Gentleman as being a fact.

    Council House Rents
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities have increased their council house rents during the period of severe restraint; by what approximate percentage have these rents been increased; what means he has for identifying these authorities; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: I am afraid that comprehensive information is not available as local authorities are not asked to notify the Ministry of changes in rents during the period of severe restraint.
    Mr. Biffen: Is this not an extraordinary Answer? Is the hon. Member aware that there is widespread concern about the movement of council house rents, and that this concern is not confined to my side of the House but certainly includes the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell)? As we want the prices and incomes policy to be seen to operate fairly and not in an arbitrary manner, will the Minister seek to fill this gap in his knowledge?
    Mr. Mellish: Rent fixing is a matter for local authorities, and my right hon. Friend has no power to interfere. We have had discussions with local authority associations on the whole question of housing revenue accounts and the procedures which the local authorities have to follow, and also the guidance given to them about this. As for the rent level, the amount needed to balance local authorities' accounts is a matter for them. They have a duty to the ratepayers to balance their accounts.
    Mr. Spriggs: What is my hon. Friend prepared to do about it?
    Mr. Mellish: The straight answer to such a straight question is the Housing Subsidies Bill, which will be law in a few weeks and is back-dated to November, 1965.

    Houses, Crawley (Owner-Occupation)
    Mr. Hordernasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will invite the New Towns Commission for Crawley to offer its houses for sale to its tenants, if they should wish to buy them.
    Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend is considering ways of increasing owner-occupation in the new towns and he will shortly be discussing this with the Commission.
    Mr. Hordern: Does the hon. Member appreciate that there is no question of subsidising the tenants and that therefore the examination which he is proposing will be welcomed by all residents and tenants of the new town of Crawley?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member will know that in the new towns which are under the control of development corporations we are aiming for 50 per cent. rented and 50 per cent. owner-occupied housing. As for the New Towns Commission, where it has taken over the existing stock of houses we shall discuss with it this important matter.
    Mr. Allason: Will the Minister instruct the authorities to sell freehold, in view of the Leasehold Reform Bill?
    Mr. Mellish: We shall be having discussions with the New Towns Commission. I can assure the hon. Member that the point has not been missed by my Department.

    Rent Assessment Committees
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many rent assessment committees have sat in each area from establishment to 31st January, 1967; how many appeals have been dealt with, respectively; and how many appeals were outstanding in each area at the same date.
    Mr. MacColl: Rent assessment committees had decided 1,788 cases up to 28th January and there were 1,652 cases outstanding. I will, with permission, circulate the figures for each panel area in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have no separate figures for the number of sittings, but the general practice is that two cases are dealt with at a sitting except where, for instance, a block of flats is involved.
    Sir E. Errington: Does not the hon. Member appreciate that some of these rent assessment committees are doing too much work and others too little? If he is prepared to make a change, will he do so not by changing the areas but by ensuring that the panels look after a number of areas?
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has said that he is always watching to see how the work can best be reshuffled.
    Mr. Lipton: Will my hon. Friend consider the astonishing time lag between the submisison of appeals to rent assessment committees and the hearing of those appeals, especially in the London area? What is he doing to speed up progress?
    Mr. MacColl: I am keeping the situation carefully under review.
    Following are the figures:

    APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION OF FAIR RENT REFERRED TO RENT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES UP TO 31ST JANUARY, 1967.

    Rent Assessment Panel Area

    Applications referred

    Cases decided

    Outstanding 31.1.67 at

    London

    2,288

    869

    1,419

    Northern

    137

    79

    58

    Yorkshire

    119

    117

    2

    Manchester

    119

    111

    8

    Liverpool

    70

    55

    15

    West Midland

    165

    152

    13

    East Midland

    67

    47

    20

    Eastern

    83

    46

    37

    Luton

    54

    42

    12

    Thames Valley

    42

    36

    6

    Bristol

    48

    38

    10

    Devon and Cornwall

    64

    56

    8

    Southern

    42

    31

    11

    Surrey and Sussex

    91

    68

    23

    Kent

    51

    41

    10

    3,440

    1,788

    1,652

    Rent Officers
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many rent officers have been appointed in each county and county borough; what was the date of each appointment; and how many cases were dealt with by each rent officer between appointment and 31st January, 1967.
    Mr. MacColl: Altogether, 222 full-time and 114 part-time rent officers have been appointed in England and they had determined 24,154 applications for registration of rent up to 28th January, 1967. I will, with permission, circulate the detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir E. Errington: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, in some cases, this is totally inadequate to deal with the situation, while in others there is not enough work? Will he try to persuade his right hon. Friend to do something about it?
    Mr. MacColl: As I said about rent assessment committees, my right hon. Friend is keeping watch all the time to see how we can best speed up the decisions.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his answers to this and

    215
    the previous Question show that the burden of work on both rent officers and rent assessment committees is far less than the Government had anticipated? In view of this fact, would he now consider

    Registration Area

    Senior Rent Officers

    Rent Officers

    Number of Rents Registered up to 28th January, 1967

    Full Time

    Part Time

    Full Time

    Part Time

    London Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 3rd January, 1966)

    City of London

    —

    1

    —

    1

    4

    Westminster

    1

    —

    4

    —

    597

    Camden

    1

    —

    4

    1

    686

    Islington

    1

    —

    3

    —

    619

    Hackney

    1

    —

    4

    —

    824

    Tower Hamlets

    1

    —

    3

    —

    545

    Greenwich

    —

    —

    1

    —

    435

    Lewisham

    1

    —

    3

    —

    376

    Southwark

    1

    —

    3

    —

    594

    Lambeth

    1

    —

    4

    —

    677

    Wandsworth

    1

    —

    4

    —

    440

    Hammersmith

    1

    —

    2

    —

    508

    Kensington/Chelsea

    1

    —

    3

    —

    664

    Waltham Forest

    1

    —

    1

    —

    465

    Redbridge

    1

    —

    1

    —

    224

    Havering

    1

    —

    —

    —

    93

    Barking

    —

    —

    1

    —

    87

    Newham

    1

    —

    1

    —

    388

    Bexley

    —

    —

    1

    —

    140

    Bromley

    1

    —

    1

    —

    317

    Croydon

    1

    —

    1

    —

    346

    Sutton

    —

    —

    1

    —

    173

    Merton

    1

    —

    1

    —

    208

    Kingston/Thames

    —

    —

    1

    —

    139

    Richmond/Thames

    1

    —

    1

    —

    240

    Hounslow

    1

    —

    1

    —

    150

    Hillingdon

    1

    —

    1

    —

    228

    Ealing

    1

    —

    2

    —

    568

    Brent

    1

    —

    1

    —

    444

    Harrow

    —

    —

    1

    —

    202

    Barnet

    1

    —

    3

    —

    639

    Haringey

    1

    —

    3

    —

    518

    Enfield

    —

    —

    1

    —

    190

    TOTALS: Greater London

    25

    1

    62

    2

    12,728

    West Midland Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 14th February, 1966)

    Herefordshire

    —

    —

    —

    1

    15

    Salop

    —

    —

    —

    2

    24

    Staffordshire

    —

    —

    1

    5

    128

    Warwickshire

    —

    —

    1

    —

    131

    Worcestershire

    —

    —

    1

    —

    61

    Birmingham

    1

    —

    3

    —

    432

    Burton upon Trent

    —

    —

    —

    1

    20

    Coventry

    —

    —

    1

    —

    90

    Dudley

    —

    —

    1

    —

    7

    Warley

    —

    —

    1

    —

    45

    Solihull

    —

    —

    —

    1

    9

    Stoke on Trent

    —

    —

    1

    —

    59

    Walsall

    —

    —

    1

    —

    137

    West Bromwich

    —

    —

    —

    1

    32

    Wolverhampton

    —

    —

    2

    —

    62

    Worcester

    Shares with Worcestershire

    16

    Totals: West Midland Area

    1

    —

    13

    11

    1,268

    bringing caravan plot charges into regulation?
    Mr. MacColl: Not at the moment, Sir.
    Following are the detailed figures:

    Registration Area

    Senior Rent Officers

    Rent Officers

    Number of Rents Registered up to 28th January, 1967

    Full Time

    Part Time

    Full Time

    Part Time

    East Midland Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 16th March, 1966)

    Derbyshire

    —

    —

    2

    —

    134

    Holland

    —

    —

    —

    1

    17

    Kesteven

    —

    1

    —

    1

    14

    Leicestershire

    —

    1

    1

    —

    82

    Lindsey

    —

    1

    —

    3

    44

    Northamptonshire

    —

    —

    —

    3

    29

    Nottinghamshire

    1

    —

    2

    —

    173

    Rutland

    —

    —

    —

    1

    3

    Derby

    —

    —

    1

    —

    44

    Grimsby

    —

    —

    1

    —

    44

    Leicester

    —

    —

    2

    —

    449

    Lincoln

    —

    —

    1

    —

    35

    Northampton

    —

    —

    —

    1

    24

    Nottingham

    —

    —

    1

    —

    100

    TOTALS: East Midland Area

    1

    3

    11

    10

    1,192

    Northern Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 1st March, 1966)

    Cumberland

    —

    —

    1

    —

    40

    Durham

    1

    —

    1

    —

    134

    Northumberland

    1

    —

    1

    —

    88

    Westmorland

    —

    —

    —

    1

    11

    Carlisle

    Shares with Cumberland

    14

    Darlington

    —

    —

    1

    —

    30

    Gateshead

    —

    —

    1

    —

    66

    Newcastle upon Tyne

    —

    —

    1

    —

    182

    South Shields

    —

    —

    1

    —

    206

    Sunderland

    —

    —

    1

    —

    91

    Tynemouth

    —

    —

    —

    1

    40

    West Hartlepool

    —

    —

    —

    1

    20

    TOTALS: Northern Area

    2

    —

    8

    3

    922

    Yorkshire Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 1st March, 1966)

    East Riding

    —

    —

    —

    1

    17

    North Riding

    —

    —

    1

    —

    34

    West Riding

    —

    1

    —

    18

    121

    Barnsley

    —

    —

    —

    1

    10

    Bradford

    —

    —

    1

    —

    137

    Dewsbury

    —

    —

    —

    1

    5

    Doncaster

    —

    —

    1

    —

    42

    Halifax

    —

    —

    —

    1

    35

    Huddersfield

    —

    —

    —

    1

    9

    Kingston upon Hull

    —

    —

    1

    —

    207

    Leeds

    —

    —

    1

    —

    75

    Middlesbrough

    —

    —

    1

    —

    39

    Rotherham

    —

    —

    1

    —

    29

    Sheffield

    —

    —

    1

    —

    190

    Wakefield

    —

    —

    —

    1

    2

    York

    —

    —

    1

    —

    67

    TOTALS: Yorkshire Area

    —

    1

    9

    24

    1,019

    Registration Area

    Senior Rent Officers

    Rent Officers

    Number of Rents Registered up to 28th January, 1967

    Full Time

    Part Time

    Full Time

    Part Time

    Manchester Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 4th April, 1966)

    Cheshire

    1

    —

    5

    —

    118

    Lancashire

    1

    —

    10

    4

    276

    Barrow

    —

    —

    —

    1

    7

    Blackburn

    —

    —

    1

    —

    8

    Blackpool

    —

    —

    1

    —

    37

    Bolton

    —

    —

    1

    —

    9

    Burnley

    —

    —

    1

    —

    8

    Bury

    —

    —

    —

    1

    14

    Manchester

    1

    —

    4

    1

    386

    Oldham

    —

    —

    1

    —

    26

    Preston

    —

    —

    1

    —

    35

    Rochdale

    —

    —

    —

    1

    6

    Salford

    —

    —

    1

    —

    92

    Stockport

    —

    —

    —

    1

    30

    Wigan

    —

    —

    —

    1

    36

    TOTALS: Manchester Area

    3

    —

    26

    10

    1,088

    Liverpool Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 4th April, 1966)

    Cheshire

    See Manchester Panel Area

    153

    Lancashire

    69

    Chester

    Shares with Cheshire

    1

    Birkenhead

    —

    —

    1

    —

    37

    Bootle

    —

    —

    1

    —

    9

    Liverpool

    1

    —

    3

    —

    439

    St. Helens

    —

    —

    1

    —

    49

    Southport

    —

    —

    —

    1

    20

    Wallasey

    —

    —

    1

    —

    120

    Warrington

    —

    —

    1

    —

    39

    TOTALS: Liverpool Area

    1

    —

    8

    1

    936

    Bristol Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 16th March, 1966)

    Gloucestershire

    —

    —

    3

    —

    85

    Somerset

    1

    —

    3

    —

    213

    Wiltshire

    1

    —

    1

    1

    100

    Bath

    —

    —

    —

    1

    23

    Bristol

    1

    —

    —

    2

    204

    Gloucester

    —

    —

    —

    1

    11

    TOTALS: Bristol Area

    3

    —

    7

    5

    836

    Kent Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 18th April, 1966)

    Kent

    1

    —

    5

    1

    589

    Canterbury

    —

    —

    —

    1

    33

    TOTALS: Kent Area

    1

    —

    5

    2

    622

    Southern Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 18th April, 1966)

    Dorset

    —

    —

    —

    2

    122

    Hampshire

    —

    1

    —

    4

    185

    Isle of Wight

    —

    —

    1

    —

    38

    Bournemouth

    —

    —

    1

    —

    160

    Portsmouth

    —

    —

    1

    —

    70

    Southampton

    —

    —

    1

    —

    85

    TOTALS: Southern Area

    —

    1

    4

    6

    660

    Registration Area

    Senior Rent Officers

    Rent Officers

    Number of Rents Registered up to 28th January, 1967

    Full Time

    Part Time

    Full Time

    Part Time

    Devon and Cornwall Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened 18th April, 1966)

    Cornwall

    —

    1

    —

    5

    26

    Devon

    1

    —

    2

    —

    196

    Exeter

    —

    —

    1

    —

    50

    Plymouth

    —

    —

    1

    —

    137

    Isles of Scilly

    Covered from Cornwall

    TOTALS: Devon and Cornwall Area

    1

    1

    4

    5

    409

    Surrey and Sussex Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened on 28th March, 1966)

    Surrey

    1

    —

    2

    —

    386

    East Sussex

    —

    1

    1

    4

    356

    West Sussex

    —

    1

    2

    —

    295

    Brighton

    1

    —

    1

    —

    131

    Eastbourne

    —

    —

    1

    —

    115

    Hastings

    —

    —

    1

    —

    90

    TOTALS: Surrey and Sussex Area

    2

    2

    8

    4

    1,373

    Thames Valley Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened on 16th May, 1966)

    Berkshire

    —

    1

    1

    —

    70

    Buckinghamshire

    —

    1

    —

    7

    110

    Oxfordshire

    —

    1

    1

    —

    21

    Oxford

    —

    —

    1

    —

    23

    Reading

    —

    —

    1

    —

    20

    TOTALS: Thames Valley Area

    —

    3

    4

    7

    244

    Luton Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened on 20th June, 1966)

    Bedfordshire

    1

    —

    1

    —

    19

    Buckinghamshire (Part)

    See Thames Valley

    8

    Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely

    —

    —

    1

    —

    69

    Hertfordshire

    —

    —

    —

    2

    87

    Huntingdonshire and Peterborough

    —

    1

    1

    —

    15

    Luton

    —

    —

    1

    —

    101

    TOTALS: Luton Area

    1

    1

    4

    2

    299

    Eastern Rent Assessment Panel Area (opened on 20th June, 1966)

    Essex

    1

    —

    —

    5

    109

    Norfolk

    1

    —

    2

    —

    45

    East Suffolk

    —

    1

    —

    —

    21

    West Suffolk

    —

    —

    —

    3

    7

    Great Yarmouth

    —

    —

    1

    —

    9

    Ipswich

    —

    —

    1

    —

    54

    Norwich

    —

    —

    1

    —

    57

    Southend on Sea

    1

    —

    —

    1

    256

    TOTALS: Eastern Area

    3

    1

    5

    9

    558

    Rent Assessment Committees (Surveyors)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will take action to ensure that no tenant appearing before a rent assessment tribunal will have his case prejudiced by his inability to hire the services of a professional surveyor.
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has discussed this problem with the presidents of the rent assessment panels and I know that rent assessment committees have been asked to take special care to see that unrepresented parties receive full consideration. However, my right hon. Friend is considering with representatives of the surveying profession whether anything more can be done.
    Mr. Moyle: I am grateful for that reply. No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that a tenant's success before the rent assessment committee depends largely on his professional advice and representation. Is he aware that, in a recent issue of the Journal of the Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors drew attention to the fact that many tenants had difficulties in finding surveyors or valuers prepared to act on their behalf?
    Mr. MacColl: We are in touch with the chartered surveyors' societies on the best way of making these facilities available.
    Mr. Graham Page: But has the question of granting legal aid in these cases been considered? It was raised in a recent debate on the subject.
    Mr. MacColl: It would be difficult to provide legal aid in these cases if it were not provided for hearings before other tribunals.
    Mr. Grant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chartered Land Societies Committee is working on a scheme to provide this sort of surveyor's aid to these people, but that the response from the Ministry of Housing, they say, has been thoroughly discouraging? Are the Government prepared to give the necessary financial assistance if such a scheme is launched?
    Mr. MacColl: That is not my evidence about what the Chartered Land Societies Committee has said.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Hordernasked the Prime Minister whether, in the course of his tour of European Economic Community countries, he has maintained his policy that, as a condition of entry, Great Britain must be free to go on buying food and raw materials in the cheapest markets.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): It was not the purpose of our tour to discuss conditions of entry but to explore with the Six the principal problems which would need to be solved before Britain could enter the Community.
  Mr. Hordern: Did the right hon. Gentleman not say in his speech at Bristol a year ago that this trade would be wrecked by the levies which the Tories were seeking to impose and would lead to the total disruption of our trade with Commonwealth countries? Is he prepared to accept the principle of the agricultural levy in the Common Market or not?
  The Prime Minister: I have said that the Government will announce their decision when we have had time to consider this report, and this question will then be answered in the House and in our discussions with the countries concerned. It must surely be in the interests of everyone in the House to safeguard British interests as regards agriculture and the Commonwealth, as well as everything else.
  Mr. Grimond: Is it true that, during his visits to the Continent, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was ready to sign the Treaty of Rome?
  The Prime Minister: The words which I used on my visits to the Continent about the Treaty were exactly those which I have used in the House. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the correct phrase is "accede to" and not "sign". I said there, and in greater detail in Strasbourg, that we did not believe that the Treaty of Rome need be necessarily an impediment to our entry: there were other difficulties which had to be overcome.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: On the important question of food referred to in this Question, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, whatever arrangement is reached, the British fishing industry will be in no way imperilled or threatened?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that this will be one of the very important questions falling for consideration and discussion, but I cannot say that it has played a leading part in our discussions with the heads of Government of the Six so far.

  DEFENCE EXPENDITURE
  Mr. Hamlingasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination of the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence with regard to the control of defence expenditure both at home and overseas; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Hamling: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in the past, whereas the social services have been strictly controlled by the Treasury, the Defence Department seems to have got away with murder?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, that is not true. If my hon. Friend will look at the expansion in expenditure in the social services, whether by the Ministry of Social Security alone or more widely, he will find that in the last three years it has increased much more considerably than defence, where real cuts have been made.
  Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Defence has failed by a long way to achieve the savings in overseas expenditure to which he pledged himself last July?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, but we intend to carry out those in full by the end of the financial year which we are just entering. If the hon. Gentleman was speaking for his party when in the defence debate he referred to the size of forces which he would keep in Germany, I cannot tell him—because I have not calculated it—how many more tens of millions would be added to the offset costs and to budgetary expenditure.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one serious aspect of defence expenditure has been the amount spent on projects which were subsequently cancelled, of which Blue Streak is but one example? Does he not think that there is a very strong case for looking at the whole system of quotation and costings on defence contracts and also a case for a Select Committee on Defence?
  The Prime Minister: There has been very great concern for many years in the House about some of these cancellations, many of which were extremely costly. As a result of inquiries by successive Governments and by the Public Accounts Committee—which went right through the Blue Streak story and that of Ferranti and the rest—improved arrangements have been made which should minimise the risks of cancellation of very expensive projects and wasteful expenditure.

  ECONOMIC GROWTH
  Sir G. Nabarroasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied that the trichotomy of responsibilities between Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretory of State for Economic Affairs, and the President of the Board of Trade is contributing to maximum economic growth; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that this trichotomy is allocated in the most effective way.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in common usage, "trichotomy" means body, soul and spirit? As the Department of Economic Affairs is both soulless and superfluous, could not we return to a dichotomy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade only, which would be both effective and expansive?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware that, in common language, the correct translation of "trichotomy", in addition to the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, is also "haircutting"—[Laughter.]—whether facial or otherwise. To answer the second and more serious part of his supplementary question, I am satisfied that the Department of Economic Affairs

  227
  is performing an essential function in dealing with some of the real and industrial factors on which our expansion and balance of payments surplus must depend, particularly productivity and exports.

  DEFENCE AND OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
  Mr. Dickensasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to coordinate the work of the Secretary of State for Defence in making reductions in overseas military expenditure and the Ministry of Overseas Development in planning the overseas aid programme.
  The Prime Minister: My right hon Friends already work closely together on all matters of common interest, Sir, and no new measures of co-ordination are needed.
  Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Defence Estimates for 1967–68 and the recent White Paper on overseas development showed precious little evidence of there being co-ordination between these two Ministries? Will he consider the publication later this year of a comprehensive White Paper setting out a revised defence review and overseas development programme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—and will he also take into account of official Labour Party policy on overseas defence expenditure—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen must be fair to each other. Questions must be brief.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware that we recently published a Defence White Paper, although I do not think that he liked it very much. As for economy in defence, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, and as I have made clear subsequently, this search for economy—a reduction in force levels, a reduction of equipment and a reduction in commitments—is going on all the time, and my hon. Friend must wait with a little more patience for the next statement which we shall be able to make on this in due course.
  Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that his pledge of
  228
  last July, which he has just reaffirmed, involves a much more substantial cut in overseas expenditure than was intended by reason of the shortfall on the defence side?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I have recently reviewed the figures, and I am glad to say that they are now getting towards a state of realisation in full. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is not, of course, possible to give a final figure or estimate until we know the position so far as Germany is concerned; and important negotiations on Germany are taking place at this time.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today we are being asked to vote £454 million for the Air Estimates and that we shall be spending less time on this than the average city or county council would spend on discussing the erection of a slaughterhouse? Would not my right hon. Friend consult with his right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, who used to advocate the establishment of a Select Committee to look at these Estimates before they came to the House of Commons?
  The Prime Minister: As least my hon. Friend can never reproach himself for failing to give enough of his Parliamentary time to debates on these important questions. It is, I am afraid, a shortcoming, which we have had in all parts of the House for very many years, that all debates on expenditure tend not to be so thoroughly undertaken as debates when hon. Members, usually of the Opposition party, are pressing for vast increases in expenditure.
  Mr. Heath: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government adhere to their commitment of 1 per cent. of the gross national product on overseas aid and investment to U.N.C.T.A.D. this year?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that when the run-down east of Suez takes place it will involve problems for Singapore which will he at least as serious as those for Malta? Will he therefore give an undertaking that there will be very full discussion with the Government of Singapore well in

  229
  advance of any firm decisions being taken?
  The Prime Minister: This is a hypothetical question at this time. When the Government are ready to announce further proposals about economies, whether in military budgetary expenditure or overseas expenditure, then, of course, the House will be very very fully informed; but the Defence Review is at present available and there was, of course, a two-day debate in the House a few days ago.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that military aid can often be one of the cheapest and most effective means of giving help to developing countries?
  The Prime Minister: It is sometimes necessary, but it is not the answer to the question of empty bellies, poverty and hunger.

  ADEN
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Aden.
  The Prime Minister: I have no present plans for such a visit, Sir.
  Mr. Marten: That is a great pity. In view of the mounting pressures from both this side of the House and from outside Parliament, will not the Government now reconsider their Aden policy in order to stop further Egyptian-inspired anarchy and to protect the lives of the people of Aden?
  The Prime Minister: Hon. Members throughout the House join equally in deploring the anarchy, terrorism and threats to human lives, including some of the most recent declarations on this subject. However, to go at Question Time into the whole issue of Aden policy, which was debated fairly fully in the defence debate and which has been the subject of a series of statements by my right hon. Friends, would not be the right way to deal with the matter.
  Mr. Sandys: Has the Prime Minister observed that the terrorist organisations in Aden have declared their intention to intensify murder and violence during the visit of the United Nations Mission there
  230
  in a few days' time? Does not he think that it is his duty to cancel or postpone that visit, which will produce nothing but bloodshed?
  The Prime Minister: I had seen that statement, and that was what I had in mind a moment ago when I referred to the most recent declaration on this subject. It is a deplorable statement, expressing a deplorable intention—in line with what has been going on there since 1963. However, to cancel the United Nations visit would, I think, be the wrong thing to do. It would be to capitulate to those very instigators of terrorism; and it is, of course, important that the United Nations Committee—which has expressed views on Aden with which the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, I would not agree—should see conditions for itself in Aden, and I hope that it will see these conditions free of terrorism.
  Lord Balniel: Is The Times Defence Correspondent correct in saying that British troops may remain in the Federation to defend the territorial integrity of the Federation after independence?
  The Prime Minister: I thought it was the tradition in this House that Ministers did not hold themselves responsible for statements made in any newspaper, least of all statements made by The Times Defence Correspondent. As for this statement, there is no correctness in it. If there were any change on this subject, my right hon. Friend would, of course, announce it to the House as soon as any decision had been reached.
  Mr. Mendelson: While there will be widespread support for my right hon. Friend's statement that the United Nations Mission, having been invited, should go there as soon as possible, would not the Prime Minister agree that the time has come to warn the neighbouring States that if they continue to encourage terrorism and if they are going to make the work of this Mission all the more difficult, we might take the matter to the United Nations and provide evidence against them?
  The Prime Minister: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, if he is talking, as I think he is, about those who are responsible for instigating this terrorism. As I have said, the Mission will

  231
  be capable of drawing its own conclusions and, I hope, of reporting to the United Nations and creating a shift in world opinion as to who is really responsible for this terrorism.
  Mr. Heath: Have the Federal Ministers given an indication to the Government, during the talks which they have had in London, that they will reject independence when the time comes if they believe that they will be unable to maintain internal and external security; and if they have given such an indication, what is the Government's attitude towards it?
  The Prime Minister: I would really want to ask for a Question to be put down on the recent talks with the Federal Ministers. We are still considering the results of their discussions. It would be premature for me to try to answer a question on this point now.
  Mr. Winnick: Whilst condemning, as we must, terrorism, would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is danger that we could get involved in a large-scale colonial war in Aden? Would he therefore resist all Conservative attempts to get us to change our minds about leaving Aden by 1968?
  The Prime Minister: There is no question of getting involved in a colonial war in Aden. Our decision on the date of leaving Aden has been announced to the House, and debated in the House, and approved by the House, but while we are there we have a clear duty, which we shall fulfil, to deal with terrorism of this kind.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: In view of the very explosive situation in Aden, would it not be wise for the Prime Minister to take the opportunity to go there personally to see what the present conditions are?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman can certainly be assured that we get the very fullest reports, not only from Her Majesty's High Commissioner there, but from the Commander-in-Chief and all concerned, and quite a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have, as Ministers, been to Aden recently. We have all the information required.
  Mr. Leadbitter: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that while it is right and proper that we should encourage the United Nations Mission to visit Aden and do its work there, the threat of murder and riot which has been issued recently is sufficient for us to think again about sending children there during that period?
  The Prime Minister: That is a separate question, which was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday. Much as we deplore the statement made by one of the leaders of F.L.O.S.Y., reported in the Press this morning, I do not think that that in itself adds anything more to the very fearsome and deplorable record of terrorism there is in Aden, which was taken fully into account in all the answers my right hon. Friend gave yesterday afternoon.
  Mr. Paget: Has the Prime Minister observed that these threats of murder from Mr. Asnag come from the camp of the Egyptian army of aggression in the Yemen? Is it not, perhaps, time to remind the Egyptians that their communications are as much at our mercy as Mussolini's communications to Abyssinia were at our mercy?
  The Prime Minister: All relevant points about Mr. Asnag's statement have been noted. What messages are sent to one country or another is, I think, a separate question.
  Mr. Speaker—
  Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was Question No. Q12 taken with Q5?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think it was. However, I think that the hon. Member has a case. Mr. Stratton Mills.
  Mr. Mills: Can the Prime Minister say whether a full-scale military study has been carried out of whether or not the South Arabian Federation Army can, after independence, repulse a full-scale Egyptian attack from the Yemen?
  The Prime Minister: I did not answer the two Questions together because there has been a lot of complaint about bringing Questions up from further down the Paper, and it is always a difficult matter. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, the

  233
  fullest military studies have been made by my right hon. Friend in all aspects of the Aden situation and the wider South Arabian situation.

MEMBERS (CABLES AND RADIO TELEGRAMS)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. HUGH FRASER: To ask the Prime Minister whether cables and radio telegrams sent by Members of Parliament are privileged from perlustration by the security services.
Mr. Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Question No. Q6 is of great interest to hon. Members, would the Prime Minister be able to answer it?
Mr. Speaker: I have had no request, and I have up to the present no request from the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister: Since this Question does affect hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, I have certainly no objection to asking for permission to reply. I assumed that it would be reached, but we spent quite a long time on Aden. If it is the will of the House, I will answer it.
Hon. Members: Yes.
The Prime Minister: The principles I outlined in replying to Questions on 17th November apply in the area to which the hon. Member refers.—[Vol. 736, c. 634.]
Mr. Fraser: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the pellucid unclarity of his reply. Is he aware that if he consults the statement he made on 17th November he will find that there is no reference in it either to cable or wireless, but only to telephone tapping? He must realise that there are many Members in this House, as well as people outside it, who regard it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as a gift they are not prepared to receive: an extension of Parliamentary privilege which is entirely uncalled for.
The Prime Minister: I have dealt with whether there is an extension of Parliamentary privilege and have given my reasons. I hope that my answer is as pellucidly clear as the right hon. Gentleman hoped. It does not quite compete with his "perlustration", but since he has
234
asked today I have said that the same principles apply in this area of perlustration to which his Question refers.
Dr. M. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to use words and expressions which the Oxford English Dictionary classifies as obsolete? [Laughter.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to reply with discretion, because everything Mr. Speaker says may be used in evidence against him. But I think that it is in order. It has been done.
Mr. Fraser: Perlustration was in common use in the secret police of the Czarist régime.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I had already fortified myself for this word. It appears in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary.

TEXTILE COUNCIL IMPORTS COMMISSION
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Douglas Jay): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on textile imports.
I am glad to inform the House that the Textile Council have agreed at my request to set up a Textile Council Imports Commission, with the following responsibilities:
First, to keep a watch on imports of all types of textiles within the purview of the Council, and to analyse their type, source and price.
Secondly, to assist firms or sections of the industry to prepare and submit antidumping applications to the Board of Trade. I have offered the Commission the advice of the Board of Trade on material required to support applications.
Thirdly, to act as the normal channel for consultation between the Board of Trade and the industry on proposals to use tariff or import controls to regulate the flow of imports.
Fourthly, to study and report on particular problems arising from or affected by imports such as evasion, substitution etc.
I am confident that the new Commission will be of great value in assisting the Board of Trade in the control of textile imports.
Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether this Commission will have any executive authority at all?
Mr. Jay: The Commission will have authority to collect all the information it chooses, to make any representations it wishes to the Board of Trade, and to assist the Board of Trade in the general task of regulating and controlling imports.
Mr. Thornton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, in general, he will be prepared to accept the advice of this Commission, provided that its recommendations do not contravene our international legal obligations?
Mr. Jay: I can give an assurance that I shall welcome the Commission's advice, but I cannot say, in advance of knowing what its advice is, whether or not I shall accept it.
Mr. Hirst: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is not sufficient? The Commission may well have executive power for collecting information, and so on, but we want to know whether that executive power is to be a matter of right, which all Governments have refused to give for years.
Mr. Jay: The Commission will have all the powers short of the legal powers of controlling imports which Parliament has conferred on the Board of Trade. I have no power to devolve on other bodies the power which Parliament has conferred on my Department.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that his announcement will be welcomed by all those in the north-west of England, particularly in Lancashire, who have for a long time been pressing the Government to appoint exactly such a Commission? They will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for appointing it. If it turns out that the Commission should be equipped with further and executive powers of any kind, will he consider the matter sympathetically?
Mr. Jay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I will, of course, consider very sympathetically any suggestion that may be put forward.
Sir M. Stoddart-Scott: In speaking of textiles, does the right hon. Gentleman mean cotton textiles, wool textiles, or both?
Mr. Jay: I mean cotton and man-made fibres, which are within the purview of the Council, but not the wool industry, which so far has not been willing to join this organisation.
Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while we are always grateful for small mercies, a Commission without any power at all will not satisfy the industry?
Mr. Jay: I have said that I think the industry will welcome the proposals we have made. I could not go further than this without conferring on the Commission powers which have been given by the House to the Board of Trade.
Sir Frank Pearson: Can the President of the Board of Trade give an assurance that, should the Commission so advise it, he will not close his mind in advance to the question of reducing the level of quotas of imports?
Mr. Jay: I shall not close my mind in advance to any suggestions made by the Commission, but I point out to the hon. Member that we have now made an agreement, lasting until 1970, to control imports from a very large number of countries. We are, of course, bound by this agreement, as are the other parties to it.
Mr. Mapp: While I welcome this somewhat belated statement, may I press my right hon. Friend further on the question of the Commission? Will it be of high standing? Will its recommendations be strengthened by having independent members? [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Mapp: Has the Textile Council explicitly approved my right hon. Friend's recommendations or broadly condoned them? In fact, this Commission must be—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
Mr. Jay: The Council has accepted a request I made to it, but the actual appointment of members of the Commission is of course, for the Council and not

237
for me. I have no doubt that its members will be of high standing.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard this feeble thing as a redemption of the pledge given by the Foreign Secretary to his own party before the General Election, when he said that there would be a Commission empowered to have the exclusive right to buy textiles from abroad? Is this a sufficient redemption of that pledge?
Mr. Jay: No, neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said anything of the kind. What we now propose is precisely in line with what my right hon. Friend proposed.
Mr. Barnett: While hoping for Lancashire's sake that the objectives will be achieved, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has received any representations from any quarter that this Commission should not have executive powers? If he has not received any such representations, why not give it precise executive powers to deal with the situation?
Mr. Jay: I have received many representations from a large number of quarters, but the proposal carries the support of a great many sections of the industry and carries out the pledge we gave at the General Election.
Mr. Heath: Is it not true that nothing in the task given to this Commission has not been effectively carried out and could be effectively carried out today by a properly run Board of Trade? Is it not true that where action is required the only people who can take it are the Board of Trade, which is responsible to this House? The President of the Board of Trade has said that in any case he is bound by the agreement made to last until 1970. Therefore, is not this just plain humbug?
Mr. Jay: No, Sir. It is a grievous mistake to think that all the information and expertise in this matter resides in the Board of Trade. As the right hon. Gentleman must know, there is a great deal of advice, help and information which we can get from those engaged in the industry. They are anxious to give it and I am very glad to receive it.
Mr. J. T. Price: While Lancashire Members will, naturally, give a qualified
238
welcome to the move my right hon. Friend has made in the direction which for a long time we have been asking him to take, to appoint a proper watchdog over imports, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will take it from me that most of us would prefer a watch-dog—[Laughter]. All right. We would prefer a watchdog endowed with decent teeth to get over these difficulties. Does he recollect previous efforts to shuffle on to the Board of Trade the need to make bilateral agreements with traders of other countries, which have always failed? Is it not the duty of the Government to arrest the present tendency of decline and to do something for the large number of people who are out of work in Lancashire at the moment as a result of the continuous closing of mills and the decline of the industry?
Mr. Jay: If I may make a personal statement, I have always disliked dogs. I am, none the less, always very grateful for even a qualified welcome from my hon. Friend.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the President of the Board of Trade fully appreciate that with the rundown of the economy some parts of the textile industry are having a worse time now than they did in the 'thirties? What he has said today, while welcome, does not go nearly far enough. What do he and the Government intend to do to keep textile workers employed?
Mr. Jay: I fully realise the great anxieties in the Lancashire cotton industry at the moment, which is caused mostly by the destocking movement by the distributive part of the trade. This, in any case, must be temporary.
Mr. Coe: Quite apart from the work the proposed Commission will do, does my right hon. Friend propose any immediate action on imports from Portugal, which are so great?
Mr. Jay: As my hon. Friend knows, I have discussed this matter again recently with the Portuguese Minister of Economic Affairs. I have every reason to expect that imports from Portugal during the coming year will be at a lower level than they have been in recent months.
Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. and right hon. Friends welcome the basis for this Commission and that, while we would like it to have executive powers, we wish to have an assurance that the Commission could have them at a later stage? Has the right hon. Gentleman any plans for the provision of research factories and other technical training in the Lancashire area?
Mr. Jay: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his qualified support, but I must content myself today by saying what we and the Textile Council have decided that this Commission should do from now. We shall always be open to suggestions for the future. Research was one of the responsibilities undertaken by the old Cotton Board and now by the Textile Council.
Mr. Ronald Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the shake-out is shaking the life out of the cotton industry? What is required are immediate steps to help the industry, or it may fail to revive as a major industry.
Mr. Jay: I advise my hon. Friend not to be too pessimistic, because there are hopeful as well as adverse tendencies. We also have plans, which we are discussing with the Textile Council, on the productivity front, as well as that of controlling imports.

TEXTILE COUNCIL IMPORTS COMMISSION

  NEW MEMBERS SWORN
  Trevor Alec Jones, esquire, for Rhondda, West.
  Leslie John Huckfield, esquire, for Nuneaton.
  Esmond Wright, esquire, for Glasgow, Pollak.

ADEN
Mr. Sandys: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
240
"the declaration of the terrorist organisations in Aden that they intend to step up their campaign of violence and murder during the imminent visit of the United Nations Mission and their threats to anyone in Aden who cooperates with the Mission, and the consequent urgent need to cancel the visit, which, in any circumstances, could have produced no constructive result and can, under present conditions, only have the effect of endangering the lives of innocent citizens."
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
"the declaration of the terrorist organisations in Aden that they intend to step up their campaign of violence and murder during the imminent visit of the United Nations Mission and their threats to anyone in Aden who cooperates with the Mission, and the consequent urgent need to concel the visit, which, in any circumstances, could have produced no constructive result and can, under present conditions, only have the effect of endangering the lives of innocent citizens."
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy in informing me that he might be seeking to raise this under Standing Order No. 9. I think that I must hold that this application clearly deals with a continuing situation and that, in so far as a specific matter is raised, it could have been raised on an earlier occasion.
The visit of the United Nations Mission has been in prospect for some time now. Furthermore, the threats by the nationalist organisations to disrupt the work of the Mission and create disturbances do not appear to be new.
I find that as far back as 6th December of last year statements were quoted in The Times similar to those which appear in this morning's Press.
For these reasons, the application to move the Adjournment does not comply with the conditions of the Standing Order as these have been interpreted by the Chair and I cannot allow the application to be put to the House this afternoon.
Mr. Sandys: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [13TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2nd Series],—considered.

  DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1967–68 (VOTE A)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 128,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968.
  3.57 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): About a fortnight ago the House debated the broad issues of defence policy. Today, we are considering the R.A.F. It is my intention to present a factual report on the progress we are making with implementing the Defence Review. We are virtually building a new Air Force. I will tell the House how our new aircraft are being introduced into service and how our efficiency is being improved, both in terms of our organisation and our management techniques.
  Accordingly, my broad pattern will be to deal, first, with the progress made by the R.A.F. towards the aims of the Defence Review, I shall go on to report on the new aircraft; next, to organisation; and, finally, to certain special points on training and recruiting.
  Since, as Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, I find myself under the new ministerial organisation in the Ministry of Defence in a position which be loosely described as that of the "Manager" of the Air Force Department, I present something akin to a manager's report.
  The Defence White Paper sets out the progress made towards achieving three main aims of the Defence Review. The first aim was to bring defence expenditure into balance with the nation's resources. So far as Air Votes are concerned, the Estimates are almost exactly the same as those for 1966–67, after adjustments have been made to the latter to allow for transfers of some services between Defence Votes and from Civil Votes. Allowing for price increases last year, they represent a decrease in real terms of about
  242
  £16 million on 1966–67. Although, as I have said, the totals shown in the printed Estimates are almost the same, there is some variation in individual Votes,
  Costs of civilian staffs are up by over £2 million, mainly as a result of the new Selective Employment Tax. Vote 7—Aircraft and Stores—is up by about £5½ million, reflecting the new aircraft programme on which the Government have embarked, including, of course, the orders for American aircraft. Pensions and gratuities are up by £3 million.
  These increases are offset by a reduction of £6 million on Service pay, resulting from the further rundown in the size of the force and the reduction in the number of men serving abroad. We also expect to spend about £5 million less on movements, part of this being due to the build-up of our own transport fleet with the introduction of the VC10 and the Belfast which enables us to save on charter costs.
  A second aim was to reduce what we call overstretch. The active strength of the R.A.F. is still contracting slowly, but it is realistically related to the commitments which we now plan that it should be capable of meeting. During the next year or so, the overseas establishments of the R.A.F. will be reduced by about 8,000; at the some time, the United Kingdom establishment will increase by nearly 2,000 posts. This means that the proportion of R.A.F. personnel serving overseas will reduce; and this will help to improve the home/overseas ratio of service in the R.A.F.
  The effect, so far as the R.A.F. is concerned, of the agreements with the Malta Government announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio is that the planned reduction in our establishments in Malta, which involves in particular the disbandment of a Canberra squadron and the closing of the air headquarters, will take place about a year later than was previously proposed. An exception is the reduction of Hal Far airfield to a care and maintenance basis which will take place later this year. It is proposed, further, to make greater use in future of R.A.F. (Malta) personnel than was previously planned.
  A third aim was to cut the cost in foreign exchange. The R.A.F. is making

  243
  its contribution to the reductions in force levels in the Far East and elsewhere of which the House is aware. We are also making some savings in Germany by various administrative economies irrespective of the size of the front line; the possibility of a reduction in the size of B.A.O.R. and of R.A.F. Germany is a separate matter and is dependent on the outcome of the tripartite discussions now taking place.
  To turn to our new aircraft. In this field, the contrast between the picture before us now and the one facing us when we came into office is great. In 1964, we inherited a programme which, admittedly, included new aircraft, but aircraft which would either have entered service far too late to meet the operational need or would have cost far more than the nation could afford, or both.
  By the time we were debating the Air Estimates for 1965–66, we had already made major decisions like the cancellation of the HS681 and the P1154 and the adoption of the Hercules, Phantom, Harrier—P1127—and HS801 for the Royal Air Force. A year later, with the 1966 White Paper on the Defence Review, we had completed coherent and comprehensive plans for the R.A.F.'s front line aircraft over the next decade, and now I am in the rewarding position of seeing these plans turned into hardware.
  First, the C130, Hercules. We have ordered 66 and four have already arrived in the U.K. for final preparation before entering R.A.F. service within a few weeks. Crew training will begin at Thorney Island; and squadrons will be based at Lyneham, at Fairford—as a second and temporary U.K. base until Lyneham can accommodate the whole U.K.-based force—and in the Far East. The Hercules is without question a first-class medium range tactical transport aircraft and in that rôle it will replace the Hastings and the Beverleys, and greatly improve on their performance.
  The next aircraft will be the Phantom. A week or two ago I was in St. Louis, Missouri, for the roll-out and the first flight of the first Phantom for the R.A.F. Because we required the Phantom at a slightly later date than the Hercules, we were able to introduce considerably more British equipment into it, to the extent
  244
  that it is virtually half British, embodying the Rolls-Royce Spey engine, a Ferranti navigation/attack system and various other British equipments. There has also been some airframe sub-contracting.
  We have already ordered more than 150 Phantoms for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and we shall be considering a further final order during the next few months.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: In giving the number of aircraft, could my hon. Friend also give the cost of each aircraft for the benefit of the House?
  Mr. Rees: I shall most certainly do that in future.
  The Phantom O.C.U. will form in a little over 12 months' time at Coningsby and we aim to follow this over the next two or three years with squadrons at Coningsby, in the Far East and in R.A.F. Germany. There will also be Phantoms deployed in the Middle East, but they will be provided on rotation from Coningsby. This will give the crews valuable experience for the increasingly mobile rôle of the R.A.F. in the 1970s and will help to reduce the problem of the limited facilities available for accompanied service in the Persian Gulf by permitting the families of Phantom squadron personnel to remain in the settled environment of the home base.
  The next aircraft is the R.A.F. version of the F111. Again, I was fortunate to be able recently to visit the factory in Texas where it is being produced. There are development problems with the F111—as with all new aircraft—but I am confident that these will be resolved and that the aircraft will meet our requirements when it enters R.A.F. service. I was impressed by the scale of effort devoted to the development of this aircraft. There are already about 20 F111 aircraft of all types flying and over 2,500 hours have been flown.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could my hon. Friend say what technical personnel accompanied him on visit, and into what specialist measures he probed?
  Mr. Rees: I had sufficient professional technical people to enable me to discuss at great length all the problems involved

  245
  to the degree that I can assure my hon. Friend that, despite the problems, I am sure that when the F111 comes into R.A.F. service it will more than meet the operational requirement laid down.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The Minister says that development problems have been encountered. Can he tell us by what percentage the drag exceeds expectations, and whether the air intake geometry problems have yet been cured?
  Mr. Rees: There is a more than adequate pay-range-load. I think that it would be wrong of me to go into the air intake question, but I am very sure from what I was told when I was in Texas, and from what I saw on the different types of aircraft, that that problem, too, is being solved.
  The cost of the F111 is a fixed-cost price of £2·1 million, which was negotiated a long time ago—it will be the same for the other aircraft as well. A ceiling price is being negotiated on the additions made for the R.A.F. version.
  On present plans, about two-thirds of our F111 is, both in squadrons and in the O.C.U., will be based in this country at Honington, and the remaining F111 aircraft will be based in the Far East Air Force.
  The main way in which the dollar costs of the F111 are being met is in the offset agreement. This agreement and the question of the price to be paid for the aircraft were gone into by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence the other day. However, in view of the obvious and unnecessary confusion which reigns in many minds about the rôle of the F111 with the R.A.F., I will spend a moment on this aspect.
  In the words of last year's White Paper on the Defence Review:
  "The key to the deterrent power of our armed forces is our ability to obtain early warning of an enemy's intentions through reconnaissance and to strike at his offensive forces from a distance in case of need."
  Although we do not plan to indulge in major operations without the cooperation of allies, this does not absolve us from the responsibility of maintaining a balanced force capable of making a contribution which those allies would value, nor indeed from the responsibility for providing our own forces of all three
  246
  Services with strike/reconnaissance support.
  These responsibilities are not confined to an area east of Suez and the F111 is not intended solely for commitments in that area. It will form a vital element in our strike/reconnaissance force and can go wherever it is needed from its base in the United Kingdom. Its vast radius of action gives it operational flexibility, not least in its approach routes, which is an important requirement in reconnaissance, and in replacing the strike carriers.
  In brief, the principal rôle s of the F111 aircraft will be tactical, and particularly reconnaissance, to support our forces in any military operations and to discharge our responsibilities to our allies. It will fulfil that rôle long after the AFVG comes into service. The V-bombers—not the F111—will be the stop-gap.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: With regard to the F111's rôle for early-warning, do the Government contemplate invading the air space of a possible enemy before war so as possibly to anticipate his strike? It is not much use carrying out reconnaissance after the war, because we would be unlikely to exist.
  Mr. Rees: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend's last remark is true, but he is putting views into the mind of the R.A.F. which could not possibly be the case. One would have to bear in mind the political situation. It is envisaged that the reconnaissance rôle of the F111 would take place 100 miles on the other side of the line. The reconnaissance rôle is vital if it is thought politically that an outbreak of war—not necessarily global, but possibly limited—is imminent.
  Mr. Paget: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the reconnaissance is intended to take place in our air space, or in theirs? If the latter, it seems a bit dangerous. If the former, it is purposeless.
  Mr. Rees: It is different when the reconnaissance is carried out at sea. Without going into full details, I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the scope of the reconnaissance Canberras is such that it is possible to "see" 100 miles on either side without crossing the line. I repeat that it is possible to see

  247
  without crossing what in my day in the R.A.F. used to be called the bomb line.
  Mr. Lubbock: Have not these reconnaissance duties been almost entirely superseded by the satellites which are now circling the world and which are capable of taking high definition photographs even over potential enemy territory?
  Mr. Rees: No, Sir.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman said that one of the advantages of this aeroplane is that it could approach from strange directions. If it is to fly up and down the frontier, it will soon be found.
  Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has vast Army experience, but I was talking about the Navy. In its seaborne rôle, the flexibility of approach of the F111—[HON. MEMBERS: "Seaborne?"] In its rôle at sea, its flexibility of approach will be vital. I argue, and it is the case, that the F111 will have that rôle when the carriers have phased out. It has a far longer range than the AFVG—it is a bigger aircraft with greater scope—which will make it invaluable in the Navy rôle when the carriers are phased out.
  In brief, the principal rôle s of the F111 aircraft will be tactical and particularly reconnaissance to support our forces in any military operations and to discharge our responsibilities to our allies.
  Apart from these three United States aircraft, there are two national projects in hand for the R.A.F. We are buying the American aircraft because it suits us; but Her Majesty's Government believe firmly in the need for a strong national aircraft industry and these projects form part of a new pattern for the British industry. I stressed this time after time the other week, when I was speaking to members of the United States aircraft industry; and I would not wish anyone to underestimate the depth of our conviction on this matter.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for not having available the cost of the P1127 aircraft; the figures have been announced and I will get them for my hon. Friend as quickly as possible.
  The Harrier will be used for close support of the Army in the field,
  248
  operating in conjunction with the Phantom. In building the Harrier we are following up a unique line of aeronautical development; and when the aircraft enters service in two or three years' time, it will be the first deflected thrust V.T.O.L. aircraft in the world to enter squadron service.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: Is it not a fact that a fixed-price contract has not yet been completed for the Harrier and that a price has, therefore, not yet been settled for it?
  Mr. Rees: No, Sir. The situation is that instructions to proceed have been given. The contract has not been completed. A great deal of design work and so on is taking place on the P1127.
  The other national project is the HS801 the world's first land-based all turbo-jet maritime reconnaissance aircraft. It will provide an important strengthening and modernisation of Coastal Command when in 1969–70 it replaces the Shackleton Mark 2. The HS801 will not only be able to remain for extended periods on patrol using the most sophisticated underwater warfare equipments, but it will also be capable of high speed transit between its bases and the area of operations.
  The HS801 will also look after the long-range search and rescue commitments, as the Shackletons are doing now. This, of course, is complementary to the work of the S.A.R. helicopters which continue their humanitarian tasks with courage and skill. Hon. Members will wish me to remind them that in the calendar year 1966 our helicopters were called out to 789 incidents and saved 330 lives.
  I ought also to say that a measure of the hazards faced and overcome in this work can be taken from the fact that during the same period the aircrews were awarded one George Medal, one Air Force Cross, one Air Force Medal, and six Queen's Commendations for Valuable Services in the Air.
  In addition to our American purchases and to our national projects, there are three collaborative projects with France. There is the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft which will replace the V-bombers in the mid-1970s in the tactical/strike/reconnaissance rôle. Like

  249
  the R.A.F. F111, it will enable us to support our other forces—in addition, taking over such strike/reconnaissance tasks as are at present carried out by aircraft carriers and will remain in the later 1970s.
  Again, there is the Jaguar, a supersonic ground attack and trainer aircraft. In the ground attack version, it is planned to enter service in five or six years' time when it will take the place of the Phantom for close support of the Army in conjunction with the Harrier. This will, in turn, release Phantoms to assume a primary rôle of air defence in replacement of the Lightning. The trainer version of the Jaguar will follow a year or so later to replace the Gnat.
  Thirdly, there is the SA330 helicopter—one of the three helicopters that are the subject of a recent Anglo-French agreement. This helicopter is required for tactical support of the Army in forward areas. It can be transported by air more readily than the Wessex, which will continue to form part of this element of our front line, and can carry more troops and equipment. The SA330 is expected in R.A.F. service in 1970. Our initial order will be for about 50.
  Finally, we have a need for a heavy/lift helicopter for use in the logistic support of troops in forward areas and to transport particularly heavy loads beyond the capacity of the other helicopters. We have been unable in this case, where the numbers we require are small, to arrange a collaborative project and an order has been placed for 15 Chinook helicopters from the U.S.A. These helicopters, which will have a British avionics fit, will be delivered in 1969. I will obtain firm figures of cost, but it is about £10 million plus support.
  All this is an impressive picture. When these new aircraft are in service the R.A.F. will have the tools it needs to play its part within our future defence policy. It will be more flexible and more mobile than ever before. Here, I must not forget the contribution being made by the VC10, the Belfast and the Andover, which were included in the plans we inherited and are now entering service.
  The new aircraft which I have just mentioned are visible signs of the way the R.A.F. is adapting itself to fulfil its rôle in our defence policy. Another aspect of
  250
  this adaption is a change in command structure. As hon. Members already know, Flying Training Command and Technical Training Command are being amalgamated at Brampton to form a new Training Command by June, 1968.
  We have just announced that Bomber Command and Fighter Command are to be amalgamated to form a new Operational Command which will bring together the bulk of R.A.F.'s U.K.-based "teeth" forces. The new Command will have its headquarters at High Wycombe and provisionally it will be called the Strike Reconnaissance and Defence Command. It will have two groups—Strike and Air Defence. We aim to bring the new Command organisation into being on 1st April, 1968, but reaccommodation of staffs and the relocation of units will be carried out progressively over a rather longer period.
  The first step towards the formation of this new Command is already being taken—the amalgamation at Bawtry of Nos. 1 and 3 Groups of Bomber Command.
  Transport Command of the Royal Air Force will be retained essentially in its present form, but it will be provisionally renamed Transport and Ground Attack Command; 38 Group will continue as a subordinate formation within this Command, and its importance will continue to grow in conjunction with the development of the Army's Strategic Command.
  We are still studying the future of Coastal Command and of Signals Command. The future of Coastal Command is, of course, closely bound up with possible changes in the naval command structure, on which decisions have yet to be taken. The two Services are working closely together to ensure that Coastal Command is ultimately incorporated in a new R.A.F. structure in the way which will best preserve its effectiveness in joint operations with the Royal Navy.
  This process of reorganisation is not confined to the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: My hon. Friend will readily appreciate my interest in this matter, as he is almost a constituent of mine. Can he say what will happen to the property at Bentley Priory when Fighter Command moves? Will this be made available, or will the local authority be given an opportunity

  251
  of purchasing this, as it does not have a town hall or centralised administrative offices? Can he say what will happen to the H.Q. unit at Stanmore Park? Is it proposed to dismantle this, or will it be made available to the local authority? What will happen to married quarters in the area?
  Mr. Rees: I am very much aware of the fact that Harrow does not have a town hall. We have not yet reached the point of disposing of Bentley Priory. It will have a continuing use after next year, and it will be a matter of three or four years before we are in a position to deal with that. I assure my hon. Friend, who, I know, lives alongside Bentley Priory, that when the time comes, if it comes, to dispose of this property, there is a well-tried procedure in which the local authority plays its part.
  I would be very wary about saying anything about Stanmore Park, but, again, I would not like to be dogmatic. There is a large number of married quarters in the area, and I would have thought there would have been a continuing use for them, certainly in the wider area of Bushey and Stanmore and Harrow Weald.
  We have also been examining the organisation of the Far East Air Force in the light of the reduction in force levels following the end of confrontation and as a result of this, we are also introducing a streamlined and more economical command structure there. It involves a number of changes but possibly the major one is the replacement of 224 Group H.Q. with a small mobile tactical H.Q.
  We are continuing with our programme of improving the efficiency and economy of our support organisation in R.A.F. Maintenance Command. We have just closed one of our five large Equipment Supply Depots, with a saving of over 700 posts. By about this time next year, we hope to introduce computers into the remaining four depots. These computers, which will be linked with the one computer centre at Hendon, will be used to keep the stock records and accounts, to progress contracts and generally to organise the storekeeping work of the depots for example, each day's list of isues to be made to R.A.F. units will be produced
  252
  in the best order to select and pack the equipment so as to avoid any wasteful movement.
  We shall get a considerable improvement in depot management and efficiency and we shall, when the system is working fully, be able to have 400 or 500 posts. The computers will also play their part in a reorganisation of the storage system at the depots, since they will enable us to distribute equipment within them, according to its weight and bulk and the frequency with which it is likely to be needed. We shall be concentrating the smaller and quicker-moving items in one shed in each depot, with thoroughly up-to-date storage and handling methods. In this way, we expect to save yet another 400 to 500 posts; we envisage that this reduction will be spread over a year or more and can be met by wastage.
  Finally, we are engaging management consultants to take a rather more thorough look at our management systems and techniques in this area and to advise us among other things, on the possibilities of greater decentralisation to local managements. Although this study stems from the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the Pay of Industrial Civil Servants, it is not linked to the proposals for a new industrial pay structure, about which negotiations are going on quite separately.
  A few moments ago I spoke about Transport Command; and I have earlier mentioned that the Belfast, the VC10 and the Hercules are now entering service. Hon. Members will appreciate that preparations for the introduction of these three new aircraft, together with a fourth shorter-range aircraft—the Andover—represent a major task of organisation and training which Transport Command has undertaken with its usual unobtrusive efficiency.
  By the end of the year there will have ben a very substantial increase in the Command's capability. In the meantime, it continues to meet the varied demands made on it, from the Zambian airlift to tactical training with the Army, with a promptness of reaction and reliability of achievement which inspires the greatest confidence. The safety rate of Transport Command on its scheduled flights has been extraordinarily high.
  The size of the strategic transport force is governed by our need to move across

  253
  the world troops and their equipment on a sufficient scale speedily and at short notice. If we are to continue to be able to discharge our commitments the need for such a reinforcement potential will increase as our overseas based garrisons are reduced in size.
  The strategic transport force has to be exercised continuously over the routes which it is likely to have to use in emergency. This familiarisation flying is vitally necessary both for the efficiency of the aircrews and the safety of troops to be carried in an emergency and also for the training of ground staffs at the various staging posts and elsewhere along the routes.
  The expenditure involved is essential to ensure that the force and ground organisation are always in full operational trim and able to react immediately in time of emergency. At the same time, we are making profitable use of this activity by using these flights for the regular trooping and air freighting commitments to the Near, Middle and Far East.
  We shall be making increasing use of these flights by our strategic transport aircraft over the next year until, apart from North-West Europe itself, only a portion of the Far East trooping commitment will remain to be undertaken by civil charter aircraft on contract. In future, this will save each year at least £5 million on passenger fares and £3 million on air freighting.
  A very interesting Report by Sub-Committee D of the Estimates Committee was published this morning on "The Movement of Service Personnel and Stores". I am sorry to find that the Committee does not apparently see eye to eye with us on some aspects of the subject. Hon. Members will need more time, as I shall, to digest the Report. I hope that in reading it hon. Members will bear in mind what I have just said about the considerations governing the size of the strategic transport force and its use for trooping. I undertake to consider the Committee's recommendations with every care; and in due course our comments will be laid before the House in the customary manner.
  Transport Command's aircraft cover the world in its journeys and as its range increases—as, indeed, the range in-
  254
  creases of other front line aircraft—we are able to be more flexible over the question of routes. One of the areas in which we are considering the possibility of being still more flexible is—as stated in paragraph 27 of the Defence White Paper—the western Indian Ocean, where we are considering the possibilities of a staging airfield on the island of Aldabra.
  This has given rise to some concern in scientific circles. Aldabra has a unique ecosystem and is of the greatest interest to the world scientific community. We have assured the Royal Society that the scientific considerations will be taken fully into account in the process of reaching a decision.
  We have also assured the Society that if we decide that we have to construct an airfield on Aldabra it will be built in a way likely to cause the least interference with the ecology of the island, and that we would wish to extract some small virtue out of necessity not only by working closely with the Royal Society in conservation matters, but also in providing such facilities as we can for ecological and other studies.
  I acknowledge the deep concern felt by the Royal Society, and I wish to emphasise my Department's awareness of the issue and its willingness to do something about it.
  Mr. Lubbock: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of Aldabra, can he say whether all the islands in the Indian Ocean, such as Diego Garcia, have been ruled out for consideration for development bases? Can he also say what is the average height of land on Aldabra above sea level?
  Mr. Rees: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all of these other islands have been taken into account in the very fullest way. A decision has not yet been taken on Aldabra. As to the height above sea level, I have recently read a report, as a result of an expedition there last October, comprising representatives from the Ministry of Defence, the B.B.C., and M.P.B.W., full of interesting material. If anyone were to ask me about turtles and birds and goodness knows what I might be able to help, but the one thing that I cannot recall is the height of the island above sea level.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army said

  255
  during the debate on the Army Estimates that a statement would be made during this debate on a human problem which has rightly occupied the attention of a great many hon. Members, namely, the procedures which should be adopted when a Serviceman dies overseas in peacetime. It now falls to me to inform the House of a new policy which the Services will adopt for the future, and which will be put into operation without delay.
  The Services will offer next-of-kin the opportunity, at public expense, either to attend the military funeral or to repatriate the body for private burial to the United Kingdom and Irish Republic, where circumstances allow this to be done. In the case of married accompanied personnel, a parent or child will be permitted to attend the funeral in the overseas theatre. Both next-of-kin, and a parent or child, may be accompanied to the funeral by one companion—that is we will provide transport to the overseas funeral for two people.
  Where it is necessary for repatriation, embalming and the preparation of bodies for travel will be arranged at public expense by a local overseas civilian undertaker, and I must make it clear that where local arrangements are not available, or are not satisfactory, the Service will not set up its own undertaking facilities in order to repatriate the body—and I should point out that arrangements for embalming and preparation may not be satisfactory in Middle and Far East Commands. In cases where neither attendance at the funeral, nor repatriation, is practicable the Services will offer the following further alternative.
  The next-of-kin, or parent or child in the case of married accompanied personnel, plus one companion, may visit the grave at public expense within two years of the interment, provided that the security situation permits.
  We shall also, of course, continue the present arrangement under which, where it is feasible and has been requested by next-of-kin, a Serviceman's body is cremated and the ashes returned.
  I must make it clear that the new arrangements must be regarded as a privilege and not a right. We have to safeguard the position that there may be circumstances which would make the repatriation of bodies or the visits of
  256
  relatives impracticable, or very undesirable.
  These arrangements mean, of course, that the existing scheme for North-West Europe has been replaced by more general arrangements, which apply worldwide. As part of this new approach, it will be necessary to alter the present arrangements which apply in North-West Europe under which arrangements are made for near relatives to attend the funeral of a wife, or for a fee of £20 the body of a dependant is repatriated. The general principle, which will now apply worldwide, is that the Serviceman overseas is regarded generally as being financially responsible for arranging the funeral of a dependant as if he were at home.
  But discretion will be given to commanders-in-chief and commanders overseas to repatriate the bodies of deceased dependants at public expense in special circumstances. I have in mind, for instance, a case where both the Serviceman and his wife or child have been killed in a car crash, or the Serviceman severely injured, so that he is unable to carry out the duties which would normally fall to the head of a family.
  Hon. Members will, I think, agree that the Government have worked out a policy which is humane, logical and, above all, universal in application. Within the limits of what is practicable, the Services intend to do their best to meet the wishes of the Serviceman's family when it is faced by bereavement. The new arrangements will not be retrospective, but they will be put into effect without delay.
  I should add, though this aspect is really within the province of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that parallel arrangements are being made in respect of United Kingdom-based civilian employees who may die overseas.
  Mr. Dalyell: As one who has been critical on this subject in the past, and who has asked for change, will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on this humanitarian and warm measure?
  Mr. Harold Walker: May I ask why my hon. Friend has refused to give me answers to my repeated Questions on this subject, including one as recently as yesterday, since the information was apparently available in the

  257
  Sunday Press? The kernel of what he said appeared in the Sunday Mirror.
  Mr. Rees: I regret that fact. I looked into that report. All that I can say is that by doing homework and looking back at Questions, and so on, the report appeared. I cannot offer any more comment than that.
  Now to training and recruiting. Hon. Members will have seen from the Defence White Paper—and my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration also raised this subject in a recent debate—that it has been decided to set up a Royal Defence Academy which would exercise central academic and administrative control over the engineering department of Cranwell and its counterparts at Manadon and Shrivenham.
  The Royal Defence Academy would also exercise this control over a new inter-Service college, the Royal Defence College. The Royal Defence College is to be established to improve the arrangements for the education of regular officers of the non-technical arms and will provide, among other things, courses up to degree level.
  What this means for the Royal Air Force, for Cranwell, is that officer cadets for the General Duties, Equipment and Secretarial Branches and for the R.A.F. Regiment, will start training at Cranwell. After they have completed general military training and then gained either their wings or completed equivalent professional training, they will go for one year's academic instruction at the Royal Defence College, together with young officers of about the same age from the Royal Navy and the Army.
  Those young officers who are capable of taking university degrees, and who wish to do so, may remain at the Royal Defence College for a further two years to complete their course and to graduate. Those officers who do not wish to take degrees and those who have graduated will return to the Royal Air Force for advanced flying or equivalent professional training before joining operational units.
  I would be the first to admit that introducing this new sequence of training will present us with problems of great complexity and difficulty. However, I believe that they can be solved; and I believe that, in the end, we will be amply rewarded by a flow of young officers in
  258
  whom we will have developed those intellectual qualities the Services need—young officers with a deep understanding of the wider aspects of their profession.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: From what the hon. Gentleman has said, it seems that young R.A.F. officers will get their flying training and then will go off for academic studies for a year. Will they get any flying training during that year, to keep them up to the mark?
  Mr. Rees: What is envisaged is refresher training, perhaps in association with a university air squadron. I will look into that aspect.
  I must point out here that the establishment of the Royal Defence Academy, and the Royal Defence College implies, no change in the desire of the Services to recruit university graduates. The Royal Air Force has been fortunate in its graduate recruitment in the past and it is as anxious as ever to maintain that flow. I am glad to be able to say that the recruiting figures confirm that we are doing so. In 1966, the number of university cadetship applications was the highest so far and 46 awards were made compared with 43 in 1965. In addition, we recruited 64 graduates as well as the 21 university cadets who graduated in 1966.
  That brings me to the subject of recruitment, where we are still beset with certain problems. Last year, the recruitment of aircrew officers was good. We met our target for pilot entry; and navigator recruiting improved considerably over 1965, so that by the end of the year we were only slightly below the target figure.
  We met our target for Cranwell entries. For R.A.F. scholarships, we found an improvement in the quality of applicants, and again we virtually met our target.
  Recruitment for the ground branches showed an improvement generally over the previous year, particularly in the G.D. (Ground) Branch, the Secretarial Branch and the R.A.F. Regiment. W.R.A.F. recruitment, too, has been excellent for most branches.
  But the exception to all this was the Engineer Branch, where it continues to be difficult to obtain professionally qualified entrants, and here recruitment to the branch reached only two-thirds of the target figure. Apart from this, the officer

  259
  recruitment situation could be described as fairly successful, but when we turn to airmen the situation is less satisfactory.
  The total number of airmen enlisting in the R.A.F. during 1966 was greater than during 1965 and recruiting for the higher skilled trades has, in general, been satisfactory; but the shortage of recruits for the lesser skilled trades continues to cause us concern.
  As regard internal recruitment, the current figures are appreciably better than those of a year ago; and although there are many gaps in the administrative trades, a large proportion of our needs for the higher skilled airman to re-engage to pension has thus been covered. The number of those wishing to extend their service for shorter periods continues to be considerably short of our requirements, again particularly in the lesser skilled trades. We are, therefore, concentrating our recruiting efforts in these problem areas. The size of the R.A.F. is declining, but recruitment is still vital to obtain young people and to fill gaps in deficient trades.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: May I ask a question about engineering officers, which is always a great problem? I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would look at the command structure, because in the United States I think that the second most important man in the American Air Force is a non-flier. The command structure is of considerable importance.
  Mr. Rees: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the question of the promotion ladder, which is another way of expressing it, for the engineer is being very much looked at. As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the problem in the Royal Air Force is that the man with the wings on his chest is often, by the very nature of that fact, the most important person, as well as in view of his operational rôle. Engineers are vital to the Royal Air Force. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we are looking at this problem.
  These difficulties make it all the more essential that we should make the fullest use of all the potential recruiting sources available to us. In this context, I would mention the important part which the Air Cadet Forces have to play, both in
  260
  developing an airmindedness in our youth and in fostering an interest in the work of the R.A.F. In fact, a high proportion of R.A.F. recruits continue to have previous air cadet experience. To ensure that the organisation of the Air Training Corps, in particular, remains fully geared to its own needs and those of the Service, we have decided to set up a committee to review the whole organisation and training policy of the A.T.C. and to advise us accordingly.
  Now, a word or two about the R.A.F. Education Branch. One has to remember that the typical airman of today is a skilled tradesman and the N.C.O. a manager. The educational qualifications for most of our trades are high and the skills and knowledge demanded are increasing.
  The R.A.F. Education Branch has always been closely associated with training at all levels, from the apprenticeship schemes of the early days to the honours degree courses for engineer cadets at the R.A.F. College, Cranwell. It has always been to the forefront in the use of modern teaching techniques and has done important original work in the development of teaching machines and in the technique of writing programmed lessons. Moreover, through the General Education Scheme, it has widened the education opportunities available to all personnel both in subjects related to their work in the Services and in the pursuit of qualifications which may assist them eventually in their resettlement into civilian life
  A problem arises over the provision of school places for the children of Service families now returning in large numbers from overseas. This can cause difficulties for the local education authorities. Fortunately, in the R.A.F. the problem is, perhaps, less serious than with the other two Services because it is our policy to post individual Servicemen to vacancies at existing units; and where families cannot readily accompany their fathers we do our best to accommodate them at R.A.F. stations where married quarters are available.
  This means, in general, that the returning families will be spread over the country rather than concentrated in one or two places, and where there is a build-up at a station where existing married quarters are being used the problem for the

  261
  local education authority is often one of providing again school places at a level which they had already achieved in the recent past. Where this is, in fact, happening, at the R.A.F. stations at Coningsby, in Lincolnshire, and Honington, in Suffolk, for example, my Department has, of course, been in discussion with the local education authorities concerned. Another case in point is Brize Norton, on which I hope to let the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) have a reply to his inquiries very shortly.
  If measures have to be taken which result in an entirely new requirement for schooling in a particular area, my Department and the command headquarters concerned will naturally carry out the necessary consultations with the Department of Education and Science and the appropriate local education authorities.
  The House may like me to say a word at this point about the arrangements we are making for the accommodation of R.A.F. families over the next year or two, when the numbers needing family accommodation will be substantially increased as a result of the Defence Review withdrawals.
  A programme for the provision of permanent married quarters at R.A.F. stations has been in train for many years. About 28,000 permanent quarters have been built in the United Kingdom since the end of the war and we plan to continue building at the rate of about 1,300 houses a year. We are still, however, a long way short of being able to provide permanent quarters for all eligible families who would like one, and it will be some years before we begin to approach this ideal state of affairs. In the meantime, extensive use is made of temporary hirings to reduce deficiencies. Currently, about 6,000 houses are on hire for the R.A.F.
  The withdrawal of forces as a result of last year's Defence Review adds very considerably to the number of families needing accommodation in the United Kingdom. Some will prefer to make private arrangements, as many families stationed in the United Kingdom already do; but we estimate that the number of R.A.F. families applying for public married accommodation will increase by about 2,700 as a result of the Defence Review withdrawals.
  262
  We are, therefore, taking special steps to add to our stock of public married accommodation at a greater rate than the normal building programme provides for and to provide furniture for them, as well as, of course, for houses being acquired by the other Services. The R.A.F. has an across-the-board responsibility for furniture.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration has informed the House on a number of occasions, the Ministry of Defence is now purchasing suitable houses on the open market as a means of adding quickly to the accommodation at our disposal. We hope that many of these houses will prove suitable for permanent use, to the eventual relief of our building programme. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works is also taking steps to accelerate the construction of about 2,000 of the permanent quarters already in our building programme.
  These special steps should go a long way to enabling us to handle the temporary peak in family housing requirements arising from the Defence Review withdrawals. If need be, however, we shall fall back on the temporary expedient of using mobile homes, but this will be a last resort and I am hopeful that we shall not find it necessary to make much use of it.
  May I say, briefly, that the subject of meteorology has been much in the news in the past year, thanks largely to the useful and interesting report of the Estimates Committee on Meteorological Services. I am grateful to the Committee for its helpful and perceptive comments. Its recommendations have been considered and replies will shortly be submitted.
  I have completed what has had of necessity, despite the time, to have been but a brief survey of the R.A.F. as it is at present. I have mentioned some of the highlights; there are many more subjects I would have liked to have covered. However, I will make only one point more. I am proud of the fact that I have served in the Royal Air Force; and I am, therefore, doubly honoured to be the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force. But I feel even prouder of the Royal Air Force as now it has entered a most stimulating period in its existence; for example, with new aircraft starting to come into service, with a major

  263
  reorganisation in hand of the command structure in the United Kingdom and with the finest and most sophisticated management techniques applied to its supporting services.
  It is very appropriate that at the end of the coming financial year, when the R.A.F. celebrates its 50th birthday, it should, in directions such as those I have mentioned, be showing that advancing years have led to no decline in vigour and to no tendency to ossification, but rather to the contrary—that the R.A.F. is, as ever, meeting the challenge of changing time and adapting itself to contemporary needs.
  Mr. Paget: Before my hon. Friend sits down, may I ask whether he will tell us anything about the Anglo-French venture, or is the AFVG outside this debate?
  Mr. Rees: It is not for me to rule what is outside the scope of the debate. The rôle of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft is very necessary to the R.A.F. On the other hand, the stages in the negotiations concerning the AFVG are, in a sense, the joint responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I would have thought that from my point of view there was not the slightest reason why it should not be talked about.
  4.49 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: It is my very great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on presenting his first estimates as Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, or as manager of the R.A.F., as he put it. I am sure that all hon. Members will have enjoyed hearing him speak today. He spoke with the courtesy with which we have always associated him and for which he has a great reputation. Everyone will agree that it is particularly appropriate that someone like the hon. Gentleman, who has taken so much care over individual cases, should have had the task today of announcing special arrangements about deaths overseas. My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome that greatly.
  It is not his fault that the Service for which he is responsible has so many doubts about its future, in spite of what he may have said today. Those doubts are caused by the Government's whole
  264
  approach to defence policy. After the long wait for the Defence Review from October, 1964, until February, 1966, during which time there was great uncertainty and anxious speculation about the future of the Services, it was hoped that the R.A.F.'s rôle would be made clear-cut.
  The Defence Review states, in paragraph 1, on page 4:
  "Defence must be the servant of foreign policy, not its master. Military forces must be designed accordingly."
  It goes on to say, in the next paragraph:
  "We are compelled to plan the main features of our defence policy a decade ahead."
  When it read that, the R.A.F., like the Services, breathed a sigh of relief. It thought that at last the agony of 16 months of uncertainty was over and that it would be able to face a stable future knowing its rôle and the weapons with which it was to play it. It went on to read on page 6, in paragraph 14:
  "N.A.T.O. must maintain enough conventional forces to deal with small-scale conflicts in the European theatre without automatic resort to nuclear weapons, when the origin of the conflict may be uncertain and the intentions of the enemy obscure. The number of ground formations already available is probably sufficient, if they are adequately manned, trained and equipped. But more air support is needed for such conventional operations."
  It will have read in the next paragraph:
  "We shall strengthen our air support for conventional ground forces in Germany at the cost of some reduction in our nuclear strike aircraft based there."
  When it went on to read, on page 10:
  "Our plan is that, in the future, aircraft operating from land bases should take over the strike-reconnaissance and air-defence functions of the carrier on the reduced scale which we envisage that our commitments will require after the mid-1970s",
  it thought that that was all very encouraging and that the future for the R.A.F. was good.
  Furthermore, while there had been 16 months of agonising uncertainty about new aircraft, following the cancellation of the TSR2, the HS681 and the P1154, when rumour and counter-rumour had dominated the Press during those anxious months, it learned from the Defence Review that the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft was to be the core of the R.A.F.'s long-term aircraft programme, and that 50 F111 As would be

  265
  purchased from the United States to bridge the gap, supplemented by the V-bombers when the Polaris submarines came into service. It knew already that Phantoms and P1127s were being ordered to replace the ageing Hunters, that the strike version of the Anglo-French Jaguar in due course would release the Phantoms to replace the Lightnings, that the HS801 was to replace the Shackleton and the C130s had been ordered for the strategic transport force. The future of the R.A.F. looked settled and rosy.
  Then why should there be such uncertainty only a year later? Perhaps it is because, first and foremost, while the Defence Review had said on page 14:
  "… we have planned a reduction in the tasks which we shall undertake in the 1970s",
  it became abundantly clear both in the debate on the White Paper and in subsequent statements that that was far from true.
  Operational requirements may have been downgraded, as they have been with new aircraft orders. Decisions may have been taken to reduce the number of men and weapons so as to cut down defence expenditure in the hope of reaching an arbitrary limit. But what was certain was that the commitments had not been reduced accordingly. Apart from the decision to withdraw from Aden, which anyone with any knowledge of that area could have told the Government would only result in chaos and could involve us in a major conflict in the Arabian peninsula, our commitments remained as before. Indeed, that was the reason for the resignation of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), who was certainly in a position to know the truth.
  Then we have further evidence that short-term economic considerations are determining our defence policy, when foreign policy considerations should be doing so. For instance, in connection N.A.T.O., despite the assertions in the Defence Review concerning the need for conventional forces backed by increased air support, there is now a threat that after 1st July we shall withdraw our N.A.T.O. forces unless Germany meets our foreign exchange losses. How can anyone believe that serious thought is being given to defence considerations when such a threat is made?
  266
  Is there any wonder that the R.A.F., like the other Services, fears that there are no real long-term plans, that there has been no proper assessment of the tasks which it is likely to have to carry out, and that there has been no real attempt to match men and weapons with these tasks?
  The military threat to Europe remains. There has been no reduction in the forces facing us behind the Iron Curtain. Indeed, those forces are now equipped with more sophisticated and better quality weapons than when N.A.T.O. was first formed. The fact that Mr. Kosygin has spoken of a non-aggression pact should not reassure us. After all, when he was here he continued his country's perpetual endeavours to break up N.A.T.O. by trying to drive a wedge between Britain and the U.S.A. and between Britain and Germany.
  No one in the R.A.F. can be expected to feel that a withdrawal from Germany is a sensible move now, only a year after being told that our ground forces were just sufficient to cope, provided that they were given additional air support.
  What of east of Suez? Are we to leave a squadron of Hunters at Aden, as requested by the Government of South Arabia, to deter Nasser from moving in, or are we to clear out altogether leaving them with no air support? How much longer can we expect to operate from Bahrain once Nasser has dealt with Southern Arabia and is free to turn his attentions to that area? These are important questions, because these are vital air staging posts en route for the Far East.
  The White Paper rightly pays tribute to the R.A.F. and its contribution to ending the Indonesian confrontation against Malaysia, but it then goes on to say in paragraph 26 on page 7:
  "Our aim is Mat Britain shall not again have to undertake operations on this scale outside Europe."
  But how can such an aim be achieved so long as we have treaty commitments in that area? How can the Government suggest that their aim is no longer to be involved in this way, or have they made up their minds to make certain that we are not equipped to undertake such operations in the future? After all, there is no guarantee that we shall not be involved once more in some fighting in the

  267
  Far East, or that it will not escalate as it did in Malaysia. If that is so, is it not vital that we should have sufficient air forces to control the air space over any ground operations taking place?
  Obviously, it is quite possible to withdraw some of our forces, as has been done since the ending of confrontation, because they can be dispatched in a reasonably short time to reinforce the existing Far East force. But what if we are already involved in, say, the Middle East and we are then called upon to help in the Far East? Have we sufficient men and aircraft to meet both those commitments, or is it that we are cutting back in the hope that we shall not be called upon to help in two theatres at once and in the hope that, in any event, we shall be lucky enough only to be involved in conflicts on a much smaller scale than the Indonesian confrontation?
  I sense that these are the thoughts which are giving so much concern to those in the R.A.F. who will have to "carry the can" in the air should the gamble not come off.
  Another matter which is causing great concern in the R.A.F., as in the other Services, is the topic which appears in a short paragraph on page 9 of the White Paper, saying:
  "The Government is studying the scope for developing further the peaceful use of military forces in this country."
  If, with their usual keenness of mind, the Services apply initials to that, I suppose that the peaceful use of military force will become known as "P.U.M.F.", and that is a very appropriate name for it.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On the day of the disaster at Aberfan, which is the next village from mine, I was at St. Athan. Immediately the personnel of the station stood to and were prepared to play their part. In the event, the Army played the major rôle, but is not that an appropriate use for the R.A.F.?
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): The hon. Gentleman is sneering at it.
  Mr. Goodhew: It is certainly not to be sneered at, and the hon. Gentleman knows that I was not sneering at it. I was sneering at the bald statement that the Government are studying the scope for developing this further. When interviewed on television about this subject,
  268
  the hon. Gentleman mentioned the Aberfan disaster and the valuable work which the R.A.F. does in rescuing people by helicopter, to which we all pay tribute. When he was asked what ideas he had, he merely said that there was further scope in this direction.
  I hope that we shall not have further disasters merely to enable the right hon. Gentleman to send troops to combat them. How will this affect the Royal Air Force? What has the Government in mind?
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Regarding the use of the R.A.F. in the Aberfan disaster, could not all the services rendered by the R.A.F. be perfectly well done by some civilian force instead of the R.A.F.? Surely one cannot justify a bomber on the ground that it is going to Aberfan?
  Mr. Goodhew: That is a point on which I was about to come. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. How is this going to come about, and what has the Government in mind? This bald statement, with no attempt at explanation, is causing grave concern in the R.A.F. and other Services. The Secretary of State may laugh, but it is a serious matter for those who are in the Services. He can apply for the Chiltern Hundreds if he likes. But they have to soldier on.
  Mr. Healey: Can the hon. Gentleman give any evidence of the grave concern of the R.A.F. about this? Has he not made this up to make a party point, without any thought whatever?
  Mr. Goodhew: Certainly not. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State is not in touch with the feeling in the Service as his hon. Friend was who nodded his head in assent a moment or two ago. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the men who join the Services do so to serve their Queen and country as soldiers, sailors and airmen. It is the prospect of service overseas, the possibility of adventure, the thrill of flying modern aircraft, the pride of keeping aircraft flying and the knowledge that the R.A.F. is helping to keep the peace, which are the sort of things for which men join the Forces.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is going to take all this away and replace them

  269
  with duties that can be performed in civvy street, he will destroy a spirit and a mystique which can only be re-created when danger threatens, and that will be too late. We hope that we shall have more information. The Government will have to do something with the forces they bring home from abroad.
  I come now to island bases, this concept, to which I referred earlier. At the time of the Defence Review, constantly in the newspapers were maps of the Indian Ocean area showing bases on islands and on the mainland, with circles drawn round each one demonstrating that the F111, with its 1,000 miles combat range, could cover all our commitments. There is no word of this in the Defence Estimates or in the White Paper. The map at that time showed that it was 1,000 miles. No doubt that was a conservative estimate, but there is no word about this. There is merely mention of the possibility of new facilities in Australia and the examination of possible
  "benefits from a new staging airfield in the British Indian Ocean Territory".
  What has happened to the grand strategy? Has it been sunk without trace like the CVA01 carrier? It was said to be a replacement for that carrier.
  We have heard very little about Diego Garcia, to which the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) referred. I know why he asked about the height above sea level of Aldabra; it is because he knows that Del Garcia is only 5 ft. above sea level and for three months of the year it suffers from hurricanes and for another three months from intermittent flooding. This is the area which the Government was going to use as a base for aircraft.
  There are indications that Aldabra is thought to be too expensive to adapt as a modern base. The hon. Gentleman was careful to say that it was only under consideration. The island base concept is quietly disappearing.
  Aden is presumably to go. This is one of the bases around which a circle was drawn. One wonders what will happen to our air staging en route for the Far East. Perhaps the Secretary of State discovered that the original map of the bases, which was presented to the Chief of the Air Staff, showed Australia as being 280 miles north-west of its actual
  270
  position. Perhaps he decided that to rely upon aircraft, based on islands and operating at 1,000 mile range, was like trying to support the Anzio beachhead from Biggin Hill without an alternative airfield on which to land, should the airfield be destroyed while you were away. There is still too much that remains uncertain for the R.A.F. or anyone else to be confident that the Government knows what it is doing and where it is going in the sphere of aerial warfare. This applies just as much to aircraft as it does to general strategy.
  There are too many unknown quantities for anyone to be confident that everything is under control. Let us look at the F111K. We are told in Command No. 3203, page 38, paragraph 44, that
  "we plan to form the first squadron of F111Ks in 1969."
  That is particularly interesting, because the Prime Minister said two years ago on 4th March, 1965, at col. 1557:
  "The situation which we inherited last October was that the supersonic bomber which they finally put into the programme—the TSRII—could at the earliest not be in service until 1968."
  Obviously the Prime Minister would be giving a very pessimistic date for the entry into service of the TSRII to make it look as if this party had failed. Yet we now find that even his pessimistic date would have been at least a year earlier than the date on which we are to have the F111K. The cancellation of the TSRII and the purchase of the F111K for reasons of time scale begin to look somewhat doubtful.
  What about the cost? We have not yet agreed a ceiling price for the F111K, as we have been told today. We were told by the Secretary of State on 27th February:
  "As to the F111K, I am now discussing the ceiling price for a further 40 aircraft, and hope to place that order by the end of the month."
  Why did he say, in Command No. 2901, on page 11, at paragraph 10:
  "We are guaranteed full delivery of the 50 F111A's not later than January, 1970. The ceiling price for the basic aircraft—5·95m. United States dollars or about £2·1 million—covering the production costs and a contribution to the United States research and development cost, will apply to the total purchase."
  Does not this mislead the House into thinking that a ceiling price had been fixed for the whole order?
  Mr. Healey: Ever since I first discussed this, I have made it clear that there

  271
  was a ceiling price for the basic aircraft of £2·1 million which under no circumstances could be exceeded. The cost of the R.A.F. modifications and additions which turned the F111A into the FMK would raise the price to something like £2½ million. This is still the case. I have never disguised the fact. It was in the White Paper last year, as the hon. Gentleman will know if he brushes up on his homework.
  Mr. Goodhew: I have indeed done my homework, and I maintain that the right hon. Gentleman is being a little naïve, because in the White Paper, on 13th December, 1965, he said:
  "We negotiated a firm price before we decided to discontinue production of the TSR2."
  This could only give the impression that the price had been negotiated, and there was no possibility of the F111K proving to be more expensive than the Government were making out. It is this juggling with the basic price and the final price which is designed to mislead the House and to fog us in trying to decide how we fare with these costs. What is the thruth, I wonder? Have costs arisen so much that there is to be an adjustment upwards of the price to be paid? Once these defence debates are safely out of the way, are we to learn, perhaps in a Written Answer to a Question, that there has been a considerable increase in the price? The more I look into the whole question of aircraft costs, the more suspicious I become of the arithmetic of the party opposite in public. What its arithmetic is like in private, I do not know.
  When the Government were so busy trying to prove how much money was being saved by purchasing the F111 instead of the TSR2, they ignored the research and development costs of the TSR2 which should have been added to the cancellation charges. But worse than that, they compared the cost of 50 F111s with 158 TSR2s. The Secretary of State said on 8th March, 1966:
  "We came to the conclusion that we did not need the 158 aircraft—the TSR2—which were in the programme of the last Government and which would have cost £1,200 million and that we could manage with 50 F111As at £280 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 2041.]
  The F111A is to be a minor adjunct to the AFVG—this has been changed
  272
  today, and I shall come to that shortly—but the fact remains that there was no reason to compare 50 F111As with 158 TSR2s. We are to have AFVGs to carry out this rôle, but we do not know how many. There have been various estimates of between 150 and 200, and as the Secretary of State told me in answer to a Question recently that it takes about two AFVGs to carry the same bomb load as one F111, one can assume, that 150 AFVGs will be equivalent to 75 F111s. If we add that to the 50 F111s which we are getting, what we should be doing is comparing the cost of 150 AFVGs and 50 F111s with the cost of, say, 120 TSR2s.
  Once we get the AFVGs, if we do, and we hope we do, it will be interesting to do a little arithmetic and add the cost of the F111K and the AFVGs together to see how that compares with a comparable bomb load-carrying number of TSR2s. I suspect we shall find that the Government will have wasted both time and money, as well as dealing a devastating blow to the British aircraft industry and British technology.
  However, the Government having had the TSR2 put down—to use a doggy term which is more appropriate than removing licences—with unseemly and unnecessary haste, we are left with 10 F111Ks ordered and the promise of another 40 to follow at a price to be agreed, after these defence debates have taken place.
  What is the F111K? What type of aircraft is it? What rôle can it play? One would not learn all this from speeches made in the House by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. One learns more from "Jane's all the World Aircraft" than from speeches here. The F111K is generally similar to the F111A. It is a two-seater tactical fighter-bomber, and the principal modification for R.A.F. service is a strengthened landing gear. I wonder whether we can be told why this is so.
  The original F111A has a short take-off and short landing capability on rough airfields in forward areas, and I wonder why a strengthened landing gear should be necessary. It is, we are told, a very fine machine and can fly at two and a half times the speed of sound, 2.5 mach, at operational heights, and at 1.2 mach at sea level, an impressive performance by any standard.

  273
  In parenthesis, while talking about the performance of the aircraft, may I say a word about the escape arrangements. I understand that the cabin is an escape capsule which can be propelled away from the aircraft by rocket and land by parachute. I hope that we shall hear whether the Government are satisfied with this in view of the unfortunate affair of the Starfighter. I hope we shall hear that the Government are satisfied that the escape arrangements are satisfactory.
  The aircraft can carry a formidable bomb load. It was designed to fly between any two airfields in the world in one day and to carry a full range of conventional and nuclear weapons, including the latest air to surface weapons. We know, too, that it can be converted to a reconnaissance rôle by the addition of a pod.
  What is the rôle of this aircraft in the Royal Air Force? One thing that we have learned is that it is not to be a stopgap. The Defence Review, under the heading "Canberra Aircraft Replacement", said:
  "The key to the deterrent power of our Armed Forces is our ability to obtain early warning of an enemy's intentions through reconnaissance and to strike at his offensive forces from a distance in case of need. This rôle has been assigned to the Canberra aircraft since the early 1950s; this aircraft cannot safely continue after 1970. By the mid-1970s, we intend that the Anglo-French variable-geometry aircraft should begin to take over this and other rôles. Both operationally and industrially, this aircraft is the core of our long-term aircraft programme. But, if the Royal Air Force is not to be lacking in a most critical part of its capability for some five years, some arrangement must be made for bridging this gap."
  Today the hon. Gentleman said that this was not a stop-gap aircraft after all but that it was to run on long after the AFVGs had come into service.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Whatever the argument may be on this, surely an aircraft costing £2·1 million-plus is not going to last just until 1975? These 50 aircraft in their various rôles are bound to go on for about 15 years.
  Mr. Goodhew: I would not question that they are. All I am saying is that the original intention was that they were there to fill a gap and they would have a similar rôle to the AFVGs, but it is becoming apparent that they will have a different one.
  274
  On 8th March, 1966, the Secretary of State said:
  "We decided we must have some—not … simply as a contribution to an integrated allied force … but essentially as a conventional deterrent against intervention by others in peace-keeping tasks which we were carrying out."
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the reconnaissance rôle, and he then said:
  "This is the first requirement—reconnaissance. The other requirement—the strike rôle—is to deter the enemy's intervention …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 2040.]
  On 28th February of this year the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The other rôle is as a tactical conventional strike aircraft. Its purpose in this rôle is essentially to deter the escalation of the local conflict, to deter intervention by other powers in a peace-keeping operation by our own forces, as we successfully deterred, with the Canberras, such an escalation and intervention during the three years of confrontation…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 391.]
  What are the targets which we need to be able to hit to prevent escalation with which the V-bombers cannot deal? This is the question which I should like to ask.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Answer it.
  Mr. Goodhew: No doubt we shall get a reply later in the debate.
  On 8th March, 1966, the Secretary of State said:
  "We came to the conclusion that we could use the V-bombers … against less well defended or less distant targets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 2041.]
  Which far distant, heavily defended targets are we likely to want to attack with conventional weapons? Perhaps we can discover this later.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should answer that.
  Mr. Goodhew: I would have said that they were there to deliver nuclear weapons. Perhaps we can discover also the theatres in which these aircraft are to operate.
  On 8th March, 1966, the Foreign Secretary said:
  "The importance of the F111A, in my judgment, was that no alternative aircraft has been proposed which would have the effectiveness that would cause anyone to believe that we were serious about the rôle in the Far East …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 1958–9.]

  275
  On the same day the Secretary of State followed a similar line and said:
  "But the question was, how many, with these peculiarly sophisticated capabilties, with vastly supersonic speed at high level, with supersonic speed at ground level, and with a sophisticated nay-attack system, we were likely to need in the part of the world where we might face this type of problem, namely, the Far East"—
  We go on like this talking only about the Far East. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "Essentially, most of these aircraft will be based in Singapore."
  Later he said:
  "… in addition to the main base where these F111 s will be kept in the Far East, we shall also have minor bases in Bahrain, Masirah and in Gan, and if we are working with the Australians, in Darwin and the Cocos …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, cc. 2041–2.]
  With a force of only 50 of these aircraft, 10 of which are for training purposes in the United Kingdom, it is unlikely that more than 20 will be operational at any one time.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Nonsense.
  Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense", but we would like to know how many there will be if not about 20. We have tried to get this information before, but have not had it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us tonight. The Secretary of State is here now. Perhaps he will tell us. As the right hon. Gentleman has not risen, it is obvious that no information is forthcoming, as happens with so many of the questions that we put on this subject.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is not just a question of not wishing to oblige. From my short time in this office, I know that security issues are involved. This is not a laughing matter. I have just spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I think that one could at least give an approximate figure which would show that the figures which have been used today and in recent debates are wildly wrong. I undertake to provide a figure during the course of this evening.
  Mr. Goodhew: I am grateful for that co-operation.
  Mr. Healey: The party opposite never gave figures either of the total number of aircraft we had in any rôle or the number
  276
  of operational aircraft in any category. We have already gone a great deal further than that, and the fact that we have given a great deal more infomation has been widely welcomed inside and outside the House. But there are still some types of information which it is not in the national interest to give, and with great respect to the House I shall not give such information.
  Mr. Goodhew: That merely reinforces my view that we have to take our own knowledge of these matters generally and to say that it is quite clear that these aircraft are going to be used for a nuclear rôle, because there simply would not be enough for a conventional rôle. In any event, if they are to be spread in penny packets all over the Midle East and Far East they could not constitute a proper conventional deterrent.
  This year's debates begin to give the impression that the Government are shifting their ground and changing their minds about where these aircraft should be, and are going back to the idea that they should be in Europe. On 28th February the Secretary of State said:
  "This aircraft"—
  that is, the AFVG—
  "and the F111K were not intended only for east of Suez commitments. The French want the AFVG for Europe; they have no east of Suez commitments of any sort; and the last Government planned the TSR2, which the F111K and the AFVG will replace essentially for a rôle in Europe and not outside it …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 392.]
  On the following day the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "As I made clear in my speech last night, we shall need a replacement for the Canberras, the tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft, whether we are east of Suez or not. This aircraft replaces the cancelled TSR2, designed by the previous Government primarily as an aircraft for use in the European theatre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 477.]
  Where is this aircraft to be used, and for what? The Government cannot possibly maintain that there can be a credible conventional deterrent for Europe, the Middle East and the Far East at the same time. Perhaps we can be told whether this is just a further manifestation of the Minister's gradual conversion to the doctrine of "nuclear or nothing".
  I want to say a word about the AFVG. It is to be the core of our

  277
  long-term aircraft programme. It has been clouded by uncertainty over the whole time that we have heard about it. Even today there is no certainty that we shall have it—nearly two years after the cancellation of the TSR2. Not only have we not yet ordered all the F111Ks we need so much to bridge the gop; worse still, there is no decision on the specification of the AFVG. Even if that is agreed later this month—as expected; or is it?—there will be no decision whether or not to go ahead with a prototype until the end of this year.
  Under such circumstances it is most misleading—indeed, verging on the dishonest—for the Secretary of State to say, as he did on 27th February:
  "The Martel will be in service before the end of the decade, the Jaguar will be in service in the early 1970s. and the Variable Geometry Aircraft in the middle 1970s."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 98.]
  The Minister does not know that the variable geometry aircraft will be ready by then. There is nothing definite about it. Decisions have been taken on the Martel and the Jaguar and these are under way, but to talk glibly in the same breath of the AFVG as if it were in a comparable state is quite disgraceful.
  It is not only the House of Commons that is being encouraged to take for granted an aircraft on which no real decisions has yet been taken; worse still would-be recruits for the R.A.F. are treated in the same way. Two years ago, in winding up the Air Estimates debate, I remember paying tribute to those who had provided the excellent recruiting advertisements for the Royal Air Force. But I was disturbed to see one advertisement—only a day or so after the publication of the White Paper—which showed the AFVG as the
  "new strike and reconnaissance weapon of the R.A.F. in the 1970s and 80s",
  above a reference to the Jaguar.
  If this had been a company prospectus signed by some directors they would probably have found themselves in the courts in no time.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I accept full responsibility for that advertisement. I made absolutely certain that the future aircraft of the Royal Air Force were divided into two camps. If there was any suggestion of a false prospectus it is my fault. I
  278
  assure the hon. Gentleman that I deliberately made it clear that there was a division between those that were firm and those that were in the future.
  Mr. Goodhew: There are those up to 1970 and those after 1970. That is the division in the advertisement, which I believe was taken from the Sunday Times. It seems to me that we often hear directors saying, "We thought that we would have these assets in due course", but that excuse did not keep them out of gaol.
  I hope that the Secretary of State's optimism is justified. There is a danger that France will decide that the AFVG will be too expensive and will rely on her own single-engined Mirage 3G. There is also the important question of export prospects. We read reports that France will wish to be satisfied on this aspect before agreeing to go ahead. We know that the Government have been consulting prospective purchasers to see whether any adjustments to the R.A.F. specification are needed to attract a larger market.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will not succumb to the temptation to simplify the aircraft and reduce its capability to suit the requirements of less sophisticated foreign air forces, so as to achieve larger exports. We need this aircraft to carry out its proper rôle for the R.A.F., and it would be the worst possible decision to provide an aircraft which is not likely to be effective in the rôle that the Royal Air Force wants, merely for the sake of exports.
  We must hope that the Secretary of State gets agreement with France on a suitable specification and, in due course, a decision to go ahead with a prototype in December. We must also hope that the Americans do not produce a mini-F111 in due course, and dangle it before the eyes of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite just at the moment when the AFVG has reached the stage that the TSR2 had reached, and to say to them, "This is a cheaper buy", and have them fall for it.
  One thing that may not be appreciated by the House is the remarkable position that we have reached as a result of the cancellations of aircraft by the Government and the piecemeal provision for the operational requirements that they were to have filled. Whereas under a

  279
  Conservative Government the R.A.F. was to have just two types of combat aircraft—the TSR2 and the P1154—under this Government it is to have five combat aircraft—the F111K, the AFVG, the Phantom, the P1127 Harrier, and the Jaguar.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that his Government would not have had the P1127? He said they would have had two.
  Mr. Goodhew: I said that we would have had the TSR2 and the P1154 as combat aircraft. The P1127 is a less sophisticated type, but the Government decided to take it on. The point is that there are now five different combat aircraft. I wonder whether it is appreciated that this must place an immense burden on the Royal Air Force. First, ironically, there is the question of cost. I wonder whether the Minister later can give us some figures showing the additional cost of carrying spares and tools for five types of aircraft instead of two. This must militate against any supposed saving in unit cost per aircraft.
  Then there is the question of training and techniques. This applies not merely to aircrew but to maintenance staff. It must be an expensive item. I suspect that by the 1970s, when the payments for the F111s are falling due, when the cost of developing and building the AFVG has to be borne, and Phantoms and Harriers and Jaguars are being delivered, even hon. Members opposite will begin to wonder what the great Defence Review was all about. No doubt they will no longer be in office, and they will complain from this side of the House at the growing burden of the Air Estimates.
  I shall then hope to remind them that it was the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force who, in the Air Estimates debate 1965, complaining about the aircraft programme he had inherited said that
  "there would have been a fantastic expenditure on replacements bunched in the years 1970 to 1974".
  There will be a fantastic sum of expenditure bunched for some years in the 1970s under this Government, too.
  It was also in that debate two years ago that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the R.A.F. said:
  280
  "Over the last 10 years, the R.A.F. has suffered more than anything else from the frequent changes of policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite and, particularly in the last few years, from indecision and from delays in making decisions of any sort.
  What the R.A.F. requires more than anything else is a precise statement of the job it is expected to do set in the context of a clear worldwide defence policy and a knowledge of the kind of weapons and aircraft it will have to do the job.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 453, 454.]
  I hope that I have made clear this afternoon that there is still much indecision, that vital decisions over aircraft have still to be made, that the R.A.F. has not been given a precise statement of the job which it is expected to do, and, further, that there is no clear, worldwide defence policy in the context of which such a job could be set.
  If there was anxiety in the R.A.F. when this Government took office, it can have been but as a small cloud compared with the solid overcast created by the continuing chaos of the Secretary of State's continuing Defence Review, accompanied as it is by the menacing rumblings of the "cut defence at any price" brigade below the Gangway. In the battles which lie ahead, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see to it that the great Service which he represents in this House is always equipped with the weapons that it needs to carry out the tasks allotted to it.
  5.32 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: This is not the first time that the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench in these debates, but it is the first time that I have heard him. As we have co-operated in other spheres, I should like to say that I enjoyed the fluency and manner of his speech, if I could not agree with much of the content.
  I share his anxiety, for different reasons, about the extent of the commitments with which we have saddled the R.A.F. and our ability to meet them. I am as curious as he about the future of the Indian Ocean bases, although I should like quite different answers from the Government to those which he sought. He said that he was not sneering at the Government for planning civilian tasks for the Service, but if he was not attacking them, I do not understand what he was doing—
  Mr. Goodhew: I was not sneering at the work that had been done by the Services in disaster areas and in rescue work. I was sneering at the bald statement in the Defence Review which seemed to imply something quite different.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: There is a disagreement between the hon. Member and those of us on this side of the House who feel that there are useful and important tasks which the Services can perform in a civilian rôle.
  There were some points by which I was encouraged in my hon. Friend's speech. I was pleased with what he said about higher education and I think that we were all pleased by what he said on the rather macabre topic of funeral arrangements for relatives. We were delighted to hear about the humanitarian work of the Royal Air Force helicopters, which we all admire, and I was also delighted to hear that Transport Command will shortly be taking over all trooping and that the civilian charter firms, which, in the past, have provided some disgraceful aircraft for this purpose, will shortly disappear—
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: If the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) wishes to interrupt, perhaps he will do so.
  Mr. Lubbock: I simply wanted to ask, what disgraceful aircraft? Is there anything wrong with the Britannia?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. Gentleman knows, as does my hon. Friend, that in the past, particularly under the previous Government, a large proportion of trooping work was done by civilian charter aircraft. There were aircraft, for the maintenance of which the R.A.F. was responsible, which were a disgrace to this country. There were some unequipped, ill-maintained, old aircraft which should never have been used for this purpose and with the maintenance and servicing of which the R.A.F. Transport Command was saddled. I am glad to see them disappearing and I am glad to know that Transport Command will take over all trooping in the near future.
  I disagree with the basis of the policy of future commitments for the R.A.F. In view of the defence programme, I cannot help feeling that the Air Estimates amount to nothing less than a misuse of
  282
  public funds. My hon. Friend may have noticed that I was among those hon. Members who were not able to vote for the Government during the debate on the Defence White Paper. The reasons that I could not do so are the same reasons why I now disagree with him about the present deployment of the Royal Air Force and about the tasks which he has assigned to it. I want to explain what they are.
  Essentially, my reasons are that I believe that the Government's whole defence programme is wrong, that it is based on false and out-of-date assumptions. In particular, I believe that the deployment of the Royal Air Force and our other Services east of Suez is irrelevant to the United Kingdom's real defence requirements, is disastrous for our economic revival and is incompatible with our proper rôle in the modern world and the part which we ought to be playing as members of the United Nations. In other words, our east of Suez posture is militarily useless, economically crippling, and politically damaging for this country.
  In the last 30 years the British Empire has been demolished, not by any carefully planned long-term policy of British Governments, as we sometimes like to brag, but because the United Kingdom accepted the inevitable and withdrew from countries whose people or whose politicians would no longer tolerate British rule—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting away from the Air Estimates. This is not the time for a debate on foreign affairs or a general defence debate. He must relate his comments to the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am trying to explain why I cannot accept the Government's Air Estimates—because I believe that our commitments east of Suez impose an unrealistic burden on them. I hope that I may be permitted to explain these views.
  I was saying that, in a few places, we were driven out by violence, as we shall soon be driven out of Arabia; in others, we forestalled the violence and left on our own. Now we have to dismantle

  283
  what is left of our former Imperial commitments before they are dismantled for us. It is in an attempt to maintain those commitments east of Suez that an unfair and unrealistic strain is being placed on the Royal Air Force.
  I appreciate that shedding these commitments and leading the United Kingdom to a new place in the world, in the United Nations and in Europe is an extremely difficult practical, psychological and political task, but our defence policy and our posture east of Suez, which is entirely dependent—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not dealing with the Air Estimates at all but with general defence policy, and that is out of order in this debate.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will do my best to relate my argument even more closely to the Air Estimates.
  I was about to say that our defence policy and our posture east of Suez, which is, of course, entirely dependent on the Royal Air Force, points in exactly the opposite direction. In deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will jettison some of the other points which I wished to make in this connection.
  Our presence in Aden, in the Gulf, in the Indian Ocean and in Singapore is entirely dependent on a lifeline maintained by the Royal Air Force—and a desperately fragile and over-stretched as well as vastly costly lifeline it is. The whole huge British military structure east of Suez depends on one vital, weak, uncertain link—over-flying rights over Turkey and Iran to the Persian Gulf. At any moment, some political complication or disagreement with one of those two Governments could cut that link, with the result that the only secure air route to Singapore, Gan, Bahrein and Aden would be "west-about", across the Atlantic Ocean, American and the Pacific.
  In these conditions I am unable to understand how the Government can maintain the fiction that in 1967, even if it were politically imperative, we are able to play a reliable and credible rôle in the defence of Australia or New Zealand or in maintaining the security and prosperity of Singapore. The longer we attempt to perpetuate this fiction the more difficult it will become to deal with the underlying problems and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was coming to the Air Estimates. He has not done so. The precedents are clear. They are that remarks about the Service Estimates must relate to the Votes; to matters of administration and of the rôle within the defence policy which has already been established. It is not in order to have a general debate on defence matters, and I must, therefore, insist that the hon. Gentleman addresses his remarks to the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I defer, of course, to your Ruling. Perhaps you will permit me—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman is deferring to my Ruling, but he must come to the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will now comment on the problems and morale of the R.A.F.—the subject to which I was about to turn. Nobody who has seen the R.A.F. establishments at work—even briefly as I have done at Lyneham and Cyprus, in the last few months—can have anything but the warmest admiration for the cheerful and efficient way in which the men are carrying out their duties, despite the often inadequate and out-of-date equipment and aircraft which they are still required to use.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would not my hon. Friend agree that Lyneham is one of the best R.A.F. stations in the world and that the facilities there are absolutely first-rate? I ask this question because I want to be sure that he is not raising difficulties about the facilities at Lyneham.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I agree that a first-rate job is being done at Lyneham and that it is one of the finest passenger handling establishments in the world. However, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the men at Lyneham have had, and still have, problems relating to the use of aircraft—for example, the Comet II, which has been in service for a long time, the Britannia, which the civil airlines regard as an obsolete aircraft, wrongly in my view, although they welcome the new aircraft which are coming into service, including the VC10—and that they have been overstretched and have had difficulties. I was saying that in the Air Force the men are facing

  285
  exactly the same problem which faces the whole country in the wider context of defence they are being asked to do far too much with far too little.
  The Minister and his colleagues must be aware of the psychological as well as the physical strain which the unrealistic—for that is what I believe them to be—assignments which are being imposed on the R.A.F., and the sense of uncertainty and insecurity which is being caused by the knowledge that the R.A.F.'s present rôle is unrealistic and is bound to change is having on the men.
  At the end of the debate on the White Paper my right hon. Friend was unable to give an undertaking about the effects of our withdrawal from our over-extended and unrealistic commitments east of Suez. Naturally, a similarly unrealistic rôle has been ordained for the R.A.F., and I regret that I cannot accept the Government's case today.
  5.34 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I cannot say that I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) with interest, particularly when he made accusations about the "disgraceful aircraft"—his phrase—in Transport Command.
  Mr. Lubbock: The charter companies.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member for Swindon said that the men and engineers were having to fly and maintain aircraft which had been bought from B.O.A.C. and which should not be kept in service any longer. I suggest that he withdraws the statement which he made against these professional men who have rendered great service to this country in running these independent airlines, and the work which they have done on behalf of the R.A.F.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me on another occasion to introduce him to R.A.F. personnel who have had the task of servicing some of these civil charter aircraft. I assure him that he will hear descriptions of these aircraft in language far less Parliamentary than I have used.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I cannot recall the hon. Gentleman having raised this matter in the House. If he had information, why
  286
  did he not draw it to the attention of the House and kick up a fuss about it?
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I will send the hon. and gallant Gentleman the OFFICIAL REPORT references of Questions I have tabled on this subject.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Over the years most of us have been critical about this and other matters and have tried to improve the situation. I am vice-president of the British Airlines' Pilots Association. The Association has 4,800 professional pilot members, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that they will resent his remarks. He referred to "disgraceful aircraft". I thought that his speech was disgraceful. He obviously came to the House to make a speech on defence generally, probably because he was not called to speak in the debate a few weeks ago. He referred to unrealistic assignments being given to the R.A.F. I believe that the R.A.F. is doing a remarkably fine job wherever it is stationed, and he should be proud of the Service instead of criticising it.
  Mr. Noel-Baker Mr. Noel-Baker rose—
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I will not devote any more of my speech to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: I was not criticising the R.A.F. I was criticising the Government.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman made his own speech. He must be responsible for what he said.
  In dealing with R.A.F. matters in the last 12 months the Government have been completely split, as we have seen this afternoon. They have been split in their discussions on R.A.F. matters, in working out their policy and in providing the funds required to run in the Service. The 1967 White Paper lacks information about Government policy and planning for the future. It is all puffed up, but there is very little meat in it.
  Many outstanding problems facing the R.A.F. need clarification. For example, what is to be the R.A.F.'s position in N.A.T.O. if the projected withdrawals take place and if the Germans do not provide funds to offset the foreign currency involved? These matters are worrying not only Parliament but the R.A.F. The whole planning of the

  287
  Labour Government was based on the National Plan, but that document has been thrown in the wastepaper basket and the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for it has been transferred to the Foreign Office.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting a little wide of the Air Estimates. The National Plan is not in the Vote.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not wish to become out of order. I have great respect for you personally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and for the Chair.
  Had the Government been able to adhere to the National Plan the funds would have been available to provide continuity in the provision of equipment and to enable the men in the Service to perform their task adequately.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: An argument could be levied against the Government that £2,000 million, at constant prices, as a proportion of the gross national product, is different because the gross national product has been stationary for a year. This is an argument and it may or may not be the case. But surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not arguing that had the gross national product gone up, a larger sum would have been spent on the R.A.F. Is that the nature of his complaint?
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The Minister is as much out of order as I would be if I attempted to answer him. I will take him up on that on another occasion. Suffice to say that the economy is certainly stationary at the moment.
  The Secretary of State for Defence recently said that the V-bombers and Canberras would last well into the 'seventies. I took that to mean 1975.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Nineteen seventy-eight.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Then the position is even worse. The Victor bomber has been in service since it first flew in 1955. If it continues to fly in 1975, it will then be 20 years old. The same can be said of the Vulcan bomber. Nobody will suggest that flying at the speeds now required of aircraft a bomber of this nature should be in service for such a long time. We are told that these aircraft will be given
  288
  more limited rôles. That may be so, but a limit on a rôle does not mean a limit being placed on the throttle in the aircraft. The Canberras have been in service since May 1951. By the mid-'70s they will have been in service for nearly a quarter of a century before being replaced.
  The Labour Party stated a year or so ago that it would provide the men with the best and latest equipment. I was in Singapore four years ago with the hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of State at the Foreign Office. On that trip we heard the men of the R.A.F. complaining about the maintenance problems they were having with the Canberras. That was four years ago. Now they are being told that these aeroplanes will probably have to remain in service for another eight years. This is not a particularly cheering state of affairs for the aircrews and maintenance engineers—particularly coming from a party which said that it would do all the necessary planning.
  My hon. and learned Friend, if I may so refer to him, the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), asked the following Question of the Prime Minister on 22nd June, 1965:
  "Will my right hon. Friend confirm that internationalisation does not affect the fact that we own and will continue to own nuclear weapons or that we own and will continue to own the means of delivery?"
  That was a rather confused Question, if I may say so, but what the hon. and learned Gentleman was getting at is quite clear. The Prime Minister replied:
  "That is the position about ownership, but they will be committed, and committed irrevocably, to N.A.T.O. so long as N.A.T.O. lasts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1965; Vol. 714, c. 1465.]
  Up to date, British nuclear capacity for the Royal Air Force is not committed irrevocably to N.A.T.O. but remains firmly in British hands. I agree that it should remain in British hands—I have always taken that line, but it all seems very extraordinary.
  The promise made by the Labour Party and the Labour Government usually was that we would get rid of the V-bomber nuclear air capacity. The present Minister without Portfolio, speaking from these benches three or four years ago, virtually said that the Labour Party would put a match to the V-bombers. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys

  289
  Hughes) would probably agree with that view, but he is not a responsible Minister, which is the difference between him and his right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. One can see now why the party is split, not into two factions but into three, and why there are abstentions from Divisions on defence matters.
  I can see that the Victors and Vulcans have to be used east of Suez. They have been in Singapore for some time. I do not know whether they are still there now that the confrontation with Indonesia is over. We should be told. There is no secret about it. Thousands of Chinese and Malays in Singapore must know whether the V-bombers are there, but we in Britain are not allowed to know where they are. One could probably find out in American journals.
  The first ten F111Ks have been accepted for the R.A.F. at an agreed price of about £2·1 million. What will the remaining 40 cost? Are we to have an escalation of costs with these aircraft when we are firmly committed to them? The Government always boast that they are cost-conscious, but I do not see that at all. They should have agreed a price with the Americans when they ordered the aircraft, or at least a maximum price. One hears of considerable and complicated modifications taking place, as I believe the hon. Gentleman saw for himself on his visit to America—
  Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a fact that Senator McLellan has made it very clear that his Committee at least is determined that the United States taxpayer is not to subsidise the British taxpayer in the provision of the F111?
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The American taxpayers certainly pay less than we do—we are one of the most highly taxed countries in the world. However, I must not pursue that angle. I am concerned with what the British taxpayer will have to pay for these aircraft.
  I want to know the rôle of these F111s when they are accepted for the R.A.F. Will they or will they not carry British nuclear weapons? We have a right to know. We get information when we build a battleship or a destroyer. The Labour Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot conform to their responsibilities in line, possibly with the Americans and other allies, and at the same time
  290
  hold back the information and put on something to satisfy their own Left wing, We need some frank talk.
  In a Written Answer on 28th February, 1966, the Secretary of State said:
  "As I have often said, our primary need is to replace the Canberra as a tactical strike/reconnaissance aircraft carrying conventional weapons. But the F111 will be able to carry British nuclear weapons. The answer to the final part of the question is 'Yes'".
  The final part of the Question was whether the F111
  "… will be available for use without prior consultation with the United States or any other of Great Britain's allies,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 191.]
  We must know about this.
  Fifty aircraft is a dangerously low number. There will be accidents. There will be undercarriage problems. One or two will be out of action. The Royal Air Force will be likely never to have more than 30 of them flying at any one time. If some of them are kept in the Far East and the others scattered round about, it will be an ineffective force. It seems almost a waste of money to have such a limited number if these aircraft are to have a rôle in the Far East—and the Government must tell us about that rôle. The Times today refers to the F111 and says that the Secretary of State said that it is virtually the same as the TSR2. I do not agree. The country must play its rôle, and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was right when he criticised his own Government for keeping the commitment but cutting down the force and cutting down the money. Here, again, the Government are not being fair.
  I understand that the carriers will last until about 1975, but what is being done to follow on from them? I am sure that if Britain is to have a rôle at all as an air power the right answer is to develop vertical take-off aircraft as is being done with the 1127 and the research should be going on with the 1154. Money should be spent on a follow-on for the 1127 in the form of the 1154 supersonic vertical take-off aicraft. That would keep technicians in this country rather than go to America. We should then develop a small vessel of 15,000–20,000 tons from which the aircraft could operate. The cost would be very small,

  291
  and nothing like the cost of 50,000–60,000 ton aircraft carriers.
  I want to know more about the British and French project for variable geometry aircraft. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State has put a complete gloss on this project. I remember seeing him on T.V. when he was in Paris. One got the impression that everything was buttoned up, but when he was back in England the story gradually unfolded itself, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made it crystal clear how the House of Commons and the country had been misled. There is not even an agreement to complete a prototype. Instead, there is to be a conference some time this month to see whether we can go ahead with the project at all. The right hon. Gentleman even spoke of export orders when not even a prototype had been ordered.
  The Government cannot go on misleading the country indefinitely. I get the impression that already the country is beginning to question this Labour Government. Promises are made in all directions and people have just about had enough of it—and that includes enough of the Prime Minister himself; he has been dented thoroughly in the last few weeks. The Secretary of State for Defence must be frank, and must not mislead the House on this very important matter about the future aircraft that are to defend our country.
  The Under-Secretary of State referred, in passing, to Malta, and spoke of making use of Royal Air Force Malta personnel. I was not clear whether he meant making use of them in Malta or when they were brought back to Britain—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I meant Royal Air Force Malta personnel—that is, locally engaged personnel.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: While the Royal Air Force is in Malta full use should be made of the facilities there. The climate is right, the men like serving there and full use should be made of the facilities. The Government will find in the next year or two as they bring forces away from the Far East, Aden and possibly Germany that they will not have the accommodation here in married quarters or schools, and so on. The Government may have to eat their words and go back to the
  292
  Prime Minister of Malta to ask that more use of the facilities for the three Services, particularly the Army and the Royal Air Force, should remain.
  The Chief of Air Staff, Sir Charles Elworthy, a very good officer who has rendered distinguished service to the Royal Air Force, is shortly leaving to take up the post of Chief of Staff. All of us who follow these matters are grateful for what he has done in his great career. He is to be followed by Air Chief Marshal Sir John Grandy, who has just returned from the Far East. We wish him well.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member has referred to the F111. Air Chief Marshal Grandy flew the F111 and took the opportunity to have a good look at that aircraft.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: Knowing him for a great many years, I am not surprised to hear that. It is just the sort of thing he would do. I wish both officers well. I am sure that, in spite of all its troubles, the Royal Air Force still observe the traditions it has had since World War I and will go on fulfilling them.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. John Ellis: I intend, in this debate, to talk about meteorology. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in opening the debate, made reference to the Meteorological Office. I declare my interest in the subject because before coming to this House I worked in the Meteorological Office as an assistant scientific officer for 15 years.
  I make no apology for bringing forward this matter, because year after year, in our debates on the Defence Estimates, the very great problems—I agree that they are very great—are thoroughly thrashed out but we often completely forget that this very important national service comes under the heading of Defence Estimates.
  In the Estimates the provision for the Met. Office is shown as running at £7.2 million. This is broken down into service to the Royal Air Force, £3 million; to civil aviation £1·3 million; other repayment services £0·4 million; research £0·8 million; and basic weather service £1·7 million. I worked mainly on the Royal Air Force side and I know from experience that this kind of service provided over the years—because, naturally, with the advent of aviation weather was all-important to aircraft—has tended to grow alongside the aviation service as such.

  293
  This is mirrored in the figures in the Defence Estimates. Of the £7·2 million, £3 million is spent on the service which appertains to the Royal Air Force. The service given over the years has been very good indeed. That is not to say that we should not improve it, but, because we have always had this bias towards the Royal Air Force we have forgotten that meteorology also serves other sections of the community. It is for this reason that I speak in this debate. I believe more emphasis should be placed on the fact that much more money, although it comes from the Defence Estimates and is accounted for in this way, should be diverted to other meteorological services.
  I share with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who briefly alluded to it, my gratitude for the work of the Estimates Committee. The Committee works hard and its comprehensive work deserves much more attention than it has had so far. I am sure that I do not need to commend this to my hon. Friend. I have pointed out that the basic weather service accounts for £1·7 million, civil aviation £1·3 million and other services £0·4 million. All need much more spent on them. I refer now to services provided to agriculture. An excellent paper was written this year by the Director-General of the Meteorological Office, Professor Basil Mason, in which he examined the rôle of meteorology in the national economy.
  This is a very comprehensive work and I wish to prove to the House that we should spend much more on this aspect of defence so that we could save more money in other ways. I have chosen agriculture for this purpose and I shall go into quite a lengthy extract because it proves my case. The paper said:
  "Hay is a very weather-sensitive crop. In good summers the yield and quality are high and the crop is cheap to produce; in a wet summer it is expensive to harvest and quality is poor: the total annual crop is worth about £70 million. In these circumstances, the judicious use of weather forecasts to choose the best times for cutting and drying may increase the yield and quality of the crop by 10 per cent. with a benefit of £7 million. An improvement in the quality as well as the quantity of hay is of considerable importance to winter milk production, which totals about 1,000 million gallons valued at £200 million even at manufacturing prices.
  A poor hay crop could reduce this by 2 per cent. at a cost of £4 million. Thus the
  294
  potential value of the meteorological advice to hay and milk production is, perhaps, £11 million."
  Those are the kind of figures we are dealing with. When we look at the amount of money made available from the Estimates we find, demonstrated by this one crop, that we do the service slightly less than justice.
  The paper went on to say that savings in respect of animal diseases could be £4 million a year, in dealing with potato blight £1 million and sugar beet virus £1 million, and that if the service contributed only 1 per cent. to the total yield of wheat and barley it would amount to £2 million. [Laughter.]
  Some hon. Members may be amused, but all too often there has been lack of attention to this vital national service. Hon. Members may think that the debate has taken a strange turn, but I have taken advice and I understand that I am absolutely in order. Over the years the House of Commons and the nation have sadly neglected this very important service. I intend to continue to discuss it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If any hon. Member appeared to be amused it was by way of giving credit to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) for his ingenuity in raising this subject on the Air Estimates and still remaining in order.
  Mr. Ellis: Thus well fortified, I shall continue.
  We are making money available to the building industry. I understand from a Report of the Estimates Committee that provision is being made of money for this industry. In the national economy the building industry produces annually a value of £2,900 million. Bad weather affects the output of the industry by £100 million, or 10 working days a year. The outlay of money in this direction can save £10 million to the economy.
  Here we have a service which is costing the nation £7·2 million a year overall. The mass of it is in expenditure on services for the R.A.F. Then we come back to the paltry figures of the service to the rest of the economy. A comparatively small increase in the funds made available for this service could result in vast savings.
  The service rendered to agriculture and the intention in regard to the building

  295
  industry could also be duplicated in regard to electricity, gas and things like urban storm water drainage systems. The House should devote more time to this service.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will mention when he winds up an article which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on 12th March, entitled:
  "Britain to Get Met Forecasts from Russia".
  Part of our expenditure will go towards World Weather Watch. The article says this:
  "In five or six years Britain will get her weather forecasts from either Russia or America. Plans prepared by the World Meteorological Organisation mean that Britain will lose her place as one of the world's major weather centres. The new system will give more accurate forecasts and should benefit the world economy by about £6,000 million a year"—
  again there is this reference to the saving which could result from this service's being developed—
  "about 50 times the expected running costs."
  The important point about this article is that this is a serious and responsible newspaper apparently writing off the rôle of the Meteorological Office in the future. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that we intend to participate in the world weather watch system with part of the money allocated in the Estimates. Britain has a significant rôle to play. The money granted by the House in previous years has given us the cloud satellite, which is perhaps one of the best cloud satellites in the world.
  When I was at the Meteorological Office last year, I was informed that it had been amazingly good. Not only had it picked out cloud masses all over the world, but it had been possible to trace major ice formations. This information had been invaluable to shipping organisations and nations all over the world, so much so that, with the advent of winter and less daylight in the Northern hemisphere, the organisation was being pestered to see whether, by some refinements, it could extend the period in which it could obtain useful information.
  I want to refer to that part of the moneys made available for research—£0·8 million—and on the basic whether service, £1·7 million. There is room for improvement in relation to statistics. One learns
  296
  from talking to people about the Meteorological Office that many people have violent views. Some say, "The weather men are very good. I always go by what they say". Others say, "They are absolutely terrible". These people regard the Meteorological Office as being staffed by witch doctors who put a pretty chart on the television screen each night full of wiggles and squiggles and dots to represent rain.
  I would tend to question some of the figures given by the Meteorological Office. I made some inquiries through the Department about how accurate they were. I received this answer:
  "Taking all regions together the overall accuracy has worked out at 77 per cent. for the forecasts issued in the evening"—
  that is, for the following day—
  "and at 84 per cent. for those issued in the morning"—
  that is, for the same day.
  "There has hardly been any variation from one year to another."
  So, year after year, the myth has grown up in the Department that on a short-term forecast for the day, usually issued at 7 a.m., the Office is right on an average on about eight occasions out of 10. It depends on the criteria being employed. Those in the Department should pull up their socks. I learned that the accuracy of forecasts is judged as follows:
  "The elements checked are the nature of the weather (e.g., wet, stormy or foggy), wind, state of sky and maximum temperature. For each element marks are awarded according to whether the forecast is assessed good (2 marks), moderate (1 mark), or bad (no marks)."
  The House should remember that this is a scientific subject.
  The letter in which I received this information continues:
  "For each region marks are awarded by staff of the Meteorological Office in the region, who try to judge the forecasts from the point of view of intelligent laymen. The judges are staff at offices other than those which made the forecast and had no hand in its making."
  This is as far as I have been able to progress in this scientific field.
  The Meteorological Office should not make this claim of being right eight times out of 10 in the case of short-term forecasts unless it is prepared to say what

  297
  it means and what the criteria are which are used in judging. If I now say, as an immediate forecast, that it will either rain or grow dark before morning, I am bound to be correct. If an ordinary housewife reads a forecast for Monday, when she does her washing, that there will be rain in the morning and it will be fine in the afternoon, if she acts upon that information, and if the weather is the other way about, she is in serious trouble and will not regard the Meteorological Office as having been right. What if the Meteorological Office's criterion for judging whether its forecast was right is whether there was rain in the eight-hour period? It could then claim that it was right.
  I do not intend to harp on this, but the Meteorological Office should go into this a little more carefully. After all, it is a scientific subject. Millions of people are interested, and we have a right to know what criteria are being employed.
  I have made some criticisms, but I must make it clear that my view is that overall the Meteorological Office gives good service consonant with the amount of money invested in it. I thank the House for bearing with me in an interlude in this debate. It has been important and I think that the House should spend more time discussing this service, perhaps on this occasion every year.
  I will sum up in the words the Director-General used when he presented this very important paper, "The Rôle of Meteorology in the National Economy":
  "I think, however, that my estimates are good enough to show that the economic value of the civil national weather service is at least £50 million to £100 million per annum, for a cost of £4 million, with a probable overall benefit/cost ratio of about 20 to 1.
  In conclusion, I cannot but feel that the Meteorological Office gives the taxpayer excellent value for money; that, even so, meteorological advice is both under-used and undervalued; and that we should be able to make an even larger contribution to the national economy in the future."
  If the House is willing, we could make money available to the Meteorological Office on the other non-aviation sides and this would show an immense return and would be of benefit to the nation. In that light, I commend the service to the House.
  6.18 p.m.
  Mr. Tim Fortescue: This is the first time that I have had the privilege of intervening in a defence debate and I shall therefore perhaps make the great mistake of speaking to the Motion. If that is unusual, I can only apologise. The Motion states:
  That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 128,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1968.
  Being a newcomer to the defence debates, I have looked up in HANSARD what has happened in previous such debates. I find myself fortified by HANSARD of 3rd March, 1964, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), as the last Secretary of State for Air, introduced the Air Estimates with an almost identical Motion, which was:
  "That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 140,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965."
  My right hon. Friend said:
  "Because the overall manning position is so encouraging, we needed to recruit relatively few men directly during the past year … I have … kept the recruiting machine in being. Last year we recruited all the apprentices and boys required. Here I am again glad to say that the standard of applicants was high and competition for vacancies very keen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 1142.]
  I find that a somewhat doleful contrast to the report from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force today. We have been told that there are gaps which cause serious concern in many grades of the Royal Air Force.
  In the Defence Estimates 1967–68 the figure of 128,000 all ranks is given, but note 2 on page 145 says that 2,650 of that estimate is to cover unforeseen contingencies. I therefore assume—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—that the ceiling figure of which he talks will be 125,350, provided there are no unforeseen contingencies. That contrasts with the actual figure of manpower on 1st January of 124,300. If I am right, the Government are presuming, or hoping, that they will have 1,000 more men in the Royal Air Force by 31st March, 1968, than they had on 1st January, 1967. The Under-Secretary of State looks puzzled. Perhaps I am completely wrong.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The figures I gave in opening show that the manpower of the Royal Air Force will be smaller next year than it is at the moment.
  Mr. Fortescue: That is exactly the point about which I am rather puzzled. I am not seeking to make a party point, but from my research it seems that exactly the opposite is expected to happen. On page 66 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1967, it is stated:
  "The total strength … of the Royal Air Force was 127,600 on 1st January 1966 and fell to 124,300 on 1st January 1967."
  Therefore, the figure is now about 124,300 and we are talking of approving 128,000, of which 2,650 are for contingencies. I do not understand how that amounts to a reduction in strength, and I should be grateful for illumination.
  I and the whole House would like to know what percentage of the requirements of the Royal Air Force the 125,350 men represent. The Statement on the Defence Estimates seems to indicate that the figure for the Army is 1·2 per cent. short of the manpower ceiling figure. There is no such comment for the Royal Air Force, and we do not know whether the 125,350 men are what the Government want for the coming financial year, what they expect, or what they hope to have, or whether it is greater or less than they would like.
  In the same excellent Statement, on pages 68, 69 and 70, there are some disquieting remarks. On page 68, for for instance, it is stated:
  "Although that"—
  the recruitment—
  'of navigators has improved over the last year, it is still slightly short of the target. Recruitment for the main ground branches is a little better than last year, but it is still running 25 per cent. short. In the engineer branch, the number of graduates and professionally-qualified men who enter has again been extremely disappointing."
  The Under-Secretary of State referred to that.
  On page 69, it is stated:
  "… shortage of candidates for trades, … remains a matter of considerable concern."
  I was a civil servant a long time ago and I know that words such as "considerable concern" are not chosen lightly and ill-advisedly. There is "serious concern", "grave concern", "considerable concern". "slight concern" and "no
  300
  concern". "Considerable concern" represents a position in the middle of the gamut of concern which gives me considerable concern.
  Are we seriously short? Is the shortage endangering the maintenance of our aircraft? Is it expected to endanger that maintenance during the years to come? Paragraph 31, on page 70, states:
  "Interest in re-engagement…increased in the spring of 1966, … The improvement has not been maintained. Numbers in the second half of the year have fallen appreciably short of those required in many of the ground trades. It is estimated that about 65 per cent. of those required will be prepared to extend their service."
  Thus it seems to me that we have a position where the Royal Air Force in many of its aspects is considerably short of the manpower it needs.
  During the next year and over the next four or five years, the Royal Air Force will receive a large number of aircraft that are brand new to it. We heard all about them today. The maintenance work to be done on them will be new for most of the ground crews involved. Yet we seem to be shown that we have far fewer of those men than we need even for present requirements. What will happen when those new aircraft, with their new technical problems and far more complicated systems begin to enter service, and the ground crews needed to service them are seriously deficient in numbers?
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Doig: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force on introducing Estimates which show a reduction in cost. We had a succession of increases in the cost of running the Services under the previous Government and to find a reduction, however small, is very welcome. It is very difficult to bring that situation about, and, therefore, it is all the more commendable.
  In spite of that, however, I would like to suggest one or two more ways in which the Government could effect small savings. I realise that big savings are difficult, if not impossible, but if we go in the right direction of gradually reducing the cost we shall ultimately get what we want.
  A considerable amount of money is spent on recruitment every year. Why is

  301
  it so difficult to get recruits? The answer is simply that when a person signs on for any of the Services he signs away his freedom for a period of years. Even when they are unemployed, many people are very reluctant to do that. That is the first difficulty that must be overcome if we want to get recruits without spending large sums of money on attracting them.
  The basic way to achieve that is to put them on the same footing as the majority of civilians. If they are dissatisfied with their job and conditions after taking it on they should have the right to resign—not re-sign, but resign. I want to give an instance of a case in my constituency recently, a lad who joined the R.A.F. at the age of 17 and signed a long-term agreement. He was subsequently married and later had children. Then he was needed at home with his wife and family. He tried to get himself out, but the application was refused and then he offered to buy himself out and that, too, was refused. Ultimately, he wrote to me and I took up the matter.
  Finally, we got this lad out because he fulfilled two essential conditions. He had to have a compassionate reason for getting out and he had to pay £100 to buy himself out. He was not a pilot or a highly trained aero engine fitter, but a storekeeper. It is fantastic to suggest that it is impossible to release people like this. It may be a very good job, but it is a job which can be filled without any great difficulty. I believe that men should be allowed to resign if they feel like resigning.
  Secondly, if dissatisfied men are compelled to remain in the Services, the lives of others are endangered. Pilots depend on fitters to service their aircraft properly and if a man is dissatisfied with his job and "wants out"—and many of them do—he will not do as good a job of maintaining that aircraft as he should, and he will thus endanger the safety and even the lives of others if he is compelled ii, remain in the R.A.F.
  I am convinced that if we accepted the idea that a Serviceman could resign if he wanted, very few of them would, fact, resign. There are many dangerous jobs in the world and yet people are not resigning from them every five minutes.
  302
  On the other hand, we would keep the right type of person, the person interested in the job and we would remove many of the anomalies and difficulties which can now arise in Service life.
  The Government have said that they intend that more troops should be home based and I presume that the R.A.F. is included. If airmen are brought home to British bases, there will be many ancillary jobs now done in the R.A.F. by Service men which could be done by civilians. It is ridiculous that the R.A.F. should have bakers when there are ample bakeries in the country far better qualified to bake bread and which can bake it more cheaply and more efficiently.
  A baker in the R.A.F. has to be provided with a uniform, which a civilian does not need, and often with a house for his wife and family, accommodation which would not be provided for a civilian. If these extra costs were taken into account, considerable savings could be made by reducing the number of jobs done by Service men, particularly in this country, using civilians instead.
  From time to time it has been said that when Servicemen return to this country, some of them will become redundant as reductions in the forces are made and that some payment must be made to them on their redundancy. It is rather silly that we should pay men to leave the Services when they want to stay in and yet keep in men who are willing to pay to get out. That is a crazy situation which could profitably be considered by the Ministry.
  I turn to another constituency case—and this debate presents a wonderful opportunity for dealing with such cases. A man in the R.A.F., living in my constituency, was charged with an offence in the R.A.F. and was court-martialled. He applied for and was refused legal aid, so he paid his own legal expenses. He was acquitted and he then felt that he was entitled to a repayment of his legal expenses. The Ministry admitted that he had been wrongly refused legal aid, but said that even if legal aid had been granted he would have had to pay a share of the legal expenses himself. He was offered a refund of £1 6s. 6d. against his legal costs of £17 1s. 6d., not a very generous offer. In the letter which I received from the Ministry there was the remarkable statement that if he had been

  303
  honourably acquitted, he would have had a full refund of all his expenses.
  What other kinds of acquittal are there besides honourable acquittals? Is this honourable acquittal a decision of a court-martial, or is it something which has been invented by the Ministry? How many decisions can a court-martial reach? I have never heard before of an honourable acquittal and I would like to know the difference between an acquittal and an honourable acquittal. The difference to my constituent was more than £16.
  There is another way in which money can be saved. For a long time Dundee has been crying out for an air service. The obvious place from which an air service would operate has been the R.A.F. Station at Leuchars. It is only 15 minutes by train from Dundee and, now that the new Tay Road Bridge has been opened, it is only 15 minutes by road. It has all the required facilities and is a first-class aerodrome.
  When I took up this matter I was informed that it could not possibly be used, because such a use would interfere with what was then a fighter station. However, Dundee got a private company to run an air service from a grass air strip which belonged to the corporation. At the beginning of the year, after heavy rain the grass air strip became unusable and the civil airline applied to the Board of Trade, I am told, for the use of Leuchars for a limited period while the grass strip dried out. To my astonishment, this request was granted and the company used the aerodrome for a month. At the end of the month, it got an extension for another month, and I believe that it has been given yet another extension. As far as I can judge, there has been no interference with the functions of the R.A.F.
  I appear to have been misled in my correspondence with the Department. This airfield could reasonably be used by civil as well as military aircraft. The one excuse given to me has been that a civil aeroplane might want to land at the same time as a military aeroplane and that under some regulation the civil aircraft would have to have priority. If that is the excuse, it is very poor, because the regulation could easily be changed. Civil airlines would not in the least mind if an aeroplane had to do two or three more circuits in the area so as to give
  304
  the military aircraft priority. It is common for civil aircraft to fly 40 or 50 miles to another aerodrome in bad weather and airlines are not unduly worried by such an occurrence.
  Here would be an opportunity for the R.A.F. to save money because it would draw an income for supplying these facilities and presumably there would be landing fees and a charge for the use of certain parts of the airfield and for buildings and so on.
  Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend knows, does he not, that there are many of us in central and eastern Scotland, Members of Parliament, industrialists and others, who are right behind him on this issue?
  Mr. Doig: I thank my hon. Friend for his moral support.
  This can be done quite easily. It is not a coincidence that the first time that the R.A.F. could allow the civil airline to use its airfield without interfering with its military function, was when the civil airstrip became unusable. I am convinced, along with everyone else in the area, that it could be used all the time without interfering with the defence commitments of the airfield.
  This would produce a small saving, but there will be a bigger indirect saving, because the local corporation has been promised Government grants for a project to open a disused aerodrome at Errol. This is not so convenient for the city, and would cost a considerable amount of money to put into operational use. Why should we waste this money and have two very large areas of ground when we can do the whole job on one? This is a crazy set-up.
  We have been told about the R.A.F. helping out in national disasters. It does a very good job and many mountain climbers owe their lives to it. Mention has been made of the value to civilians of the R.A.F. weather reports. A charge should be made for this. There is a great deal of R.A.F. equipment and services which could be used profitably without interfering with its defence purpose. Some training has to be done somewhere, and it might as well be done usefully and at a profit.
  Hon Gentlemen opposite have referred to the fact that the bombers would be in use in 20 or 25 years' time. This Government have only been in power for a little

  305
  over two years. How long does it take from the time a decision is taken to build a new aircraft to bring it into use? Is it less than two years? If there is something wrong with the bombers that we are using now, if they are out of date, then some of the responsibility and the blame rests with the previous Government.
  The Under-Secretary should have a close look at the possibility of cooperation between Government Departments, civilian firms and the R.A.F. If this can be fitted in, and beneficial economies made, then such schemes of co-operation ought to be carried out.
  6.44 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has made many constructive suggestions, and I am sure that many other hon. Members would like to explore the suggestion that he made about the use of the military airfield near Dundee. One can think of several military airfields up and down the country, adjacent to centres of population where no civil airlines operate at present. Anglesey is an example. The Government ought to consider some relaxation of the present rules applied by the R.A.F., which I understand, allow the occasional landing at R.A.F. airfields. At present, I understand that it will not have any scheduled services, and I would like to know why.
  If the hon. Gentleman can assure the House that there would be no interference with the operational capability of the R.A.F. operating from this field near Dundee, he has a very good argument. As he points out, the taxpayer might derive an important source of revenue from landing charges imposed on the civil company. I also heartily agree with him in his comments about young men under the age of 21 being signed on for a lengthy period. It is wrong that this should happen in any of the three Services, because frequently a young man of 17, I think the hon. Gentleman said, does not know exactly what he wants to do. At the time he may think that the R.A.F. is the right career, but afterwards he may discover that some other vocation calls him, and that he has made a mistake. It is too late for him to rectify it then.
  306
  I should have thought that the Services would not want people forcibly restrained from leaving. Such people are bound to be discontented; they are bound to lower the morale of those remaining in the service. Even if adults are recruited for a long term of years this procedure should be abolished for all people under 21. The Government know that there has been a great deal of fuss about this recently and the hon. Gentleman is not the only one who has raised such a case in the House. There are cases of young men offered places in universities and prevented from leaving the services to take them up. There has been great hardship caused to the family life of persons prevented, quite arbitrarily from leaving.
  If the person referred to by the hon. Gentleman is, indeed, a storekeeper, then this is quite monstrous. One can see some point in the case of a trade or profession in which there is a shortage of personnel, such as the engineers, of whom the Under-Secretary spoke in his opening speech. In the case of young men, not following a skilled occupation or profession, I cannot see any reason for applying these harsh and rigid rules, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West will receive a satisfactory answer to his question.
  I must congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) on his speech. I am something of a connoisseur of the rules of order, and I thought that the way in which he managed to raise the problems of agriculture, building, electricity supply, and many other subjects too numerous to mention on the Air Estimates, was quite brilliant. He raised an important point about the cost-effectiveness of the Meteorological Office. It appears from the figures that he has given that, if additional money was spent on it, the Government might achieve substantial savings and aid the industries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  I would like to return to a point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) and I hope that I may do so without infringing the rules of order. In spite of the fact that we are not engaged in a general defence debate one must consider the east of Suez policy of the Government in relation to the aircraft procurement policies.

  307
  I would like to quote two passages from the White Paper in Chapter I dealing with this problem. Paragraph 26 says:
  "Our aim is that Britain should not again have to undertake operations on this scale outside Europe."
  Paragraph 27 says:
  "We are continuing our discussions with the Australian Government about the possibility of having new facilities in Australia. We are also examining what benefits we would get from a new staging airfield in the British Indian Ocean Territory. These arrangements would offer us greater flexibility in our future defence planning, particularly in relation to the Far East."
  Does not the House see some inconsistency between these statements occurring in successive paragraphs? If we are no longer to undertake operations in the Far East on the same scale as confrontation, we are merely talking about very limited police actions or perhaps actions in which we co-operate with other members of the United Nations in peace-keeping in those areas. We are not talking about the kind of operation which needs large nuclear bomber forces supported with all the other facilities which would have to be provided to sustain them in Far East theatres. We are talking about very limited policing operations which Britain would be unlikely to engage in by herself, but in which she would be likely to act in concert with her allies.
  I therefore wish to question the Government's policy of ordering the American F111 bomber and to relate what I have to say to the policy of remaining in the Far East indefinitely because the Secretary of State for Defence refused to give a clear answer to hon. Members who raised this matter in the defence debate. He told the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) that he was quite unrealistic in asking for a firm commitment to withdraw from that theatre of operation, that we might be staying there into the middle of the 1970s and that this is justification for ordering this very expensive American aircraft. The Under-Secretary of State may shake his head, but that is the opinion of many responsible commentators.
  Let me quote from the well-informed article by Mr. Charles Douglas-Home, the defence correspondent of The Times, on 27th February. He says:
  308
  "… there appears to be an inherent contradiction between that policy and the Government's present attitude to possible conflicts in the Far East. This year's White Paper says the Government's aim ' is that Britain should not again have to undertake operations of this scale outside Europe'"—
  I have already quoted that paragraph.
  "If the Government imagine that the only future operations east of Suez are to be small-scale policing operations, or internal security situations, where does a bomber force of this kind come in?"
  Mr. Douglas-Home makes precisely the same point as I am making, that we do not need F111 aircraft for that kind of operation in the Far East.
  The Financial Times of 1st March, 1967, said:
  "If Britain has a rôle cast of Suez in the 1970s, it is surely the preservation of order in small, delicately poised communities such as Singapore and Hong Kong, to which the F111 is largely irrelevant."
  The hon. Gentleman may disagree. He may think that for internal security operations an aeroplane costing £2·5 million is a suitable piece of equipment to use. But I contend that if it were not for the ridiculous east of Suez policy on which the Government insist this aircraft would not be in their forward commitments programme at all.
  In the defence debate, the Secretary of State said that the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft and the F111K
  "overlap in rôles and complement each other …"
  Later, he pointed out that the
  "Radius of action"
  that is, of the F111K—
  "is enormous and may often be required particularly in the maritime rôle when it is working from land bases which may be distant from a possible centre of operations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 391–2.]
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force paraphrased that this afternoon when he spoke about the vast radius of action of the F111K.
  I should like to know what purpose there is in having this vast radius of action if we are considering only operations in the European theatre. As the Secretary of State for Defence admits, the two aircraft are designed for much the same rôle, but in different theatres of operation. My point is proved, if I may say so, by considering the difference

  309
  between the French and British procurement policies. The French Government do not find it necessary to order these American aircraft because they are thinking only of operations in Europe where a more limited rôle is required and they do not need aircraft with a range of 1,900 miles which is said to be the radius of action of the F111K.
  If I may disgress a little, the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Air Force said that the Government were being much more frank about giving information to the House than the Conservative Government. I should like to know why it is that we can read articles in the Financial Times and The Times and, indeed, in most American magazines giving detailed performance of aircraft which we are about to purchase when we cannot get the Minister to give us this information in the house. Maps have been published—I have some here which I will show the hon. Gentleman—showing how the F111K would operate from the bases in the Indian Ocean. If this information is so widely available—and presumably a potential enemy can read The Times and the Financial Times as well as I can—why does the Minister persist in refusing to give this information to the House directly?
  The Government should look again at the question of security. They should not be so self-satisfied about the progress which has been made since they took office or always compare, as the Secretary of State did in an intervention today, their performance with that of their Tory predecessors. This is not good enough, and I hope that further progress will be made in this direction.
  Could we avoid purchasing the F111 if we had a fixed date for withdrawal from the Far East? I ask the Under-Secretary of State to give me a specific reply to that question. I believe that he can only say, "Yes". We could avoid the expenditure of £280 million, the large proportion of which is in dollars, if we did not insist on remaining in Singapore and in other theatres of action in the Far East. It is important to notice that no less than £260 million of the total sum will have to be spent in dollars, because this aircraft has a very limited British content. This is why I object far more to the purchase of the F111 than I do
  310
  to the purchase of the Phantom. Fifty per cent. of the work on the Phantom will be done by our own aircraft industry and not in Santa Monica or Fort Worth.
  The Government should appreciate the resentment that there is in the British aircraft industry that so much money is being spent across the Atlantic. This, as they must know, is a substantial reason why qualified people are leaving the aircraft industry and going to America to work and joining American firms which have set up design establishments in this country. If only the £280 million which we are to spend in dollars were available to the British aircraft industry, it could have made a substantial difference to the future prospects of our industry and the likelihood of retaining the sort of people we require.
  On the question of costs, I was reading in the Inter-Avia Newsletter, for some time in February, the testimony of the United States Defence Secretary, Mr. McNamara, before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said that no study had been made of F111 costs since the contracts were negotiated with the United Kingdom 18 months ago. He went on to tell the Committee that the Pentagon was presently estimating the unit costs of the F111A at 7 million dollars. This works out at about the figure of 280 million dollars for 40 aircraft. If we add on the £2·1 million for the 10 aircraft which we have already contracted to purchase, we find that the grand total is £121 million, which does not include the spares. I understand that it is not the normal practice of General Dynamics to offer a fixed contract for spares.
  What might easily happen if we buy these aircraft at less than their production cost price to the Americans is that after they have been in use for two years the price of the spares will increase so that the manufacturers will recover their loss on the first sale. This could easily happen even if the Secretary of State negotiates what he thinks is a favourable price for the 40 aircraft, the contract for which has to be signed before 1st April. I would like to know what provision will he made in the contract to guard against escalation in the cost of the spares.

  311
  I am not absolutely clear about the difference in price between the first 10 aircraft and the further 40 aircraft. On 27th February, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
  "As to the F111K, I am now discussing the ceiling price for a further 40 aircraft, and hope to place that order by the end of next month."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 99.]
  That indicates to me that the price for the further 40 aircraft is not the same as the £2·1 million which has been negotiated as the price for each of the first 10. I should like the Under-Secretary to spell out, because he certainly did not make it clear in his introductory remarks, whether it is purely a question of the British content of the F111K. Can we be certain that this will not lead to escalation in the price beyond what can reasonably be afforded?
  If we did not proceed with the F111—and I still hope that in spite of the fact that only a few weeks remain to the option date, we can reconsider the matter—we could go ahead with the purchase of more of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, which, the Under-Secretary and the Minister have said, are complementary to the rôle of the F111. The AFVG will cost only £1·5 million each as compared with £2·5 million for the F111. If we were to increase the production run of the AFVG beyond the planned 150 or 170, that of itself would bring about a reduction in the unit cost.
  All this money could be spent in Britain instead of our having to fork out scarce dollars, which will damage our balance of payments by paying General Dynamics.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member quotes £1·5 million as the price of the AFVG. Looking into history, has there yet been an aircraft with such complications that has remained at its first fixed price? Is there not bound to be escalation of cost during the course of design and development?
  Mr. Lubbock: I am not sure how authoritative the £1·5 million figure is. I do not think that it has been given in the House. I have taken it from the article in The Times of 27th February, from which I have quoted. I should have thought that in the light of previous experience Governments would be rather
  312
  careful about putting a price on an aircraft which will not fly for several years and that if the £1·5 million is an official figures which has been given to the defence correspondent of The Times, it is likely to include a substantial element to take care of any possible increases in price which may accrue before the aircraft comes into operation.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: Would not the hon. Member also say that as far as we know there is at present no evidence to suggest that the specification for this aircraft has been finally fixed? This must also give it a higher propensity to increase in price.
  Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member is right in saying that the design has not yet been finalised, but the performance specification has been outlined and we have, I gather, agreed with the French what we want this aircraft to do, which is not the same thing as putting the aircraft on to drawings. That of itself could affect the cost. If a figure of £1·5 million is being mentioned between ourselves and the French, it must have been gone into very carefully.
  If my suggestion were accepted and we had more AFVGs in place of the F111s, this would tend to bring down the unit cost, because the £200 million which it is estimated that the research and development of the aircraft will cost could be recovered over a longer period and would be less per single aircraft.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has not the hon. Member noticed that certain events have happened in France within the past few days and that there may be a Government in France which will be sensible enough not to spend so much on military aircraft?
  Mr. Lubbock: If that were the case, and there were a trend towards economy in France, that should help the co-operation between the two countries, which has got off the ground so well with the Jaguar agreement and now in the AFVG. If the importance of economy is uppermost in the minds of the French Government, they will try to have more co-operation between the two countries rather than less.
  That is the sort of policy which we should be pursuing in this country. Rather than spending dollars in purchasing aircraft from the other side of the Atlantic, I want to see even greater effort towards

  313
  co-operation with the French, particularly so that we can have common programmes and recover the research and development costs over longer production runs of the aircraft.
  Finally on the F111, the Under-Secretary did not give me satisfactory answers to my Questions to him about the performance difficulties. When representatives of General Dynamics came over here last year, they were extremely frank to a meeting of hon. Members upstairs. They told us that the drag was higher than had been anticipated and that they had the intake problems which caused surging of the engine in certain parts of the speed range.
  That meeting was something like a year ago, I think before the last General Election. At the Box this afternoon, the Under-Secretary said that he was sure that these problems would be cured. The fact is, however, that a year has gone by since they were mentioned to us by General Dynamics, and still the flight programme has not achieved the success which General Dynamics at that time anticipated.
  Evidence has been given again, I understand, to the Senate Armed Services Committee about continuing technical problems of the F111 and doubts have been expressed by certain senators about whether these can be solved at all, in spite of the confidence which has been expressed by General Dynamics and by the Government on this side of the Atlantic. We should not, therefore, be satisfied with assurances given across the Floor of the House which do not enter into any detail. We ought to know much more about the nature of these technical difficulties and what steps the United States Government are taking to see that they are solved before aircraft are delivered to us.
  I mentioned at the beginning of my speech the question of bases in the Indian Ocean. The Secretary of State for Defence told us that the cost of developing Aldabra would be small. I would like to know what he means by "small". Does he mean £1 million, £10 million, or £50 million, and exactly what does the sum include?
  In an article in The Times of 17th May last year, a former Sea Lord said that
  314
  development of Aldabra would be extremely expensive. I quote:
  "After studying the Admiralty charts for the area the Admiral concludes that an airstrip at Aldabra would be 'astronomically expensive and of great inconvenience'…"
  The Admiral, Sir Peter Gretton, described Aldabra as
  "four coral strips surrounding a lagoon which dries out at low water. The coral strips are intersected by mangrove swamps and the whole is covered with dense shrub and forest. There is no harbour for small ships and no good anchorage outside the lagoon."
  Sir A. V. Harvey: A wonderful place.
  Mr. Lubbock:
  "No fresh water is available and there are no piers."
  Does the Under-Secretary really pretend that it can be developed at small cost to provide a base for the F111?
  The hon. Gentleman was not able to answer my question to him about the average height of the land at Aldabra above sea level, but this is a matter of some importance. It is the reason why Diego Garcia was rejected as a possible base, because it is on average only 6 ft. above sea level and at many times of the year when there are hurricanes in that part of the Indian Ocean the airstrips would have been under water and it would not have been possible for any aircraft to land on them.
  Mr. Onslow: Can the hon. Member assist the House by giving the reference to the speech of the Secretary of State for Defence in which he said that the cost of development would be small?
  Mr. Lubbock: Yes, I can. I have not got HANSARD before me, but it is reported in c. 393 of 28th February of this year.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Defence went to considerable lengths to try to stop publication of the article by Sir Peter Gretton to which he has just referred—very understandably?
  Mr. Lubbock: I am not surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, in view of the facts revealed in that article.
  I have now found the passage in HANSARD to which I referred, and I see that the words were that the cost of developing it "will be very small",

  315
  and not just "small". How can that be reconciled with the description of the island given by the former Sea Lord?
  The next question to consider is where it is possible to get from Aldabra. I have before me a map showing circles drawn round numerous islands in the Indian Ocean which might have been considered as potential bases. The map is contained in an article by Major P. G. Boxhall entitled, "The Strategic Use of Islands in a Troubled Ocean", which appeared in the November, 1966, Royal United Services Institution Journal.
  It is interesting to note that Major Boxhall mentions all the potential bases in the Indian Ocean which might have been chosen by the Government, such as Socotra, Gan, Masirah, and the Cocos Islands. Having mentioned them all, he only deals with four or five, ignoring Aldabra altogether, presumably because it is not within reach of any convenient place, as I have discovered by drawing my own circle on the map.
  One cannot get to any part of India from Aldabra. With the range of the F111, one could just make Gan, and so continue across the Indian Ocean to the Far East. However, if the intention is that it is to be purely a staging post and not a base from which to attack a potential enemy, I should have thought that the Government would do well to consider the possibility of going westwards across the Atlantic to the Far East, instead of spending vast sums on creating concrete landing strips in the middle of nowhere.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether, for the purposes of operating the F111, it would be best to use permanent fixed bases? Are aircraft carriers not better for the purpose?
  Mr. Lubbock: The answer is that the F111 was supposed to be a two-Service aircraft, with naval and Air Force versions, but the weight has so increased that the Americans are having difficulty in getting the naval version to work at all, and it may not be able to land on the decks of the carriers which they have in operation at present.
  If we have this base on Aldabra, what defence is there to be against attack by naval units? Are there to be airborne
  316
  early warning radar, ground to ground missiles, ground to sea missiles, or ground to air missiles, and what other paraphernalia will it be necessary to have there to ensure the safety of the base in the event of armed conflict? If it is really a permanent aircraft carrier, there must be some sort of defence against hostile action by a potential enemy. Is the very small cost about which the Secretary of State for Defence talks inclusive of these other elements which would be necessary if one had a base for the F111 in the Indian Ocean?
  Have the Government taken into account also the cost of operating the base? If there is no harbour, as Sir Peter Gretton says, it will be necessary to supply the base entirely from the air, and we shall have to increase the number of logistic supply aircraft in Transport Command. What would be the cost of taking everything, including fresh water, to the troops and airmen who will be living on this island in the middle of nowhere?
  I think that the whole policy is absolute nonsense. If the Government insist on proceeding with the development of bases in the Indian Ocean, militarily there is no purpose in them, and, unless we have the answers to all the questions which have been raised today, the public generally will not be satisfied that the Government are attempting to control defence expenditure, as they have told the House and the country that they are.
  In short, we believe that the purchase of the F111 is inconsistent with the policy of withdrawal from the Middle and Far East. We believe that the establishment of bases in the Indian Ocean is a piece of gross extravagance. We are not satisfied with the rate of reduction of our defence expenditure as a whole and of spending on American planes in particular. If it were not for the certain knowledge that our action would be misrepresented by the Government, we should have liked to make our protest in the Division Lobby this evening.
  7.16 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I find myself in agreement with nearly all that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has said. The one matter about which I do not agree with him, which I shall come to in a moment, is the AFVG.

  317
  Before I say anything else, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the able way in which he opened his first Service Estimates debate.
  My hon. Friend said, with regard to aeroplanes, that, in 1964, we inherited a programme which was too late and too expensive. After hearing him, I am left with the impression that we are providing for our successors, if we have successors, a programme which will be even later and even more expensive.
  We require fighter cover and, in the Lightnings, which are American, we have probably got the best available fighters.
  Mr. Onslow: On a point of order—
  Mr. Paget: That was a slip of the tongue. We have developed the Lightning ourselves, of course, and in so doing we have probably provided ourselves with the best available aircraft. Expert friends of mine tell me that we have been highly successful with that aircraft.
  As for support planes, the Phantom is probably the best available successor to the Canberra, which has served us so well for so long. But I cannot feel that we have had a happy inheritance in the Harrier. We have been told that its price will be £500,000. My expert friends tell me that it is certain to cost more than £1 million. It will have a vertical takeoff capacity, but not when it is carrying any kind of load, and it is very unlikely to sell competitively with the Phantom. I cannot believe that it is good policy to attempt to develop an aircraft of our own when most people will think that there is one available which is better.
  When I come to the F111, may I say that I believe that by the time we get all the bits and pieces of equipment which go with an aeroplane we shall not see any change out of £3 million per aircraft. To be told that it is a reconnaissance aeroplane which will fly along a frontier in order to look over the wall when we feel that there might be a danger of war, is, frankly, an insult to our intelligence. If we want something to perform that rôle, there is no aeroplane which cannot do it. We do not have to go to America and spend £3 million on one to do that. In any event, if this kind of reconnaissance were done by aeroplanes at all it would
  318
  be done by a U2 type of plane, but, in fact, it is done by satellites.
  The F111 is a nuclear bomber, and nothing else. It is being disguised as something else because the Government wish to put an artificially low cost on their nuclear expenditure. But the F111 is a straight nuclear bomber. If we are to use it for any other rôle, even at the rate of American losses in Vietnam, where I should have thought there was the complete minimum of air defence, there is a loss of ½ per cent., which would bring the cost of flying this plane operationally at £30,000 a sortie.
  That does not make sense in any terms other than nuclear. Indeed, this is a nuclear weapon for the Indian Ocean to give an impression of nuclear power which, for a variety of other reasons, is totally incredible in that area. Therefore, if we are looking for defence cuts, this is the first economy that I would make.
  The AFVG was not mentioned by my hon. Friend in his opening speech. I congratulate him on this, because he knows as well as I do that it will not materialise. The development costs of the AFVG will not be less than £250 million.
  The American costs of the F111 are said to be £234 million, but they had a number of advantages. They had variable wing-lift experience. They had avionics experience stemming from the B48. They had the experience of the FA108 in this field, and they had the engine which had already been developed in the Douglas. To say that we can do it without any of those advantages, cheaper than the Americans, I do not believe for a moment. I should have said that £250 million was the very limit.
  To get a satisfactory Lightning Mark III took 10 years. The AFVG, even with French assistance, is so much more complicated a product than the Lightning that I should again be surprised if we see it in service in its final form before 1976 or 1978. By that time, at a production cost which, again, I think, will not come much under £2 million—Britain requires 200, France 100 with possibly another 20; certainly, Germany will not buy any, because she is far too tied up with the Americans, and nobody else will buy any—we will end up with a mini-FIII as expensive as the F111, and 10 years late. That is a folly which, I think, will not be proceeded with.

  319
  There is no sense in trying to maintain our aircraft industry by giving it Air Force orders for uncompetitive aeroplanes. I do not believe that that is a good thing to do. We cannot be competitive with really extensive developments the costs of which run to several hundreds of millions of pounds.
  The TSR2 is a very good example of that. We spent £130 million on developing the TSR2. It was our maximum pressure development. It took us six and a half years to spend that, and we were still a long way from having completed the job. The Americans spent over £100 million in a year. They have such development capacity that they can start two years after us, having got what they want, and they can finish two years before us. I just do not think that we can compete on those terms.
  We can produce a replacement for the Shackleton, certainly. We can probably produce a satisfactory "chopper" and develop one, and Heaven knows there is no greater need in the Army than that, but I cannot think that it makes sense for us to try to compete in this major field, whether or not we take on the French who, after all, have only a third of our capacity.
  I cannot see any future for the British aircraft industry by making it Anglo-French. It just has not the capacity. It has to be Anglo-American. It has to work as Chrysler and Rootes are working. If we attach ourselves to a major American unit, we become part of it and are used as part of it. It does not mean that the Americans do the sophisticated and interesting work and that we do not. On the contrary, they look at it on straight business lines. They know of our very great skills both in men and experience. They will use us in the development programmes. They are already trying to do so. They have a development unit here, because we have cheaper facilities, connected by a direct wire computer with America. We are already doing this. We could work as an Anglo-American aircraft industry. I firmly believe that an attempt to have an Anglo-French aircraft industry will fall flat on its face, because it has not got the market for its resources.
  Finally, I turn to the Estimates, where the real economies in the development programme are available. First, cut out
  320
  the F111 and AFVG. Those are nuclear bombers. They are nothing but nuclear bombers, and they have no other usefulness. Drop them. Secondly, the Army requires the Lightning, Phantom, and transport. It requires a lot of transport. How short we are on transport—and my hon. Friend knows the advice which he received—is shown by the fact that eight months were spent working flat out to be able to mount one and a third divisions on the Zambesi. That shows how short we are of transport.
  We want transport, but this is Army and it should become Army. The Navy want the HS801, but that is Navy. I cannot at this stage see any point in maintaining the expense of a separate and independent Air Force. We should have an Army flying corps and a Navy flying corps. We should cut out this nuclear role, which does not really mean anything. If the Government are serious about defence economies, this is where to find them.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) always speaks with an original turn of mind and with great expertise in our defence debates. Sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I do not. This evening I find myself in rather more agreement with him than I usually do. I shall be returning to his argument on the F111 later on. The hon. and learned Gentleman carried on the great tradition which has run through this year's series of defence debates in that he was highly critical of his own Front Bench.
  I would like to begin with a word of commendation for one thing that has happened in the Royal Air Force. A word of commendation is so rare that it has brought the Under-Secretary of State up with a jerk. Looking on the bright side, I think it is fair to say that for years the Royal Air Force has had a better career structure for its Regular officers than the other Services. By this I mean that officers have reached senior rank considerably earlier in their careers than they would have done if they had been in the Army or the Navy. At least one can say that the Royal Air Force has not had its career structure smashed as the Army's was last year by the disruption of the Territorial Army.

  321
  I believe that the Army will have to move much closer to the Royal Air Force system in its career structure and that it will have to do so by having a smaller proportion of officers to whom a career is offered until the age of 55. The Royal Air Force has a smaller proportion of career officers. It has more officers on short service commissions and more men who are commissioned from the ranks, and I am sure that the Royal Air Force pattern is preferable to the one that is followed in the other Services.
  Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who opened the debate from this side in such an admirable speech, said, there is considerable concern in the Royal Air Force about the impact which the new Defence College will have on flying training. I know that many problems will have to be worked out before the Defence College can get under way. For instance, what will happen under the new dispensation to all the foreign cadets who form such a valuable part of the student body in our present Service academies. It is difficult to see where they are going to fit in. I am sure that in the Air Force of the future, and indeed in any of the Services of the future, we cannot afford to offer a Regular commission with an assured cadre through to the age of 55 to anyone who is not capable intellectually of benefiting from a three-year academic course.
  There is not one officer or other rank in the Royal Air Force capable of benefiting from even a three-week academic course who is not able to grasp the fact that the decision to pull the Air Force out of Aden by the end of 1967 is stark staring mad. On the ground we are leaving the South Arabian Federation with quite a considerable force. There will be the Federal Army consisting of 10 battalions, and some of these units are very effective indeed, but in the air we are to leave Aden with next to nothing. By the end of this year there will be one Adeni pilot who will be supported by a handful of Airwork pilots flying eight jet Provosts, rather less than a handful of helicopters, and again less than a handful of Dakotas. It will be a puny, unimpressive, and ineffective air force.
  It is in the air that the main threat to South Arabia comes. I do not believe
  322
  that the Egyptian Army has either the skill or the will to try to hold the road out from Dhalla on the Yemen frontier down to Aden itself against the Federal Army or even local tribesmen, but it is plain that Nasser's Air Force can wreak havoc in this area. It has already bombed Saudi Arabia and got clean away with it from the point of view of world opinion. It has already invaded South Arabian air space and made ground attacks in the area. We know that Nasser's Air Force in the Yemen is well equipped with Mig.17s and even Mig.21s. We know that the pilots are ruthless and well trained in dropping poisoned gas on villages.
  Against that sort of force we are leaving eight Provosts and one local pilot. At the same time we are abandoning in Aden Khormakhsee, which only a couple of years ago was the busiest airfield in the Air Force, and taking away most of the highly developed radar and communications equipment. I do not believe that it is necessary to keep a large force of soldiers in Aden after independence, but I believe that we ought to be prepared to keep a squadron, or perhaps two squadrons, of fighters there to prevent Nasser's Air Force from dominating the air space over South Arabia at will.
  One would not want to be entangled there for ever, but I believe that we should be prepared to keep this Air Force detachment there so long as Nasser's soldiers remain in the Yemen. When Nasser withdraws from the Yemen, we can depart from Aden with at least some vestige of honour.
  During the past year I have seen something of the fine work which has been done by the Air Force helicopter pilots in Aden. But praise for the men who are doing this difficult and hazardous job does not mean that I approve in any way of the present demarcation line between the Air Force and the Army over helicopters. I am unashamedly a helicopter man, and recently I visited the American First Air Cavalry Division in the field in South Vietnam. This one division alone has twice as many helicopters on its divisional strength as we deploy altogether. They have achieved marvels of mobility. To give one example, I know of one battalion in that division which was in action 60 miles from its base camp within two hours of first being warned that some action was contemplated at some point.

  323
  I do not believe that we can put an air cavalry division in the field. The cost of raising, equipping and maintaining it in the field would take about half of the air Estimates which we are considering. This is beyond our present and our future capacity, but I am sure that within this defence budget we are spending too much on tanks and far too little on helicopters.
  One reason for this imbalance is the demarcation line in the use of helicopters which gives responsibility for troop-carrying helicopters to the Royal Air Force.
  Some years ago—I do not blame the present Ministers for this, because they were not in office—the Army geared itself to asking for a really substantial helicopter lift. It was conceded that it should have a ten-company lift, which means that there would be enough troop-carrying helicopters deployed on the ground to lift ten infantry companies simultaneously. Then there was a change in the Service responsibility for helicopters; responsibility was handed over from the Army to the Air Force.
  The Air Force put helicopters at the bottom of its list of priorities. That was quite understandable because, as a Service friend of mine said, "The Air Force is really only interested in flying at twice the speed of sound and the idea of hovering motionless in the air does not appeal to it very much." The Air Force is not yet sufficiently helicopter-conscious. I am not reassured by the remarks made earlier by the Under-Secretary of State, and I am not happy about the new family of helicopters that we are told are under way. Certainly I am not happy about the division of responsibility between the Army and the Air Force.
  What sort of aircraft then should the Air Force be flying at twice the speed of sound? I join those who have criticised the potential purchase of the F111, although on a different basis from that of most other hon. Members. Unlike the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I think that we should maintain a presence east of Suez in future. What worries me is that at present the Service is tied to an aircraft which is grossly expensive and unnecessary and will bring into even further dis-
  324
  repute our activities in that part of the world.
  Many hon. Members have quoted paragraph 26 of the Defence White Paper, which says that we do not contemplate, in the future, carrying out any defence activities even of the scale of confrontation with Indonesia. But even in the confrontation with Indonesia, in practice there would have been no rôle for the F111.
  It is true that the V-bombers were deployed in Malaysia at one point as a semi-deterrent to the Indonesians, but in the field the V-bombers could not be used, and the F111s canot be used in that sort of conflict. But even that sort of conflict, we are told, is larger than anything that we are going to enter into in the future.
  I see a need for the F111s if the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft does not get off the drawing board. I share some of the scepticism of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton about the fate of this project. The luck of this Government in foretelling the future has not been very good. I do not foresee circumstances in which we are likely to have to use F111s between 1970 and 1975. According to the Defence White Paper, it is highly unlikely that we shall have to use the F111s then—the period where there is going to be a gap. But the Government could easily be wrong. What can we do to produce some form of insurance against possible error?
  I offer the Government one suggestion. What about renting the bombers? Peter Simple has popularised the phrase "Rent-a-crowd". We all know that in certain countries one can shell out a certain amount of money in return for which a large and enthusiastic mob is produced which will beat up the local western neo-colonialists, and the Egyptians have shown that one can "rent a thug". The Egyptian secret service in Aden distributes a few pounds to buy a few young Adenis to throw hand grenades in the direction of British Service vehicles.
  If it is possible to rent people, why, instead of buying the F111s, cannot we say, "We will put down a deposit now with the American Government and if between 1970 and 1975 the international situation changes and a crisis suddenly

  325
  blows up on our front and not theirs, we will have F111s made available quickly from the large stocks that the United States Air Force will have on its strength"? The Americans should be happy with this. We would be paying for certain F111s and they would be held by the American Air Force on its strength. We should be able to take them over fairly quickly because we would already have paid for a certain number of these aircraft.
  We have signed a contract for a certain number, and our pilots would already be well trained. Certain equipment differences might arise but as chairman of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentary Standardisation Committee I would hope that standardisation had reached a stage in which it would not be difficult for those who had been trained on British F111s to switch to American F111s.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: My hon. Friend has put forward an attractive idea. The Government have already bought ten of these aircraft. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government were unable to purchase the aircraft they should nevertheless come to an arrangement with the American Air Force to buy spares at the same price as that which is paid by the American Air Force? Otherwise the British could be taken for a tremendous ride if there were an escalation in prices.
  Mr. Goodhart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. From what he and others said earlier, it seems that the problem of spares throws up one of the main economic Achilles heels in respect of the deal that we seem to be on the brink of making. The present Government may intend to go ahead with an order for another forty F111s. They may already be committed to a degree that the House has not been told.
  If they do go ahead, I would refer back to the entertaining speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), in which he cast some doubt on the predictions of the Meteorological Office. If the Government carry on in their present course of aircraft procurement, I would say with 100 per cent. Certainty—not just the 77 per cent. certainty which the Meteorological Office claims—that it will be a stormy future and that the storms will grow in intensity in the next few years.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force made a very disarming speech, as though he were presenting this huge Estimate of £545 million as part of the annual budget of the Y.M.C.A. or the General Methodist Council—
  Sir A. V. Havey: Or to the Labour Party.
  Mr. Hughes: Or to the Labour Party. The argument will be put to the Labour Party, "Look how we are reducing these enormous sums spent on defence." I see that in hard cash the net decrease in the Air Estimates this year is only £60,000. That is not very much. If they go on doing this until the next General Election, they will not be able to say that they have reduced the Estimates very much.
  It does not impress me to be told, "Look what the Tories would have done". I criticised Tory Estimates throughout their thirteen years. The TSR2 came in for considerable criticism. I aimed a few bombs at it myself. If the Tories had been in power, they would also have faced this financial and economic crisis and would have had to reduce expenditure somewhere—perhaps on the TSR2, perhaps somewhere else.
  The Air and other Estimates have been going up considerably year after year, and one of the main results has been the economic crisis. The Government have been spending too much. I wish that I could be convinced that this Government have any clear purpose of disarmament. The Minister for Disarmament recently put it off to the dim and distant future. But the economic crisis will continue, and I cannot see that those who have produced the general plan of which these Estimates are a part will effectively have reduced the Estimates by 1970.
  Then, of course, there will be an outcry from people who want houses, education, advance factories and hospitals, who will say, "You must cut this enormous expenditure." When they analyse these Estimates, they will get no sign that the Government will reduce them.
  I remember when five of us were thrown out of the Labour Party because

  327
  we voted against the Tory Estimates. But, in the defence debate, 62 Labour Members abstained. An increase from 5 to 62 is a considerable percentage in which I rejoice, and I forecast that this revolt will go on until by 1970 there will be very different Estimates. Otherwise, this House will be full of Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, with a big protest vote against this extraordinary expenditure.
  What are the arguments? The hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) is all in favour of the TSR2. The Government are all in favour of the F111K, and the Liberal Party are all in favour of the French variable-geometry aircraft. Let us examine these one after the other. We can rule out the TSR2, because in five years' time it will be so obsolete that no one will want to go back to it—[Interruption]. If the Government are going back to the TSR2—
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member is probably not aware that his own Government, when they cancelled the TSR2, put a steamroller over the jigs and tools, so that it would be impossible for anyone to go back to the TSR2, even if he wanted to.
  Mr. Hughes: That only shows what the Estimates are likely to be in 1970. It adds to my argument that until we reverse the policy these Estimates will go up without any Government giving a convincing reason for them.
  Let us be candid. If we are to have aircraft as deterrents, surely it is better to tell those whom we intend to deter, "We can destroy your countries, burn your cities and burn up alive your women and children. That is the power of our deterrent." This is precisely what the F111 is. That is one of its purposes. My hon. Friend did not mention the phrase "atom bomb". He made no mention of nuclear weapons at all, but that is the reality. If there is to be a deterrent and it is to deter the Soviet Union, surely we should be able to show the Soviet Union that we can destroy Moscow, Leningrad and all the other cities in that vast territory.
  The Under-Secretary said that the F111K could get anywhere that it is wanted. That may be so, but there is not much sign that it could ever get back.
  328
  What is likely to happen? Even if it does its reconnaissance, if the Russians think that atom or hydrogen bombs will be dropped on their territory, someone will press a button and we shall receive a rocket. There has been no mention of rockets. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) will remember the Question which I used to put 10 or 15 years ago—how can fighters bring down rockets? There has never been an answer.
  We are talking now about 1970. What is the argument between the U.S.S.R. military people and those of the U.S.A? We are out of the argument, as we do not have the rockets. Mr. McNamara said about two months ago that by 1970 the Russians will be able to kill 75 million people in the U.S.A. On the other side, the Russians probably have the satisfaction of knowing that the Americans are capable of destroying 75 million people in the U.S.S.R.
  Those who have the money and resources are now not thinking of aircraft but about rockets. The latest defence argument in the U.S.A. is concerned with inter-continental missile missiles. It is said that some American cities can be protected while others cannot. In this argument, there is a demand for other American cities to have an adequate anti-missile system. They are saying, "If New York and Washington can be protected by this system, why not Detroit and San Francisco?" Things have gone so far that the Russians can, by pressing a button, bring down any type of missile that is directed towards the U.S.S.R. Despite this, they admit that a few might get through. What chance do we have, with our little pea-shooters, against their megaton bombs?
  It is obvious from what is happening that the Labour Government are continuing the strategy of the former Conservative Administration, with the difference that they are trying to pare down the expenditure on grounds of economy but not on grounds of strategy and commonsense. In this connection, I asked a rude and indecent question of the Minister of Defence not long ago, when I wanted to know the cost of an H-bomb. I was told that if we divulged that information we would be revealing a secret to the enemy. Of course, the real enemy is the British taxpayer.

  329
  We read in the Estimates, in the item concerning stores, that we are spending £26 million on arms, bombs and explosives. That is a lot of money, particularly since they will never be used. I say that because the whole argument is to the effect that they will not be used. We are, therefore, piling up enormous expenditure and wasting the brains of science and engineering when they could be devoted to something else. We are doing this in a way which cannot stand the test of examination. I regret that the Government are continuing, in a slightly different way, the policy followed by Tory Administrations for so long.
  When in Opposition my hon. and right hon. Friends time and again criticised the then Tory Government for the policies they were following. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General regularly catalogued the mistakes they had made; Skybolt, Blue Streak and the rest. At the conclusion of the term of office of the last Tory Government we tabled a Motion censuring them for wasting £20,000 million in their 13 years of office. What will be the cost of all these gadgets when scientific development has made them obsolete? The Opposition will list Green Streak, Red Arrow, Blue Murderer and whatever other gadgets we contrive to make—under whatever names they may go—in just the same way, proving that the Labour Party is also prepared to waste enormous sums of public money.
  The TSR2 is too expensive, the F111K is a gift to General Dynamics of America—which, incidentally, also manufactures Polaris—and the French variable geometry aircraft, in which the Government are showing so much interest, appears to be a mixture of the two. But have hon. Members noticed what has happened in France in the last few days? Something that was incalculable has occurred. Are hon. Members now prepared to say that there will always be a Right-wing Government in France? I do not believe that there will, and I hope that the Left-wing Government there will proceed boldly to cut down their defence expenditure and have the sense to give a lead in international affairs which the present Labour Government here are, unfortunately, not prepared to give.
  I rule out every one of the present projects on which the Government are engaged. In an age when the Russians
  330
  can press a button and send a rocket to the moon and when they can demolish this island completely at the turn of a switch—if they can hit the moon they can certainly hit us—all the preparations that we are making are out of date and these Estimates should be reduced to, say, £500,000 a year.
  I fix the figure at that amount because, as the Minister said, the R.A.F. has a valuable rôle to play in peacetime. Consider what our Service men did at Aberfan—but I wonder how much of the total R.A.F. Estimates are in respect of that emergency? It is all eyewash to say that we need a vast Air Force. We have no need to spend vast sums on bombers if we want our troops to be of assistance in times of disaster. If that were so the Russians could say, "We need a vast Air Force in case there is an earthquake in Tashkent. We may need vast forces to do the necessary rescue work." That sort of remark would be as relevant as the argument adduced by the Minister. Bombers have no rôle to play in such a rescue.
  If the F111K drops an atomic bomb, that will be equal to a thousand Aberfans, and innocent people will be killed. Our hearts were touched when we read about the schools which were obliterated and the women and children who were killed in Aberfan. The Under-Secretary knows the valley as well as I do. If we drop an atomic bomb on a Soviet or Chinese city, or anywhere else, we will be committing a great crime against humanity.
  The money which we are asked to vote today would be better employed in developing the civil aircraft industry. I will not elaborate this point, except to say that if a small fraction of the money that has been wasted since the war had been spent on developing civil aircraft—instead of the sort of aircraft about which we are speaking, which will become obsolete before long—we would have had an entirely different situation in the civil aircraft industry and we might even be leading the world in this sphere.
  I regret that the Government have not been bold enough to scrap the other projects just as they decided to scrap the TSR2. I regret, too, that we have not been told the truth. When they talk about targets, what do they mean? They mean destroying millions of people in

  331
  other parts of the world, knowing that immediately they started the answer would be here in ten minutes and we would be obliterated, too.
  The Government are carrying on what I call an expensive modified suicide policy, and there is no justification for it. I remember hearing the present Prime Minister trying—in, I think, about 1960—to explain the Labour Party defence policy at a Labour Party conference in Glasgow. He made a very interesting defence of the then Labour Party policy, which has since been buried and forgotten. Then question time came. A little woman from the Shettleston Co-operative Guild asked him: "Look here, Mr. Wilson, would you press a button to drop an atomic bomb?" He said: "No, no, I would not." Well, if one is not to use the deterrent or press the button, what is the use of it? So I believe that the futility of this—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very skilful up to date in keeping in order, but he is now getting into the realms of broader debate on defence. He must keep to the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the little woman from the Shettleston Co-operative knew the relevance of that remark.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not doubt the importance of what the hon. Member says, but I doubt whether it is in order in this debate.
  Mr. Hughes: I quite understand. My disadvantage is that that little woman is not present.
  I have been posing these questions for the last 18 years. I suppose that I shall continue to do so. Although my speeches are disregarded, I believe that it is not argument but the sheer force of the development of science that is making this defence policy and these Air Estimates absolutely irrelevant to the future. Therefore, we will continue our opposition next year, when I hope that we will get more than 60-odd people who will refuse to agree to this kind of policy. And the numbers will grow and grow until the Government have to re-think the whole of their defence and foreign policy.
  8.13 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Hastings: I do not think that anyone in the House disregards the speeches of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He is most persuasive and, if I may say so, we always enjoy listening to him. But he is a very difficult man to follow. He comes faithfully to the House for each defence debate and makes his C.N.D. Trafalgar Square speech with great skill. In fact, if I did not want him to be made uncomfortable I would say that he should be sitting on the Floor of the House throughout the defence debates instead of in his place.
  However, the hon. Gentleman's purpose is different from that of most of us. He does not come to these debates to ensure defence cuts, but, if he can, to ensure that our defence is done away with altogether. That is what he wants, and a large number of his hon. Friends think the same, if not to the same degree at least to some degree. It is something of which the country will become more clearly aware as time goes on. As he has said, those 60 or more abstainers may grow into a larger number next year, and it will not be long before the country wakens up to what they stand for—
  Mr. John Rankin: Was the hon. Member referring to me?
  Mr. Hastings: No, I should have skipped one. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire is perhaps not so hot on his "French geometry", at least he understands what the F111 is for. It is a nuclear weapon system—he is perfectly right.
  The other thing that he seemed to be saying to the Government—and I hope that I got him right—was that they are following Tory defence policies, but are not doing it as well as the Tories did. I think that he has something there—
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: I said that they were not spending so much as the Tories.
  Mr. Hastings: I interpreted it in a different way. I do not wish to exaggerate what the hon. Member says, but that seemed to be the general tenor of his remarks.

  333
  I am afraid that, basically, the hon. Gentleman's position is not a very honourable one. Boiled down to essentials, what he and his Friends say is that if a man who is bullying you is bigger than yourself you should not resist,, because it will hurt and you can do nothing at all about it. That is the basis of the hon. Gentleman's thesis on defence, and I do not think that the House need have any great difficulty in rejecting it.
  The main debate has so far seemed to centre increasingly around our difficulty—and it is not confined to this side—in assessing, first what the Government's intentions are on air defence, and, therefore, what their real requirements are and secondly what aircraft fit which requirement. Just two years ago they inherited a balanced and integrated programme which the Under-Secretary referred to as being based on what has been described as a "mobile" airforce; that is, aircraft all capable of operating from jungle or rough airstrips and able to cope with the threat in any foreseeable theatre.
  They were interdependent and, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) said, in his most able speech, there were only three types—the Hawker-Siddeley 681, the P1154 and the TSR2. Of course, they were expensive, but in time they would have produced for the Royal Air Force—and I doubt whether even the Under-Secretary would wish to dispute it—the finest all-round equipment in the world, and it would have been well ahead in many respects even of the American equipment. I have no doubt that, again in time, they would have achieved massive exports as well, and this is one of the most important and real aspects of saving on defence.
  They are now all in the dustbin. We have six operational types instead of the three—the American Phantom, the F111K, the C130, the British Harrier, the Anglo-French Jaguar and the "French geometry", as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire so eloquently called it. I cannot understand how it can be argued that the reorganisation of the R.A.F.—and the Under-Secretary seemed to refer to this with some pride—which this involves will save any money. The massive difference between spares, between maintenance systems, and
  334
  so on, must in the end have an adverse effect on costs.
  I want to refer briefly to what is perhaps the most controversial aircraft of the lot—the F111K. This is based on the same operational requirement, OR343—originally OR339—as the TSR2. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, the requirement was passed to the Americans years ago. The only justification for this aircraft is in the tactical strike and reconnaissance rôle for the Far East, or for nuclear attack against the Russian heartland from bases in this country.
  Now, I want to ask a question of the Under-Secretary. I know that this is a complicated matter, but perhaps he will try to put me straight about it later in the debate. The original American navigation and attack system was only consistent with what one might term a nuclear degree of accuracy. It was not nearly as sophisticated as the TSR2. We have changed our requirement and the F111A has become the F111K. This is largely a matter of electronics.
  I do not want to touch on the other technical difficulties in this aircraft. They have already been debated fairly widely—the question of the air intake, the drag factor, and so on. To meet our requirements, I think it is necessary for North American Automatics, Texas Instruments and the other firms, completely to redesign the computing system and indeed to add computers. I believe that the design they have produced is so closely related to the original TSR2 design that it must be a copy. I want to know whether this work is on schedule; whether it is in any way consistent with the delivery dates for the aircraft as published in the White Paper, and mentioned by the Under-Secretary today.
  It was, I think, to become operational in 1969, but I fear that this will not be so. I fear that it is way behind. This work is extremely complicated to carry out and very expensive indeed. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that the price of £2·5 million is in no way firm when there is no ceiling price yet negotiated for this highly sophisticated equipment. I think that it will go higher; I do not think that we shall sec any change out of £3 million for this aircraft. The House should realise that when this plane is delivered, if it is, for

  335
  service in 1969, without that electronic equipment to our specification and working, it will be quite useless. We might as well have a motor-bus. I hope that we shall have an explanation from the Under-Secretary of how things are going with that project.
  Another factor about the F111 bewilders me, perhaps because of my technical ignorance. It has been demonstrated with a considerable bomb load, one imagines conventional bombs fixed to the extended wings. What happens when the wings fold and it goes up into the high rôle as opposed to low flying? It would be as well for the House to hear the answer about that. I agree with all hon. Members on both sides of the House who have identified this aircraft as what it is, a tactical strike and reconnaissance aircraft with a nuclear rôle based on OR343, and a highly sophisticated system at that. It makes no sense in any other rôle, but, whether or not the rôle is still necessary to us in present circumstances depends on our interpretation of the British Government's intentions.
  Many hon. Members have already drawn attention to the inconsistency of paragraphs 26 and 27 in the chapter on policy and planning in the White Paper. In the first paragraph, it is said:
  "Our aim is that Britain should not again have to undertake operations on this scale outside Europe."
  Yet in the next paragraph we are told that arrangements are being made which
  "would offer us greater flexibility in our future defence planning, particularly in relation to the Far East."
  This is not clear. Not only is it not clear to us, but it is not clear to many other people.
  Mention has been made—I believe that the Under-Secretary said something about them—of negotiations with the Australians. The Australians are very concerned about our intentions in the Far East. There was an election in Australia last year in which the present Minister of Defence, Mr. Fairhall, made a considerable point of this. One of the issues in that election was the question whether Australians should go on with their assistance to the Americans in Vietnam. He argued that one of the main reasons why we have to do our duty in Vietnam and regard the situa-
  336
  tion in the Far East as one in which we must be physically involved, is because the British are going to get out.
  That was never denied and there was much publicity about it. Why was it not denied? We have communications with Canberra. We are trying all the time to sell military aircraft in Australia. Some of them, the Jaguar and particularly the AFVG, have a perfectly understandable operational rôle in the Far Eastern theatre. It was because the Australians did not believe in our certainty of purpose that TSR2 did not sell in Australia. It was not on technical grounds. The same may be happening now. I hope that the Government will take note of this uncertainty and reflect that it is not found only in this House, but wider in the world, that our intentions for Far Eastern defence are a mystery.
  I hope that it is not too much of a jump in logic if I pass to the connection, which I am sure will have occurred even to the present Government, between our own military requirements for aircraft, our technical and technological advance in this field as a whole, and our exports of aircraft. All three are linked. If we take a decision to get out of the Far East we shall affect the other two factors as well. We should never forget—and the Royal Air Force ought to be as conscious of this as any other sector in aviation—that the Plowden Committee reported the potential market for military aircraft to constitute 85 per cent. of the world market for all aircraft for the next 25 years.
  We hear a great deal, and have done since the beginning of this debate, about savings on defence. Indeed, sometimes I have wondered whether hon. Members opposite are more interested in saving on defence than in defending their country. A lot of what has been said on this has been questionable, some of it purely bogus—the talk about bringing the boys home and abandoning position after position abroad regardless of the chaos and suffering which would be caused. Little has been said about the sensible exploitation of defence requirements and know-how for profit. The Secretary of State has a direct responsibility here, because his Department includes sections of the administration directly involved.

  337
  The timing of research and development for these military projects is of great importance. It must be related to the world market and not simply to the redundancy of British equipment. There is a difference here. I give two examples to show what I mean. There was a design by the British Aircraft Corporation for a Gnat replacement which was aimed to replace the American P33, which will phase out in 1970 or thereabouts. If that had been able to go ahead in time the design might have competed in that large market, but because it was envisaged by the Ministry of Defence that the Hunter and the Gnat would continue until 1974 the project was abandoned.
  The second is the Jaguar which, happily, is now all right. Why? If my information is correct, we originally saw the Jaguar coming in to meet our own requirements in 1974; we did not want it before. It was the French who insisted on 1970, because of their requirements. This is a logical difference of view in terms of our own equipment alone. I am arguing that for new research and development our timing must be geared, not simply to our own equipment, but wider if we want to prosper in the world market for military aircraft in the long run.
  I want to ask, in this connection, whether the Under-Secretary is satisfied with the extent of the liaison which exists between the Operational Requirements Committee, a critically important Committee for the whole of this technology, on the one hand, and Mr. Ray Brown's Branch—Defence Sales—and, I think it is called, the Export and International Relations Division of the Ministry, on the other.
  Here I have a specific question to put to the Under-Secretary about what it has so charmingly been called "the French geometry"—it will always remain that in my mind from this time onwards—the AFVG. Does the hon. Gentleman know—I have no doubt that he does—that the Americans are well advanced at the moment with a feasibility study for an aircraft of about 40,000 lb. all-up weight—half the size of the F111-with an operational range of about 1,000 miles, and with the same low-high-low performance as is envisaged for the AFVG and which I believe is known as the AFX? This aircraft, if I am right, is in direct
  338
  competition with the AFVG. The only inconsistent passage I noticed in the hon. Gentleman's speech was when he said at the end that he did not see any necessity to discuss the AFVG in this debate, although it has been said—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On the contrary. I hope that I did not say that. I said that I thought that there was every reason to, in response to a question asked by one of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Hastings: I accept that. I must have misheard the hon. Gentleman.
  This aircraft, as his colleagues in the Government have said—I think that the Secretary of State for Defence has said this—is the core of our military aircraft programme in the future and, therefore, of critical importance. A feasibility study is now being conducted on an American aircraft which appears to be a direct competitor. The important point is that the final decision to go ahead or not with the AFX will, I understand, be taken next month. If the Americans go ahead, it will be offered to N.A.T.O. So precisely the same position will arise as we had with the TSR2 and the F111 a few sad years back. Both these animals are the same, but there is a difference in timing. The Anglo-French variable-geometry aircraft is certainly ahead.
  There is no time to be lost, if this is true. That is why I am asking this in the context of the liaison between the Operational Requirements Committee and the sales side. If we are to avoid another tragic clash of interests here, which would damage the Americans, although the scale is different, just as it would damage ourselves and the French, it is time for us to make an approach to the Americans, to suggest that they drop this project; to suggest that, instead, they build the AFVG under licence. They would thereby save their research and development costs, which will be very large indeed. It is possible that they will need a higher thrust for interception at higher altitude than we or the French want for the AFVG, but this is not beyond the bounds of their technology. General Dynamics know the materials only too well. If more thrust is necessary for the engines, I have no doubt that Rolls-Royce could produce it.
  For a variety of reasons, of which the Under-Secretary will be well aware, the French are very unlikely to take any

  339
  initiative in this matter. Therefore, it is up to the Secretary of State for Defence to do something about it. To cross the Atlantic—not, this time, in order meekly to abandon British projects, but to suggest stoutly to the Americans, with the strongest possible logic behind him, that they drop their AFX and take on the AFVG, thereby laying a genuine bipartite base for the European and American military aircraft industries. What one might term the "soft market" for military aircraft in Europe for the Americans is and should be coming to an end. All that is needed is a little determination and work, especially in Anglo-French co-operation.
  I was very impressed by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, who is always perceptive and challenging. He made a very important proposition, saying, in effect, that he thought that Anglo-French co-operation was a flop and would be seen to be a flop, and that our only hope in the long run would be an Anglo-American aircraft industry. To say the least, that is worthy of argument, but I shall not dilate on that point. I should probably be out of order if I did so.
  I think that the dangers of what the hon. and learned Member suggested are considerable for our continued technological progress. I do not believe that it is necessary or beneficial, and I do not think that the Americans would necessarily welcome it, either. We have reached a point where if we pursue with determination these projects, particularly the military Anglo-French projects, we can genuinely establish a competitor industry to the United States, which would be good for both them and us. I hope that the Government will consider it worthwhile to go ahead on this basis with the AFVG.
  Finally, I should like to make a plea—not for the first time in the House—for a better and more realistic management of our military aircraft projects. The Royal Air Force is involved here although it is not the only Department involved. I spent some time recently in the context of the TSR2 project, trying as best I could, as a layman, to consider and delve into this extremely complicated area of administration. I still detect the same old faults as were apparent during
  340
  the life of the TSR2 project—the endless proliferation of committees in Whitehall, the inability to take decisions except at the top of an enormous pyramid, a preoccupation—frequently futile—with watching short-term expenditure, and the consequent examinations of every project which leave resources idle and send costs soaring.
  Our administrative machine is incapable of understanding, as the private manufacturer must, that time is money, that it is no good stopping the whole massive production machine at regular intervals to assess whether the idea was good in the first place. Of course, one must continue to assess that, but one must not stop the production machine, for if it is stopped costs will inevitably go up, as they did with TSR2. When we make up our minds to go into production, to make a military aircraft project for the R.A.F., let us make it and make it quickly. Let us plan it for the world market, and consider that at the same time. That is the real way to save money on defence in the long run.
  But, alas, there seems to me to be little sign of change as yet. I, for one, should be very grateful if the Minister could say something about this complicated subject at the end of the debate. The Government have sought as best they could today to rationalise what I believe to have been an erratic air-defence and procurement policy over their two years in office. But nothing they have said, however persuasively the Minister concerned may have said it, will ever atone for the damage they did during their first months of office two years ago. They decided first on these major questions and thought afterwards. In doing so, they set a pattern of Alice in Wonderland planning which has characterised practically all their provisions for our defence ever since.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I speak on these matters from a profoundly different point of view from that of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). But during the Christmas Recess I read his book "Murder of the TSR2", and in my view it is required reading not only for all of us who talk on these subjects in the House but also for Whitehall. Although I could not

  341
  accept many of the hon. Member's conclusions, I hope that any civil servant or member of the Defence Department who must deal with these matters will give a careful first and second reading to what the hon. Member wrote.
  Mr. Hastings: I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for what he has said. In relation to the size of the problem the book was a humble effort, and there is room for much more study. I know that the hon. Member thinks deeply about these things, and I would enjoy reading a book by him about the subject as seen from his point of view.
  Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps it had better not appear while the Government of which I am a supporter is in power!
  I hope that the hon. Member's point about great complexity and related matters is taken notice of, because, as we have often said before, this kind of subject can be dealt with meaningfully only by a Select Committee. I hope that the Select Committee on Science and Technology, of which the hon. Member and I are both members, might be persuaded some time in the not too distant future to turn its attention to certain of the programmes mentioned this afternoon. Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) made his decision on the TSR2, a decision which I profoundly supported, there has been a quiet reversal of Government policy, epitomised by the decision to go ahead with the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft.
  There is one point I want to pursue. The hon. Member spoke in terms of a tie-up with the United States and said that we should say to the United States, "Do not let us make the AFVG while you go ahead with a competitor." That was the basis of his argument. I wonder whether that is very realistic and whether, even if the American Government wanted, it could persuade American industry to allow such a decision to go ahead. It might be very difficult to persuade American firms competing with each other to come to this sort of agreement with the British.
  Secondly, there are powerful opinions in the United States, not least General Dynamics, which has a glaring and ob-
  342
  vious vested interest, which say that no plane using variable geometry techniques which is less than 70 per cent. of the weight of the F111 is technically viable or feasible. I wonder whether to brush that aside, saying that the Americans have a vested interest in putting forward that kind of view, is altogether wise.
  I very much welcome the Government's announcement on the sad question of Servicemen's bodies being brought back home and the decision to allow parents to go out to funerals. As a constituency Member, perhaps I have had more than my share of these tragic cases. The decision announced this afternoon seems both humanitarian and rational.
  I do not think that there is any difficulty on the subject of the Lobby correspondent, Mr. Shrimsley, because merely by looking at what had already been printed in HANSARD he could have evolved the article which appeared in the Sunday Mirror. I drew his attention to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration on this subject and, resourceful Lobby correspondent that he is, he built up an intelligent story.
  But why did it take so long to arrive at this decision? I do not think that one can blame the present Government, because many of us were pressing the former Administration on the same issue. However, was this a Treasury matter, or were there certain difficulties in the Ministry of Defence which have been overcome? Do we have an assurance that an investigation will be made into the subject of embalming bodies in the Far East and Middle East? To my knowledge, it is not as difficult as it might have appeared to get bodies embalmed in the Far East.
  My next question is concerned with staging posts. I am somewhat mystified, because there can be one of two possibilities. Either we need staging posts against a sophisticated enemy, or we need staging posts against an unsophisticated enemy. That is almost a glimpse into the obvious. If it is against a sophisticated enemy, what is to stop one of these so-called staging posts from being wiped out by nuclear or even conventional attack? If it is against an unsophisticated enemy, in what circumstances would the British Government

  343
  use a staging post against a unsophisticated enemy in the Far East? It must be one or the other. I refer to The Times of this morning:
  "If the V-bombers will be able to penetrate to European targets until 1970, it can hardly be claimed that any Asian target will reach that sophisticated level of defence by 1975."
  It goes on:
  "Moreover the threat to stability in that part of the world comes from subversion, insurrection, unemployment and under-nourishment—hardly conditions which can be deterred or defended by supersonic bombers."
  It is not very often that we on these benches below the Gangway and The Times are in agreement.
  It is profoundly sad that we can talk in terms of setting out upon expenditure such as this. Some say minor expenditure, and others agree with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that it will be serious expenditure. It is sad that the Government can become committed to this kind of expenditure in setting up staging posts when the priority ought to be for the fourth Indian five-year plan. That is where the stability of South-East Asia will lie and not in this kind of fantastic and grotesque scheme of staging posts on atolls. It was this kind of consideration which prompted some of us not to support the Defence Estimates this year.
  May we hear something about the activities of the Royal Air Force in Thailand? I put that as a simple question, without any innuendo.
  I come now to the F111. When does the United States agreement on the F111 options come up? Is it to be decided in a few weeks, and if so, what precisely are the facts about this aircraft? What does my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary mean by the F111's vast radius of action? It is my understanding that this radius of action has been severely curtailed by considerations of weight.
  Is it true that the F111 is now up to 35 tons? Has the United States Navy turned it down because it is already too heavy to land on carriers? If this is so, what is the effect on cost, because my understanding is that originally 1,750 F111s were ordered. If the United States Navy has turned the F111 down, it seems likely that there will be only 1,500 ordered. A reduction of 250 at the margin will have a considerable effect on unit cost. Can 50
  344
  aircraft really be of operational use? Apart from anything else, and I am not qualified to go into the secrets which my hon. Friend, probably rightly, refuses to give about how many will be operational at a given time, is there not a natural reluctance to hazard such expensive aircraft?
  When one reads about the crash at Edwards Air Force Base on 19th January, one begins to ask questions about wastage. If the report of this crash is to be believed, even the most experienced test pilots, men of great skill, have difficulty in manœuvring such a complex machine. While there might have been other reasons—the degree at which the wings were set for example, for this particular test crash—it seems that when one has the most experienced test pilots of America making mistakes, then over the years there will be a very heavy wastage rate.
  Is it true that Senator McLellan is extremely concerned that after the initial sale the United States taxpayer should not subsidise the British taxpayer over the sale of F111s? As far as I can make out the Government have said nothing about the conditions of sale, not of the first ten F111s, but of the following 40. Perhaps we could be told precisely what are the conditions of sale, should we take up the option on the following 40? It would be extremely interesting to hear what the conditions of sale will be. We can have the figures for American wastage at a later date. At the moment I am merely asking for a factual statement on the conditions of sale. What is to be the logistical support? Is this entirely to be in terms of the Hercules aircraft to which my hon. Friend referred? What is the cost of logistical support? The House of Commons deserves to be told a great deal more on this subject than it has been told. Several hon. Members have asked about the question of drag. Is it up to the 35 per cent. reported in the technical Press?
  Finally, on the F111, precisely what are the offset agreements on the F111? I would find it deplorable if we found ourselves taking 40 F111 aircraft which the Government decided they did not want merely to honour our offset agreement. I should have thought that it would have been possible even at this late stage for the Government to manoeuvre and perhaps to change the offset agreement if the

  345
  decision is that we do not want more than the ten F111 aircraft to which we are already committed.
  What is the precise nature of the offset agreement? As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, and in the presence of hon. Members who have been or who are members of the Committee, I believe that this is something which should concern the Comptroller and Auditor General and all who work with him. We should be absolutely clear as to what we are letting ourselves in for.
  If my hon. Friends say that I get too hot under the collar about these matters, I say to them that it is much better to have our rows now, to have our discussions now and to probe in depth now before an irrevocable decision is taken than have the humiliating experience of the former Administration of delving into matters like Blue Streak, Sea Slug, Thunderbird and Firestreak after the financial damage has been done. Now is the time for controversy, not later.
  That is why I come to the AFVG. I have grave doubts about the figures which we have been given for research and development. The Government say that the figure is £200 million. Some of those in the aircraft industry tell me that it will be at least £300 million. I should multiply it by the average factor of actuality above estimates which we have had since the war in these matters and put the figure at £500 million. In my view, that is a fairly legitimate estimate.
  I had a Question today which is relevant to this matter. I asked about the estimated total cost of the Concord project at various dates. This was the reply of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse):
  "In November, 1962, the development cost"—
  that is, of Concord—
  "was estimated at £150 to £170 million. This was revised in July, 1964, to £280 million. The present estimate is £450 million, which includes an allowance for work after Certification of Air-worthiness, plus an overall contingency of £50 million, making a total of £500 million"—
  an increase of over 300 per cent. The reply continues:
  "These figures do not, of course, include intramural expenditure".
  I am not sure what "intramural" expenditure refers to, but I suspect that it includes the Fatigue Stress Laboratory at
  346
  Farnborough. I should be curious to know how many more millions are involved in intramural expenditure. With the problems of kinetic heating raised by the AFVG, I am sure that particular units will have to be set up at Farnborough, at the R.R.E. at Malvern or at other research establishments to cope with the development of the AFVG. I cannot bring myself to believe that the research and development cost of AFVG will be confined to £200 million in the light of Concord experience.
  The United States experience is totally different. I will not go over the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Orpington, except to add that the Americans had the experience of the X15. They are now on their fifteenth test aircraft in the development of the F111. I do not believe that it is possible to test 15 aircraft without incurring a great deal more expenditure than we have allowed for in the £200 million for the AFVG. Nor do I see us as so dramatically ahead of the Americans that we can do without the series of test aircraft that they have deemed necessary. How can we British do this relatively cheaply not using the generations of know-how that the Americans have built up?
  What about the increase that may come with the final specifications, and what about the time factor? I understand that the F111 has taken 24 months from the drawing board to production. The time for the AFVG from drawing board to production is said to be five years, and time equals money. Great cost differences are implied in the time difference. I wonder whether these have been taken into account.
  What research has been done in low-level terrain bombing at supersonic speeds, or is the terrain bombing equipment not actually to come into operation at supersonic speeds? What research has been done into flutter testing? It is all very well for the Government to say that they have gone into greater detail than ever before, but one cannot go into detail on an aircraft which is not yet fully defined either as to range or weapons, which does not yet exist and for which there is no kind of British precedent.
  What about the titanium research? If it is not to be mostly titanium, what research will there be on the projects connected with kinetic heating? All this

  347
  is immensely expensive and cannot possibly be covered within £200 million. Therefore, as one who for three years spent every Tuesday and Thursday on the Public Accounts Committee in Room 16 upstairs, I have the gravest doubts about the future of the project.
  One can add all sorts of other problems. What research is to be done on exhaust nozzles? What research has been done in matching the intake to the compressor, and when does Britain hope to begin any meaningful evaluation of drag? If the F111 has problems of a 35 per cent. drag, I cannot see that the AFVG will not have similar problems. Once one gets into wind tunnels and that kind of research, the costs escalate by factors of three, four, five or even ten.
  There has been a good deal of misunderstanding concerning unit costs. I have no hesitation in accepting the Government's word that a unit cost of £1·5 million is based on a production run of 300. I thought at first that it was supposed to be on a production run of 1,000. Does not this, however, assume a smooth production run? Do those who have knowledge of this kind of industry have the temerity to assume such a smooth production run? Surely, all our experience in the aircraft industry in the last 20 years shows that a smooth production run is an optimum state which does not come about. I marvel at the thought of a unit cost of £1·5 million on a production run of 300.
  What are the ground support costs likely to be? What about maintenance and running costs? Any meaningful evaluation of unit costs seems to me to be very misleading if it does not take into account maintenance and running costs. We can see this from the chastening experience which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have had, and I am not disposed to be very critical of them tonight. They will remember Seaslug, which started with an estimate of £1 to £1½ million. Later, it was found that the direct development costs of that missile rose to £40 million and would have been £70 million with control and guidance equipment. Then there was Thunderbird, which started at £2½ million and was found finally to be £40 million. Then Firestreak escalated from £4 million to £33 million, remember it?
  348
  Winding up the debate on Blue Streak, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister quoted the Financial Times with approval:
  "We should leave to General de Gaulle the fatuous search for national prestige through the belated and the technologically inferior production of weapons that belong in the arsenals of powers richer than ourselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1960; Vol. 622, c. 330.]
  However careful we are in these matters, I refuse to believe that there are not inevitably a substantial number of mistakes. To put all one's eggs in the basket of one or two prototypes is an operation which does not justify the risk.
  Winding up the defence debate in January, 1963, the Prime Minister said:
  "We believe that a nation's greatness depends not on prestige military policies, but on the influence which we can exert on the forum of world opinion."
  Contrast this aviation medium-term cost curve with the things which we are doing or are not doing in relation to developing countries, housing, education and our other vital commitments. I am fully sensitive to the fact that you cannot cancel military expenditure and, hey presto, produce houses overnight. But you can avoid taking catastrophic long-term weapon decisions.
  Again, we have to go on to the question of the Anglo-French variable geometry plane and exports. My understanding is that the Government now take the attitude that exports will be "gravy" and that anything gained in exports will be extra. But one has to ask to whom one exports? I might take issue with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire who wanted to export the TSR2 on what he described as a massive scale. If we are talking about the export of arms, I want to ask some questions, because I am not happy to support the export of sophisticated arms to lots of small Powers—such as Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. One has to ask the Government to whom one is to export Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. The answer comes back, in public, "To Belgium." Belgium is a small Power, and I cannot see her buying the AFVG on any significant scale.
  So we come to the Germans—yes, Germany is said to be a good market—and I want to quote again from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who, most

  349
  eloquent of all, referring to a purely European deterrent, said
  "…it would face the Soviet Union with the most provocative challenge the West could in its folly devise, a nuclear force which included, and might be dominated by, Germany. I think that we have all referred at one time or another, some of us from quite deep personal knowledge, to the Russian obsession—I do not apologise for the word; it is understandable when one considers their history and their 20 million dead in the last war—about the Germans. I believe that to endow Germany with nuclear status"—
  and I remind the House that the AFVG aircraft is nothing if not a nuclear strike aircraft—
  "would mean the end to our hope of easing East-West tension and a successful conclusion to the efforts now being made in East and West to make co-existence work. In spite of our preoccupation with weapons systems, which we have been debating this week, let us keep clearly before us the paramount aim, to mount successful negotiations between East and West."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 1245–6.]
  The context is different. The point is the same.
  I again come back to this question of Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. If it is thought that we are going to sell a substantial number of such aircraft to the Western Germans—even if the French would allow it, which I doubt; and not going into the German joint-funding operation with Lockheed and the E.W.R./Fairchild Hiller tie-up—let us be quite clear that it will disturb the growing relations which we have been building up with the Russians. After what Mr. Kosygin told us along the passage about his views on the West Germans and nuclear weapons, Leningrader as he is, he ought to understand these matters—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is getting wide of the Air Estimates at the moment. He must come back to them.
  Mr. Dalyell: I respect your views, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Export of Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft on a large scale is a highly dangerous and undesirable concept.
  I wish to raise a technical point on this matter of exports. I understand that in November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked in terms of what he called a "datum aircraft". That was in the context of selling Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft to the Nether-
  350
  lands. If he speaks in terms of "datum aircraft", how can he later talk in terms of altering this, that or other specifications? It might be possible to alter specifications, but one cannot do so without raising costs substantially. If there are to be modifications for export, the House should be told precisely how much those modifications will cost.
  I come to the question of our relationship with France. The building-up of this project is often referred to in terms of a step towards the European technological community, something which some of us want very much. I have written about a European Technological Community in the Press and elsewhere. I yield to no one in my desire for European technological co-operation, but I want to be quite clear on what we are co-operating, the nature of the break clauses, and whether the French are likely to go on with it.
  As I understand it, no French spokesman has said that he wants a strike aircraft. The French, as I understand it, want a reconnaissance aircraft, an interceptor, and they are well on the way to making one because Dessaults are making the Mirage 3G. It is all very well to say that a Mirage 3G is a one-engine aircraft, that the French Government will not place orders for this, yet I cannot see Marcel Dessault going ahead with an aircraft which his Government is not going to order. That is one point.
  My next point is that if one is really sticking to an interceptor, a reconnaissance aircraft, a one-engine aircraft is quite a sensible proposition and not at all stupid because it does not happen to perform the sort of rôle for which airmen rightly want two engines for limping home after a distant sortie in a Vietnam-type war. What is wanted by the French is a short-range aircraft and it makes sense to have a one-engine aircraft.
  Therefore, we should look sceptically at a situation where the French are going ahead with the Mirage 3G to suit their own purposes, a situation in which they can invoke a break clause at will. We should ask what is the Government's view in the eventuality of Britain being placed in a position where she may have to continue this project alone. In the absence of an east of Suez rôle in the mid-70s, why should Britain require a strike

  351
  element, not required by France? I am as certain of this as I have been of anything in my political life—I forecast here and now that sooner or later, and it may be sooner rather than later, this House of Commons will be faced with the prospect either of cancelling the AFVG or of Britain going ahead alone. I do not believe that France is serious about continuing with this aircraft.
  I would like to ask a factual question in a minor key. What is the position about the initial payments? Is it true that Britain's initial payments are substantially higher than those of the French? What exactly is the order of acceptance of this plane? Is it true that we want ours in 1974, while the French are content to wait until 1976?
  In technology we are ahead of almost everything that is being done in Europe, and, Common Marketeer though I may be, I think we have to be quite clear that we do not surrender the British lead in technology for nothing, that at least we make some kind of sensible bargain about it.
  If there is doubt, as I see there is on the Front Bench opposite, about the intentions of France, I go back to the 8th November, 1966, when M. Messmer is reported as having real trouble with the Finance Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, and I want to ask the same question as was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The set-up in France in the last 48 hours is very different, and I have a suspicion that the new Finance Committee of the new Chamber of Deputies might be asking even more awkward questions still.
  I cannot help reflecting on what the electorate of Lorient did to M. Messmer. I do not know whether his negotiations with Britain had anything to do with it, possibly not, but at least there are straws in the wind from France that there are many Frenchmen, and they include some extremely well-informed people to whom I have spoken, who are more sceptical about this project than I am.
  I believe that after all has been said what we are discussing here is not a military rôle at all, and I quote a man who, as far as I know, is not a member of my party. Sebastian de Ferranti,
  352
  writing in this month's magazine Scotland, said:
  "One of the main reasons why military procurement makes total technology grow is that the goods must actually be produced. Components, materials and methods are actually developed to production and are made truly available. It is for this reason that military procurement is such an important part of the home market, and not, for Heaven's sake, because these military products are necessary or useful!"
  That is Sebastian de Ferranti saying that we must go ahead with these military products, but do not let us suppose that they are useful in a military way; merely that we want to advance technology. He is no political friend of mine.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: He makes a profit out of it.
  Mr. Dalyell: Are my hon. Friends quite sure that in saying that there will not be a British aircraft industry unless we go ahead with the AFVG this is the whole truth? I do not accept the proposition that a civil aircraft industry necessarily depends on an ever more sophisticated military aircraft industry, because if it does we shall suffer, and I ask the House to remember the warning which Eisenhower gave the American people when he ceased to be President of the United States. In a very moving speech he warned them about the military industrial nexus taking over, and this is what I am afraid might happen to my Government because of the great pressure from the aircraft industry. Let us give immediate attention to a safe, subsonic, reasonably cheap air-bus.
  It is possibly out of order to go into the details of the aircraft industry and I do not want to do this. There are many other things that the aircraft industry could do and many other things that most of its workers could do. If we are talking about a small number of elite designers, I confess they might go to America on work for Designers International—no bad thing. There are many other things that aircraft workers could do provided the Government were imaginative and Socialist in its outlook and prepared to go ahead, with worthwhile technical projects. There are all sorts of schemes which are necessary for advancing British developments throughout the world. That is why the Government were elected in 1964 and part of

  353
  our contract with the electors in 1966, Is that we should go ahead with plans which break out of the vicious circle which produces military equipment merely to keep people employed. We accepted without argument in the 1930s that battleships should be built to keep people in work. Surely we have advanced in our horizons.
  Another question arises. Let us suppose that the hon. Member for West Lothian is totally wrong in what he says. The question must be faced whether the Anglo-French variable-geometry aircraft will not be obsolescent by 1974. The Secretary of State for Defence may say that since coming into office he has been struck by the mistake made by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) when he was Minister of Defence. The right hon. Member for Streatham said that the day of the advanced manned aircraft was over. My right hon. Friend says that this was a great mistake. Perhaps in 1957 it was a great mistake, but 10 long years have passed since then.
  I ask my right hon. Friend for his assessment of other developments in this field. What about the x-ray laser? Will not this act as a deterrent in future? If we are talking about deterrents—and here we bring in the question of nuclear strike weapons—I should like a more frank assessment of what is happening at Porton. Many of us have seen reports from academic laboratories of devastating microbiological and chemical weapons—dreadful things which could bring civilised life as we know it to an end. If we are looking for a deterrent this is a much cheaper form, ghastly and frightful though it may be. In my view it is absolutely unrealistic to keep developments at Porton and places like Porton out of the question of assessing the value of a strike aircraft. It is no use hiding such factors under some kind of hedge.
  As for the variable-geometry aircraft, is it suggested that by 1974 devices will not be in the hands of sophisticated enemies which will make low penetration aircraft obsolete? What about using radar downwards, so to speak? it can be done from helicopters or satellites. It is being done by "red-eye" techniques in Vietnam by the Americans, and what the Americans have today surely we shall
  354
  have in 10 years' time—or our sophisticated enemies will have it.
  I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, and I want to end with a quotation from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23rd November, 1964, in reply to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). He said:
  "I think the mistake which his Government"—
  that is, the Government of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire—
  "made was the thought that provided one follows whatever is the right line in weapons policy, no matter what one does about economic strength, a nation will have influence, authority and power".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1964; Vol. 702, c. 930.]
  That was my right hon. Friend's view, when he had just taken office.
  Some of us are deeply saddened by what one might call a change of outlook—a change of character, perhaps. How it is that the man who was the leader of the British delegation to the Food and Agriculture Organisation at Rome in the 1940s, and a great champion of the underdeveloped world, to whom we all have an intellectual debt, a progressive economist in the 1950s, technologist in the 1960s—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting a long way from the Air Estimates. I would remind him of his own comment—other hon. Members are waiting to speak.
  Mr. Dalyell: I do not know by what alchemy members of this Cabinet—which has done many good things—can have changed their character so that they have come to support the sort of weapon development which is epitomised in this debate. The contrast between the urge to bring about stability in the world by means of economic development, and the development of weaponry epitomised in this debate, certainly needs some explaining.
  9.21 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me, I hope, if I do not completely follow his long and interesting speech. He appeared to be more than a little iconoclastic. He did not give a clear view of what he or any of the other back

  355
  benchers opposite who have spoken believe should be our air defence.
  Of course, when the Labour Party took office, the cancellations followed of the main projects for our aircraft industry—the HS681 transport aircraft, which was jet-powered and very important and the rôle of which was emphasised by the Under-Secretary tonight, the P1154, a supersonic vertical take-off aircraft, and the TSR2, a tactical strike and reconnaissance contour-following aircraft which would be capable in Europe, if such a deterrent were required in Europe for some time to come of providing an effective deterrent in the rôles of strike and reconnaissance.
  The debate has underlined the fact that these cancellations have left the industry in complete confusion. The cost of the American purchases has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides. We are buying about 150 Phantom aircraft and about 50 F111s, and we do not know what the total bill for these aircraft and the spares will be. These purchases are to replace British projects, and, as a result, we shall have to export many more of our goods and services to pay for the American imports.
  Our industry is losing the benefit, to which the hon. Member for West Lothian referred, of the technological fallout of the development of these aircraft. It is all very well to suggest that we cut down our Air Estimates and spend the money saved in technological research. We could go further, but, without the stimulus of a production order, it is not easy to attract the men of the right calibre into the industry and to carry research through boundaries of knowledge in the way that it is done only in the aircraft industry.
  Britain is also losing her independence to a degree as a result of these large purchases of American aircraft, which run into hundreds of millions of pounds. A great deal has been made of the way in which it is alleged that we are reducing our defence costs. As the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said, the net decrease in the current year is only £60,000. But if one looks more carefully at the figures, one sees that a large chunk has been taken out of the Air Estimates as a result of the cancellation of these projects.
  356
  We have not yet had to pay anything for the Phantoms or the F111s. Payment has been postponed until the future. One must, therefore, ask whether there is any net saving at all. If one refers hypothetically to 1964, as is done in the Defence White Paper, one can say that although the Estimates have increased, it can be shown—this is a phoney argument—that, in practice, they have fallen marginally. However, when one remembers that a large proportion of the cost has been postponed—that cost representing a substantial figure in the total defence costs; about £592 million—one realises that the Government are putting over one of the greatest confidence tricks they have ever tried on this House.
  I would like to see more support being given to the development of British helicopters. It was suggested in the Plowden Report that the Government should decide on future helicopter requirements as soon as possible. That Report was published about 18 months ago. Have the Government yet made this decision? There is tremendous scope, both in the civil and military sphere, for the use of British helicopters. But instead of going ahead with this development, we seem to be relying on Anglo-French co-operation—and in the interim we are again buying American. Is it not possible for Britain to develop British helicopters, which would have a prospect of military and civil sales abroad, so that our industry could benefit from this lucrative and viable sphere of production?
  Much play was made by the Under-Secretary about the availability of transport aircraft. He recited the Belfast, the VC10 and the American Hercules. The Hercules has been in service for seven or eight years and is approaching the end of its development. The Belfast, of which only 10 have been ordered, is a fine aircraft and could be developed further, as was pointed out in the defence debate. The Belfast was used to bring British helicopters back from the Far East, so great is its carrying capacity. Indeed, it has a larger carrying capacity than other aircraft.
  It is ludicrous to develop the jigs and tools to produce only 10 of these aircraft, and I hope that the Government will order at least another 10 and that the power of the 'plane will be increased, perhaps, by developing a superior Tyne

  357
  engine with the installation of larger propellors. If the Government wish to achieve the mobility which they say is necessary, particularly to meet our commitments in the Far East, we must have more and larger transport aircraft. Looking further forward, no plan has been announced for developing a jet transport aircraft to meet our requirements in the 'seventies and 'eighties, but this aeroplane could easily be developed in Britain for this purpose.
  Is there nothing to replace the HS681? Must we rely on America to provide the technological development that goes into producing such an aircraft? I hope that the Minister will supply more information about these transport aircraft and our needs. To order as strategic aircraft only 10 Belfasts, for example, is ludicrous. If one or two of them are undergoing development, and one or two are being serviced or otherwise out of commission, the other five or six are not adequate to meet strategic phasing requirements. At the other end of the scale we have the Short Skyvan. Why do not the Government consider ordering some of them to meet military needs?
  Mobility is the key word of the future. I say at once that I do not agree with our withdrawing from Aden or Singapore, but as that withdrawal takes place during the period of office of the party opposite—which, I hope, will be short—we shall need more medium, strategic and short-range transport aircraft to keep our forces mobile. The Government should pay more attention to this aspect of our defence requirements.
  A great deal of doubt has been cast by hon. Members opposite, particularly below the Gangway—unfortunately, they are not now present—on the defence rôle. They have asked why we should stay east of Suez, or even in the defence business at all. Our defence commitments have one purpose only, and that is to save both this country and the world the very much greater expenditure and loss that would come about if we did not satisfactorily fulfil our rôle. I agree that in the world of today—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now getting into a general defence debate, which is out of order in this debate.
  Mr. McMaster: We should maintain our island bases and our bases at Singa-
  358
  pore and Aden in order to be able to stop the sort of brush fire that could easily escalate into the major war that could cause great damage, and cost us a great deal more in our Air and Defence Estimates than if we withdrew completely.
  I have some special knowledge of vertical take-off and landing aircraft. It has been suggested, and was also suggested in the defence debate, that if we are to withdraw from Aden and Singapore we should have ships, not aircraft carriers, equipped with vertical take-off aircraft. I am glad to see coming in the Chamber my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles), because this is one of his main ideas.
  I am disappointed that the Government have decided not to carry on with the production of the F1154. I do not agree with their suggestion that the F1127, a subsonic aircraft, should be sufficient to meet our defence requirements in Europe and the Far East. It would have been very much better to have gone ahead with the F1154, which was to have been a supersonic aircraft, and one for which we might have found an export market, as we were the only country producing an aircraft with this potential. The likelihood of a subsonic aircraft being of any use is problematical, particularly during the 'seventies.
  Aircraft must have supersonic capability to meet the defence requirement of protecting our ships or striking against shore bases. Even countries in the Middle East are equipped with supersonic aircraft. I refer to Aden and Bahrein. In so far as we have a commitment in Malaysia, our troops are likely to be met by missiles and supersonic aircraft. Therefore, more money should be spent out of the Air Estimates on developing supersonic and vertical take off aircraft and also in developing further experiments on the SC1.
  That was a different project. Instead of a deflector jet a light engine is used and it has a much longer life and a forward thrust. These aircraft have a quicker thrust because the power required to lift the aircraft is less than that required for the forward motion. The SC1, with a slight weight penalty, has engines which can lift 16 times or more its own weight

  359
  and the loss is more than offset by the advantage of having forward thrust engines working at full capacity throughout the flying time. The lifting and landing engines are used only for a short time and they can be very light with light blades and compressors.
  I should like to see more money allocated to the R.A.F. for use on vertical takeoff aircraft. This is the craft of the future. It was a very retrograde step to cancel the supersonic aircraft and to go back to the subsonic 1127. Arguments have been developed very fully that some of the money for this project could be found by reducing our requirement for Phantoms and particularly F111 purchases. It has been convincingly proved in the debate that the F111 has not a credible rôle. Its rôle in the Far East from island bases, assuming that we abandon Singapore, would be very doubtful. It could be used only as an aircraft with a nuclear bomb capacity and it is doubtful whether it is the kind of aircraft to deal with the brush fire situation of which, unfortunately, we have become very familiar during the last 10 or 20 years.
  Its rôle in Europe is receding rapidly in credibility. Do we actually require the F111 to meet a possible threat from Russia? Would it not be better if there is any real danger of that to revert to the TSR2? It can get in lower if we have to strike at the heart of the enemy. In changing circumstances, these rôles need to be reviewed very closely. We should hesitate before deciding, as pointed out in the second leading article in The Times today, to give a firm order in a fortnight for the 40 craft from the United States.
  If we were living in a perfect world we would not need these aircraft, but we are living in a far from perfect world. Populations are rising very rapidly and a population explosion can place the world with tremendous pressures which could easily escalate to serious world war unless the balance of power is retained. To do so, we need an Air Force. Therefore, I plead strongly with the Government to consider placing as much of this work in Britain, or in Britain in close collaboration with France, as possible, and not depend on the United States and allow taxpayers' money, collected by the Government, to pay for this arm of our defence to go to furthering research and
  360
  development across the Atlantic. The Americans are very quick to take full advantage of research and development.
  British industry, and particularly the British aircraft industry, could benefit from this. The Plowden Report pointed out the expanding civil market for aircraft, but the civil market is not sufficiently great on its own to support the British aircraft industry. It must also have the help of the Defence Estimates. This is why I am so very critical of this part of the defence debate.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. John Rankin: Tonight, we are asked to give our support to the expenditure of the vast sum of £545 million for air services. We must ensure that there is no unnecessary wastage incorporated in this figure. I say "unnecessary", because I recognise that wastage occurs, but there is wastage which is or which should be easily detected and there is wastage which might not so easily be detected.
  Tonight's Evening Standard tells us, in an article entitled
  "'Waste' on Forces Air Ferries"
  that
  "Ministry of Defence arrangements for ferrying Servicemen and material overseas were condemned as 'wasteful' today by an M.P.s' 'watchdog' committee.
  In a report to Parliament the M.P.s, members of the all-party Estimates Committee, strongly criticise the expansion of air trooping by R.A.F. Transport Command at the expense of the private air charter companies.
  They give warning of a risk that the switch-over may result in 'a serious waste of public money' and cite 'wasteful and extravagant' methods of shipping Service stores."
  The report gives three examples:
  "The return to Britain from Singapore of three aero-engine packing-cases worth £98 each at a cost of £600.
  The despatch of a single cube of Bostik to a Far East unit from a depot in Britain and a single cutlery set consisting of knife, fork and spoon."
  This is a current and live criticism of these Estimates. The Vote which this excerpt is a criticism amounts to £2,300,000, a very small part of the total Estimate. Yet within that £2,300,000 this very serious criticism is made of wasteful expenditure.
  I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that in this vast sum of £545 million that we are being asked to pass

  361
  tonight there are not a number of similar examples of wasteful expenditure. I hope that he will assure us that that is the sole example of wasteful expenditure that has been traced.
  It is important that we should be able to give that sort of assurance to the general public, to the taxpayer who is meeting that sum, because there are people who are protesting against the fact that while we ask them to pay £545 million we refuse to give them the increase in their wages that provides the source from which they meet that expenditure.
  That is incurring serious and acid comment outside the House, particularly in the part of Britain from which I come, where local government servants are threatening to go on strike because what they regard as a legitimate wage that should be paid to them is being refused at the very time when we ask for this heavy payment from the community. Regional development and planning in Scotland are being slowed down—the development and planning are necessary to help provide the increased sums that the Government now ask from us.
  Eighty-thousand people in Glasgow are unable to get houses that are fit for human habitation because the Government say that they cannot provide the necessary financial help to the local authority, while tonight we ask the community to find £545 million for air defence.
  That is not the whole total that is being requested. There is another aspect of air services which is not pertinent to our present discussion. It amounts to £235 million and means that when we take into account the civil side, with which we are not now dealing, we are faced with a total of nearly £800 million for air services.
  In view of the wasteful expenditure which has been incurred and condemned by a Parliamentary Committee only today in respect of one item of £2,300,000, we are entitled to ask the Ministers concerned for an assurance that there is not even greater waste in this vast total of £800 million.
  Sir A. V. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman has tacked on £200 million plus to the sum which we are debating. I am sure that he is wrong to do that, because he is bringing in expenditure which is quite separate and which resulted in exports of
  362
  £212 million last year. He is confusing the picture.
  Mr. Rankin: I was merely reinforcing what I had said about waste. I agree that the second sum is not pertinent. I was using it only as an illustration for this discussion, and we shall be debating it later.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that we ought to pursue that matter. We must confine the debate to the Air Estimates.
  Mr. Rankin: I shall confine myself to the £545 million. I was on the point of saying that it will be almost another year before we get the chance to discuss these sums again and in the interim another change will have taken place.
  This Service is now divided into two compartments, one under the Ministry of Technology, and one under the Board of Trade. We therefore have to consider two separate sums to get the total impact on community earnings. The trouble is that a Service which consumes these enormous sums is no longer to have a Parliamentary identity. Tomorrow we shall be asking Questions about it and one has only to look at the Order Paper tonight to see that the civil aspect of this Service is mixed up with a whole host of other important matters. It is entirely wrong for a Department spending such vast sums of money not to have a Parliamentary identity. There ought to be a senior Minister who, at stated periods throughout the year, can be questioned about what is happening to these huge sums of money and who can be asked whether they are being spent to the best advantage.
  There has been some talk about running down the cost of defence east of Suez. A year ago, we were told that the F111 was absolutely necessary to Britain's rôle east of Suez, but in view of the rundown of the F111 I wonder what is to happen about the defence of Hong Kong. It is remarkable that we should have had debates on defence and on certain aspects of defence without this part of the British Commonwealth, which depends on us for its defence, exciting any comment. What will happen about the defence of Hong Kong if our rôle east of Suez is run down?
  Mr. James Dance: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that a large

  363
  proportion of the expenditures on the Royal Air Force is on Transport Command and that with present Government policy of evacuating everywhere, Aden, Malta, and so on, we could not bring men home without Transport Command? Would he not agree that great credit is due to the safest "airline" in the world?
  Mr. Rankin: I hope that the time occupied by the hon. Gentleman will not be assigned to me as part of my speech, but I congratulate him on getting in so much on an interruption. I said nothing against Transport Command, I merely mentioned the fact that the Government have decided that it should play a much greater rôle in transporting troops and material than formerly. I was dealing with a matter raised by a responsible Committee of this House.
  The best comment that I have read about this debate today was in The Times. It said:
  "The Government have one more opportunity … to put forward a more convincing case for the purchase of the F111 than has yet been deployed."
  I hope that the Government will take advantage of that opportunity tonight. So far, we have been told that the rôle of the variable geometry aircraft is the same as that of the TSR2. It has been said that in almost every respect the military requirements of the F111 are the same as those of the TSR2. Since the TSR2 evidently has the qualities and qualifications of this aircraft why was it ever cancelled. At the time, the justification for stopping work on the TSR2 was that something like £600 million to £700 million would be saved by the abandonment of the work.
  I would like to know, in view of the commitment to the F111 and the possible commitment to the AFVG, what has been the net saving compared with the cost of the TSR2? Has a single penny been saved, since the characteristics of all three aircraft are said to be the same? We are told that 50 F111 s are supposed to fill the gap between 1970, when the Canberra will go, and 1975 when the variable geometry aircraft arrives. The Times goes on to ask:
  For what purpose?
  This is a definite question to our Front Bench and I hope that we shall receive an answer to it.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That this day the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Rankin: Last year, we were told that the F111 was absolutely necessary for Britain's rôle east of Suez during the 1970s. But we are now told that this rôle is to be reduced. If the rôle is to be reduced, surely the order for the F111 is should be reduced, too. If it is not reduced, then can we depend on the assurance that the rôle east of Suez will be reduced? I hope that the Government will take the House into their confidence on this matter.
  May I quote again from the article in The Times:
  "Whatever strength Britain will maintain east of Suez can hardly justify the additional presence of fifty supersonic bombers. The F111, it is said, will be supported by the V-bombers which will be able to engage the 'less well defended targets' until the AFVG arrives. If the V-bombers will be able to penetrate to European targets until 1970, it can hardly be"—
  denied that they could get through to Asian targets up till at least 1975.
  The article continues:
  "… the threat to stability in that part of the world comes"—
  not from any fear of some human enemy but—
  "from subversion, insurrection, unemployment and undernourishment—hardly conditions which can be deterred or defended by supersonic bombers".
  These are serious points which have been put by a great public newspaper and which, I think, will be endorsed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that they will be dealt with in the Government's reply.
  I am against Anglo-American cooperation in aircraft production. If we want a true basis of co-operation, there must be some equality in status. It is because there is no equality in status between Britain and the United States that I oppose co-operation with them. I therefore turn to the French. If we wish to seek co-operation between equals, it will be found on the Continent and not on the other side of the Atlantic. However,

  365
  while I seek British co-operation with France, I am not prepared to accept cooperation with the Germans in the production of a variable geometry aircraft, for the simple reason that the introduction of a weapon of that type so near to Russia is bound to upset the balance within Europe and to lead to trouble and perhaps disaster in the long run.
  I hope that the Government are facing these problems very seriously. They are problems that can influence the kind of Europe that we have in the days ahead. The Europe which I want to see is one based on peace and not a Europe that will be set on the road to war if we proceed to develop an aircraft like the variable geometry aircraft in company not just with the French, but also with the Germans.
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: This is the first time that I have spoken in a Service debate. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) in his courageous speech on the meteorological service, although I probably know as much about haymaking as he does, nor do I intend to follow hon. Members, on both sides, who have spoken of all the new types of aircraft, of which I know very little. My knowledge of aircraft finished in the days of the Wellington and the Spitfire, although I have learned of one new aircraft today, and that is the "French geometry" plane.
  I see a lot of the Royal Air Force in my constituency, where there are three Air Force stations, of which I am very proud. We heard today from the Under-Secretary of the forthcoming fiftieth anniversary of the Royal Air Force. Last year, Marham R.A.F. station celebrated its fiftieth anniversary as an Air Force station.
  I commenced my service on an Air Force station, but in the Territorial Army defending it against enemy air attack with Lewis guns, which even in those days seemed to be shady ludicrous. Although I would agree that the R.A.F. is greatly concerned with its rôle in the future and is somewhat unhappy at the considerable and continual changing of the types of aircraft allotted to it, I wish to concern myself for a few moments with the wellbeing of the officers and men
  366
  and their families, because I believe that there is quite a lot of dissatisfaction, which makes the Service less efficient than it should be.
  The education of the children of Air Force officers and men has been touched on in the debate and is a serious matter. I am on the education committee of the Norfolk County Council, and we have a tremendous job in trying to find places for the children of all the Air Force personnel in the county. Very large numbers are continually arriving at Air Force stations, and the very large number of new houses which have been built at at least two of the Air Force stations with which I am concerned brings about a very great problem.
  At Marham, which is now almost as large a town as any in my constituency, we have only recently built a new school of three classrooms. Before it was finished the passages in the school had to be used as classrooms, and by next term we shall have another 58 additional children and we now need three or four new classrooms.
  I would particularly point out that the children of Air Force personnel have less opportunity than many other people of being educated properly. They are always being moved about, and they get a less settled education. I hope that the Minister will do all that he can to see that they have more than their fair share of facilities and of teachers to make up for the continual movement which the children have to undertake, thereby losing a lot of their education.
  Another matter which I should like to touch on is that of recreational transport from some of the more isolated stations. Practically every evening in my constituency I can pick up two or three Air Force men who are trying to get back from local towns. Some of our roads are extremely dangerous, and a number of Service men have been knocked down. Transport facilities from some of the stations is extremely bad, and that again makes for bad morale in the Service.
  The Minister referred to the great shortage of housing, and it is a problem in my constituency. We are an isolated rural community with very few houses which can be hired for Service personnel. As a result, we are very much dependent

  367
  upon the swift building of married quarters. I hope that it will be pressed on with and given priority.
  One other source of annoyance which is found by those living near to Air Force stations is the almost complete monopoly of N.A.A.F.I. N.A.A.F.I. does a first-class job, but it is good for it to have competition from local shops and garages. I find great resentment among Service personnel that it has no competition from other shops, garages and repair places close to Air Force stations.
  On the subject of recruitment, we are talking about bringing back numbers of men from various parts of the world, and they will be returning to a shortage of housing, educational facilities and transport. If we give up our overseas stations,
  368
  we shall do away with one of the main spurs to recruitment. I am convinced that many men join the Services, as the recruiting posters suggest, to see a bit of the world. A lot of the attraction of the Services will be done away with if we abolish our overseas stations.
  In the course of my speech, I have not said anything about all the types of aeroplanes and the technical details which should concern us greatly. However, they have been covered extremely well by other hon. Members. I wish to bring home the fact that a Service man who is moved about continually demands that his family shall have good housing and good recreational and educational facilities. We have a first-class Service in the R.A.F. We must keep its personnel happy and contented, for that means a lot to a Service man.
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I hope that the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) is not expecting me to follow most of the lines of his argument, although I wish to pay my personal tribute to the R.A.F., having served with it for four and a half years during the war and gained experience of the great work which it did then and still does.
  I was a little shocked to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that the main reason why we should keep our bases overseas was because it is a good spur to recruitment. I can think of better arguments than that. I hope that he was not being serious about it, because, if we continue this vast overseas expenditure merely to recruit men into the R.A.F. and give them a bit of overseas service, we shall have come to a serious and rather ludicrous position.
  I find these Estimates a little gratifying in the sense that there is a modest decrease of £60,000, and any decrease in military expenditure of one kind or another is acceptable. But it does not go far enough. When we consider that the gross estimate is £594 million, we are talking about a great deal of money. That raises the question: what are we intending to do with the F111Ks and the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft?
  This type of expenditure must be related to the future of this aircraft, and precisely to what its rôle is likely to be. I cannot for the life of me understand how we can talk in terms of cutting down on our overseas military expenditure, of evacuating some of our bases east of Suez, and, at the same time, talk in terms of 50 F111s and, later, VG aircraft. We must understand precisely what those aircraft are for.
  In the Financial Times of 26th October, 1966, there appeared an interesting argument on the right terms for collaboration. It said:
  "It is generally accepted that the VG project only makes sense on the basis that by the mid-seventies Britain will need a more advanced strategic weapon than the F-111 if she is to sustain an East of Suez rôle".
  I would ask my hon. Friends on the Front Wench that if it only makes sense on our maintaining an east of Suez rôle, and, at the same time, we are told that
  370
  we are abandoning the east of Suez line as quickly as we can—I was delighted to see in today's Press that the whole process will be speeded up, so perhaps the protests which have been made from this side of the House are having some effect—how can the process be speeded up, if at the same time, we are to spend enormous sums of money on an aircraft which obviously has a rôle only east of Suez?
  Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends: where are we going and what do we intend to do about this matter? The article to which I referred is an interesting one, because it raises the whole question of the nuclear strike force. It went on to say:
  "Secondly, is there any reason to suppose that anything which the VG is planned to do East of Suez cannot be done equally well by the (possibly enlarged) Polaris force? Did in other words, the commitment in the White Paper represent anything except reassurance to the aircraft industry following the cancellation of TSR2?"
  Only last week we discussed the question of Polaris and I made some pertinent remarks about the project. We have Polaris, and we are also to have the VG aircraft. We really must make up our minds.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the original agreement for Polaris was made by the then Conservative Government, one of the arguments put forward was that it was likely to save money on the Air Estimates?
  Mr. Heffer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. We have been told so many things by successive Governments in such a contradictory way about the nuclear position, and about our defence commitments, that hon. Members get somewhat confused about precisely where we are going.
  Only last week we were told that there were 7,000 N.A.T.O. nuclear missiles in Europe. We have this shield now. Four Polaris submarines are being built, and we have this great project of the VG aircraft, with an almost open-ended commitment from the point of view of costs. No one really knows the position with regard to research and development costs. When we were on the benches opposite there was considerable criticism, year after year, about the escalating costs of research and development of the various

  371
  projects which the Government of the day carried through. Skybolt comes to mind immediately, and one can also think of Blue Streak and many others.
  No one really knows the cost involved in this VG project, and if the Government decide to go ahead with this project because it will help us get into the European Economic Community, as one who believes that we ought to go into the Common Market I suggest to them that this is no way of getting into that organisation because if we try to buy our way in like this the effects on Britain's economy might well be disastrous. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to give us some answers to the questions which have been asked about the future rôle of this aircraft.
  I come back to the F111. Originally, we were told that the cost would be about £2½ million per aircraft, but recently in the House an hon. Gentleman opposite asked what was likely to happen about the necessary sophisticated equipment which would be required by the Royal Air Force and how much this would cost. He was told by the Government Front Bench that it was hoped shortly to agree a supplemental ceiling price for the modifications which the Royal Air Force would require. What are they? I am told that the £2½ million is likely to become £3 million.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: No.
  Mr. Heffer: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend say "No". Perhaps he will tell us later what the figure is likely to be. We have a right to know to what figure the costs will rise.
  I understand that in a short time we must decide whether to go ahead with the purchase of F111s. What will be their rôle? Are they to have an east of Suez rôle or a European rôle? I am told that their range will be too great for a European rôle, and that in that sense they are unnecessary, but I am told that their range is not great enough for an east of Suez rôle, and that they are very heavy aircraft. I am also informed that the American Navy has decided that it has no use for this aircraft. The McLelland Report contains considerable criticism of this aircraft. We should be told what
  372
  the ultimate costs are likely to be and what rôle the aircraft is likely to fulfil.
  All hon. Members on this side of the House, if not on the other, are concerned about the continual escalation of our defence costs. We must know precisely where we are going. No one suggests that we should not defend our country. I am not a pacifist, and never have been. To that extent I disagree with some of my hon. Friends who, from a quite logical point of view, argue that all military weapons are utterly useless and morally wrong, and that we should not produce them. I do not argue that. I have never argued that. I believe that it is our duty to defend our people. But it is not our duty to extend that defence practically throughout the world.
  That is why I want to know what is to be the future rôle of the aircraft in respect of which we now have an open-ended agreement with France. What is to be its rôle if we are talking of getting rid of our east of Suez bases and reducing our forces in that part of the world.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), like that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), was full of detailed knowledge of this subject. No one could argue that either hon. Member's understanding of the subject was anything but tremendous. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian made a brilliant speech, and I hope that the points he made will be answered. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire suggested that the future of our aircraft industry must be with the United States of America. I do not share that view. I want to see us slowly cutting our ties with the United States and concentrating on the Continent of Europe for our future. This means that the British industry's future is bound up with that of the European. It will have to rival the power and influence of the United States industry. It is not a question of our being tied up with the United States, but of being tied up with Europe in opposition to the United States.
  The Minister said on television that one of the other reasons that we were going ahead with the development of the VG aircraft was to help the development of civil aircraft. This is a serious argument to justify the aircraft. We should

  373
  develop civil aircraft, but not the type which we are developing for a rôle which we are told is non-existent. Therefore, this is an immense amount of wasted money. We should abandon it and talk in different terms to the Europeans about the aircraft industry. I hope that my hon. Friend will take note of the sincere points made during the debate by hon. Members on this side of the House.
  10.32 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made, as always, an interesting speech, but his satisfaction with the decrease in the amount spent this year will be short-lived, because the bills have not yet come in. When we start to pay for the aircraft which we have discussed, we will find that the Estimates are much higher.
  I favour our co-operating with the French, but we should not under-estimate the difficulties. In any one year, 400 commercial airliners are produced in the United States and only 50 in Europe. That is the measure of their superiority and this is a serious problem. I share the hon. Member's anxiety that we should be told exactly what these aircraft are for, as this makes a difference.
  I want to know more about the Government's intention over the new staging airfield in the British Indian Ocean territory. I understand that the island of Aldabra is not exactly favoured by nature. How high is it? I remember that it sometimes rises to 60 ft. when the wind blows the sand into dunes. It is otherwise unattractive, and has no anchorage. It is in the path of the annual hurricane. Nothing lives there except some turtles or tortoises, which, to judge by the expressions on their faces, do not like it much, either.
  The staging airfield, mentioned on page 7 of the Statement, will not be a small undertaking, especially if designed for the reception of sophisticated aircraft like the F111K. They will require navigation guidance systems, armaments, fuel and stores, as they must be kept there in good condition. There must be repair facilities, although they cannot be of an elaborate type, and the airfield must be militarily secure. An island, the location of which is fixed and known to the whole world, cannot be considered as safe as
  374
  an aircraft carrier. Nor can it have a carrier's flexibility.
  My principal query about this island policy is this: not only the nature of the post but its location must be such that it is on the way to or from somewhere. In other words, what will these aircraft be doing when they have put down at this staging post? Like other hon. Members, I have been far from clear about this during the debate.
  In any event, we shall have so few first quality aircraft, the F111Ks, that in a strike rôle it is impossible to imagine them being of the slightest use, except in a nuclear rôle. But the Secretary of State said that he does not see these aircraft in a nuclear rôle. Nor do I. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say that we do not anticipate operating without our American and Australian allies, so that the number of planes we have is not all that important. They will merely join with others as a gesture of solidarity. That argument has some force, but it is rather an expensive gesture.
  Even that position is not, however, entirely clear, for in April, 1965, the Secretary of State said:
  "This is the case, and I fully accept it, for having as part of our total defence capability some aircraft with a capacity for tactical strike and reconnaissance. In my view, it is an irrefutable one if Britain proposes to maintain any capacity for military action on her own in any part of the world."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1965; Vol. 710, c. 1198.]
  In that sentence the Secretary of State envisaged military action by Britain on her own.
  I question whether the strike capacity of the number of FIIIKs we will be able to keep in the Far East—and that number not backed up by any substantial naval or land forces—is worth the money. When the right hon. Gentleman made that statement he was buying the aircraft and writing the specification; and he said that we would operate on our own and that these aircraft would enable us to do it. It is clear therefore, that so few aeroplanes can be of use only if they are used in a nuclear rôle. Otherwise, they are absolutely useless.
  Unlike some hon. Members, particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am not against a nuclear capability to ward off a nuclear war. But we should realise that nuclear weapons are absolutely no guarantee against a conventional war,

  375
  which can flourish—if that term may be used in this context—underneath a nuclear umbrella which neither side will use. And if that is the rôle for which these aircraft are to be used, then that rôle could be performed better by Polaris submarines.
  I agree that this aircraft has a reconnaissance capability. So has any aircraft. One does not have to spend £3 million on an aircraft in order to get a camera inside it. That is an avionics problem. Reconnaissance is useful, but if our naval and land forces are small and without mobility—as ours seems likely to be by the time this aircraft comes to us—that reconnaissance information will be of little use. We should be able to move our effective forces to the places where the reconnaissance tells us that they should be. If we cannot do that—and without floating bases ordinary bases and forces of sufficient size I do not see how we can—we might as well do without the reconnaissance as well.
  I know the Under Secretary shook his head when the point was made before, but I suggest that, if not now at least quite shortly, satellites might be able to give as good reconnaissance as the few planes we shall be able to buy.
  I was very surprised last week to hear the Minister without Portfolio say, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) that he was interested in the proposition that the Royal Air Force might do a great deal more of its training out in Malta, and that he would talk to the Secretary of State about it. He seemed to think it rather a good idea. Is it not extraordinary that the idea had not occurred to the Minister without Portfolio before? He seemed to have come to it quite fresh, and not to have directed his mind to it until then. If the impression he gave was correct, no wonder these negotiations were so hamhanded, if the Minister responsible did not even realise the advantages in training the R.A.F. which Malta offers.
  I believe that the House ought to be reassured that adequate care is being taken of this problem. I do not believe that any mere verbal assurance from the Government, which seem to be rather
  376
  ignorant about these points at times, will do. We will want to know exactly how the training facilities in Malta will be replaced, where they will be, and everything about them before we can afford to believe such a Government.
  I should like to refer to the Women's Royal Air Force. I was very glad to see from the Statement on the Defence Estimates that this force is increasing in numbers. It has always seemed to me that there could be considerable scope for the employment of women in the R.A.F.—more than in the other Services. The Navy have the complication that they go to sea in ships, and the Army lead a brutal and licentious life in ditches, which is not suitable to the ladies. But the R.A.F.—at least, as an ex-Army man I believe so—except for a few flying duties, lead a sheltered and even pampered existence around long-established and comfortable airfields. They have a great deal of signal and office duties. I believe that more use could be made of women in the Royal Air Force, and I hope that the Minister will direct his mind to that possibility.
  Incidentally, I read in Annex A, page 78, under the heading, "Women's R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve, that in 1965, 1966, and now in 1967, only one lady came into this category. Perhaps I might say that she is certainly a rather rare bird, but is it the same bird each year, or does the bird change?
  I have not exactly followed the system of education. As I understand, the cadet at Cranwell is given a short flying course when he first joins. Then he does no flying for a year, and then does some more basic flying during the last six months. Then what happens? Does he go straight to the Advanced Flying Schools, and if so, for how long? After that, he goes to a unit. How long does he stay there, and does he keep up his flying training? After he has been with the unit for quite a short time, a year or so, he goes to the Royal Military College for two years' academic work.
  I see from the expression on the Minister's face that I have got it wrong, but I think he will agree that the Statement is rather difficult to follow. The House would be interested to know exactly what the cadet does. During his academic time, what steps are taken to see that he gets flying duties, to keep his hand in?

  377
  I come now to what has been mentioned so often during the debate—the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, which, we are told, will be the core of the R.A.F. For a core it is remarkably wobbly, because the project is not yet firm. We shall not even know for sure until the late spring whether we shall build a prototype later in the year. The specifications are not fixed. France has only a European rôle for it. We have, apparently, a world rôle, which is vastly different.
  We wish to replace the F111K with this aircraft. We have no idea of the cost except for the estimates, which are the best which can be made. I make no complaint about the way in which they have been presented, but it will be difficult to know, from past experience, before we start on it, how much it will cost. We know that we are to develop it for £250 million, but I very much doubt that figure. Even the Americans cannot do that, so I do not think we can.
  We have no idea of the time scale. We know when we want it, but when we shall actually get it with all the hazards of development, is another question. We are doubtful of the value, doubtful of the rôle because it is not yet settled, and doubtful of our ally because we do not know whether France wants to go on with the exact sort of craft which we want. We are sure that no one else wants it. Before it is even started on the drawing-board, this is a problem plane.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said that to leave Aden without air protection was stark, staring mad. I think those are words with which the whole House could agree. There could be no other opinion. It is possible from what the Secretary of State said the other day that we shall leave some troops behind. If so, it is quite clear that the R.A.F. should be a component. It is certainly arguable that the Egyptian Army, whose martial qualities we all know, will not be able to fight its way through the hills of Beihan and Dhala, but the Egyptian Air Force is another matter. A few picked men could fly a few good planes and, almost without attacking Aden, could paralyse it and sap its will to stand up to Nasser. They could give him the bloodless victory which is the only kind of victory which
  378
  the defects of his troops lays open to him.
  If the R.A.F., to borrow a naval phrase, were "in being" in Khormaksar, it might save the whole situation. I beg the Government to think again on this matter. I know that they find great difficulty in losing sight of the pledges they have made to reduce overseas expenditure so drastically, but I ask them to believe that this is one of the occasions when self-interest and honour do not lie so far apart.
  10.47 p.m.
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) after the bird he flushed from the financial undergrowth. During the minutes which remain to me, I wish to turn primarily to some of the problems of costing and particularly to consider some of the points discussed admirably in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), with reference to the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft.
  This aircraft has been discussed at length in the debate. As one who was incarcerated in the Public Accounts Committee during the earlier part of the debate, I hope that I shall not repeat points which were made then. There is everything to be said for stressing the critique so effectively deployed by my hon. Friend. In particular, I refer to some of the past history of escalation of costs which has been so notably endemic in the aircraft industry, including the military side of the industry, with special reference to the experience over TSR2 and what we may seek to learn from that experience in relation to the AFVG.
  In reply to a supplementary question on 1st March asking him whether he would tell the House the terms of the mathematical law of progression in relation to contracts of this type, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said:
  "All I can assure my hon. Friend is that whatever the law was under the Conservative Administration, it will be very much more satisfactory to the taxpayer under the present Administration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 479.]
  I have no doubt that when the dispassionate history of these years is written full credit will be given to my right hon. Friend for the rigorous way in which he

  379
  has applied himself with enthusiasm and results to the task of controlling ever-mounting costs. But I notice that he used the future tense in his reply, so any satisfaction we may feel on the problem of the escalation of costs is premature.
  The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, quoting a reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, on the escalation of costs for Concord, should give us no sense of complacency about the continuing escalation of costs on that project during the lifetime of the present Administration. Although there was an escalation of costs of over £100 million, from about £170, within 18 months of the project's being started, the costs of Concord have gone up from £275 million to £500 million since May, 1964. We learn that there are further millions of pounds—possibly tens of millions—to be added to the costs of £500 million arising from intra-mural expenditure. Perhaps that matter is not worth pursuing, and it would not be in order to do so in this debate.
  It is more relevant to consider some aspects of the TSR2. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, I had no reservations, although I was not a Member of the House at the time, on hearing of the cancellation of the TSR2. But had we then known some of the facts which have since emerged our enthusiasm might have been moderated.
  In December, 1959, the cost of TSR2 was estimated to be £80 million to £90 million. By March, 1962, it had risen to £137 million; by January, 1963, the estimates had been revised to between £175 million and £200 million, with extensions of the time scale for introduction into service; by January, 1964, the cost had risen to £240 million to £260 million.
  A year later, at the time of the cancellation, it is undoubtedly true that the escalation of costs on the development of TSR2 had risen still further. It was understandable that in the light of those facts it appeared necessary to cancel the project, but it should be borne in mind that the sums which had by then been paid could not be recovered by cancellation. Indeed, £125 million had already been paid to contractors at the
  380
  time of the cancellation, and a much larger sum than had been thought was outstanding and still owing to them.
  That proved to be as high as £70 million, making a total of £200 million effectively written off at the time of the cancellation. Therefore, when we try to examine the costs of the F111 in relation to the TSR2 the unit costs of the F111s should properly be qualified by those costs already borne by the TSR2 project if we are to make a viable comparison.
  My main point in discussing TSR2 is not to rake up old history for the sake of it. But arising out of the experience of TSR2, which I think hon. Members on both sides would agree was grossly unsatisfactory, the Public Accounts Committee, the Government and certainly the Treasury have applied their minds to this problem. In a Treasury Minute which appeared in November last year, relating to the sections of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee which discussed these escalations of costs of the TSR2, some consideration was given to the future. It is pointed out:
  "However, it is now clear that this planning and initial work "—
  that is, in relation to the TSR2—
  "was inadequate for a project of this size and complexity. To reduce the area of uncertainty the Ministry now undertake feasibility and project studies of complex developments (a practice which had not been introduced when work began on the TSR2). But it must be recognised "—
  and this is the sentence which I should like to stress—
  "that these arrangements cannot be expected to yield at the outset of a development programme of the magnitude of the TSR2 a precise definition of the task, and hence accurate estimates of cost to defined physical stages of the programme, and to completion."
  In the light of this, if it were to be the case of the AFVG were a pioneer venture of similar complexity and sophistication to the TSR2 there is no guarantee available to us that we would not, once again, make the same sort of mistakes in estimation at the outset of the project as were clearly made at the time of the TSR2, and, of course, at the time of practically every major project, including Concord, on which we have embarked since the war.
  Bearing in mind the continued escalation of the costs of Concord, which is

  381
  relevant to the AFVG in that it is an Anglo-French co-operative venture, it is fairly obvious—although it is difficult and may be permanently impossible to measure precisely—that these escalations have arisen in some measure because of the difficulty of collaboration between two industries each of which has its own procedures for contracting and subcontracting and which may have differences in the very funding of the production of aircraft.
  This is by no means a complete critique of the figures which have been given of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. We have been given a figure of £200 million, but I would be inclined to wager a similar sum with my hon. Friend, if I had it, that the cost will be considerably in excess of £200 million, if the plane goes to completion. But will it go to completion? Here, again, I can do no more than repeat the points made so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, when he discussed so many aspects of the ambiguity which surrounds this project. Perhaps we can remove at least one of the ambiguities tonight.
  For example, on 18th January, when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State revealed the proposal to go ahead with the AFVG, he said:
  "… we shall be consulting potential purchasers over the next few weeks to see whether any adjustments to these specifications are likely to attract a larger market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1967; Vol. 739, c. 405.]
  As this spring will be a critical time for making long-term strategic decisions about the future of this project, and as eight weeks have passed since that announcement, referring to the next few weeks, it is time that the House learned what discussions have taken place and what has arisen out of them relating to modifications.
  It would be useful to know whether if, as a result of further exploratory work carried out with the French, it is still true, as my right hon. Friend said in a later exchange on that occasion, that although the French require the plane primarily for interception at this stage, the British and the French have succeeded in reconciling our requirements "so far as is necessary ".
  "So far as is necessary" is a somewhat ambiguous qualification and we
  382
  would like to know what, in fact, are the conditions on which the break clauses, about which so much has been said, but about which the House still knows so little, would be invoked.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian quoted the remark of President Eisenhower at the termination of his office. There is a very real danger that, just as in the 'thirties it was suggested that the cure for unemployment would be to dig holes and fill them up again, we shall see the problems of our defence in terms of the problems of an industry which must be kept going simply because it is there.
  This is a completely false view of strategy. There is a need for strategy and a need for a "fortress Britain" approach for the application of a deterrent policy. There is a need to discuss a military rôle through the United Nations, and perhaps, other bodies. But if we are to measure the need for an aircraft as complicated as the AFVG is bound to be, in terms not primarily of future military requirement, but in terms of an industry which is simply there and which is undoubtedly a very potent pressure force in all Departments in any Government, then we are on a very slippery slope, and Parliamentary democracy may be at risk.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Cranky Onslow: I am glad to have the opportunity of winding up this debate, and I would like to start by paying my own tribute to the work of the Royal Air Force on the nation's behalf, and not least on this Lifeboat Day, to its work in rescuing those of us who find ourselves in peril on the sea. This is a very considerable contribution to our collective and individual security.
  This has been a far-ranging debate, sometimes straying beyond the bounds of order. It has all been very interesting, but it does prompt some reflection upon the future shape and length of debates on Estimates. The tendency for speeches to expand to fill the time available has been noted before by my right hon. Friend and I myself am conscious that when I spoke last week, in the debate on Army Estimates I possibly went on longer than was strictly necessary.
  Probably the case which I understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for West

  383
  Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) put forward, for committing Defence matters to a Committee for consideration at more frequent intervals and in greater detail, has not been weakened by anything said this evening, and perhaps a case for a Select Committee on Meteorology has been made overwhelmingly. There are many points to be covered and I hope that the Minister will find time to answer many of the very many questions that have been put.
  I will not rehearse them all now, but I would like to concentrate on some of those which seem to be most important. I am not suggesting that the worrying manpower problems which the R.A.F. has are not important. Clearly, the failure to recruit, particularly in certain key grades, must have a detrimental effect on the future efficiency of the Service, if means cannot be found of making this good. The reluctance of men voluntarily to sign on, or re-engage must reflect to some extent, a basic uncertainty and insecurity about the future of the Service. This is as true of the R.A.F. as of the aircraft industry. Any impartial observer would consider that in both cases there is some way to go before confidence is re-established after the events of the last two years.
  But I want to speak mainly about matters concerned with aircraft, particularly with their procurement and utilisation. As a general question, I would like to ask the Minister: how is the procurement going? How are the new arrangements with the Minister of Technology working out? I know that it is early days yet, but some of us have been very anxious about the effect of the recent transfer of functions on administration and procurement, and we would like to be reassured that so far there have been no snags. I am glad to see that we have the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, with us.
  A particular point on training aircraft is that I see from paragraph 20, Chapter VIII, of this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates that the Royal Air Force is returning to the idea of beginning training on piston-engine aircraft instead of having all-through jet training. I understand that the Chipmunk is known in the air training business as a nice, quiet aircraft. I remember
  384
  that the first time I went up in one it looped the loop and did a number of other disconcerting things. But to those who have the task of qualifying for advanced aircraft, no doubt the Chipmunk is a useful starter.
  The Chipmunk is now out of production, however, and is declining in number. What plans have the Government for a replacement? It certainly appears that a replacement must be needed before long. At the end of the 1965 debate on the Air Estimates, the then Under-secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force told the House that
  "Current holdings of the Chipmunk are adequate until the 1970s, so that there is at present no question of replacing the Chipmunk ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 579]
  Since the reversion since last October to the Chipmunk for ab initio training must have had an effect on the utilisation of existing stocks of the aircraft, I hope that we will hear from the Minister that he is giving thought to a replacement for it and, in particular, that he is considering the possible use of the Beagle Pup, which might seem to be a suitable alternative.
  A question of more general importance, which has been touched upon by a number of speakers in the debate, is trooping and reinforcement by air. We know that for many years mobility has been the key to the successful containment of international incidents. This is certainly likely to be even more important in future. For a long time, the independent air transport operators have provided the bulk of civil capacity to move Service personnel and supplies by air, and with a high degree of cost effectiveness.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) is not present, because I would like to criticise his unjustified and irresponsible generalisations concerning the standards of this operation by civil airline operators. The hon. Member was quite unable to produce evidence to substantiate what he said. Certainly, I have not been able to see anything in the Report of the Estimates Committee to bear out his remarks. It is worth remembering that during the past five years nearly 2 million passengers have been carried by civil airline operators under trooping contracts.

  385
  This year's Defence White Paper shows that the cost of the air mobility forces will increase from the 1966/67 figure of £135 million to £140 million, and within this overall figure the civil charter element is to be reduced from £11 million to £7 million. This represents, apparently, a saving of £4 million within the increased total of £140 million, although I understood the Under-Secretary, in opening the debate, to say that there was a saving of £5 million on passenger trooping and £3 million on freighting and that this results from and reflects the greater degree of direct responsibility which is being taken over by R.A.F. Transport Command.
  The House must ask the Government for an assurance that real savings are to be made here both in the long run and in the short term. Is the Minister satisfied that Transport Command will be at least as efficient a provider of trooping services as the civil operators have been? I realise that precise cost comparisons are not necessarily very easy if trooping and training coincide, but has the cost effectiveness been assessed?
  What assessment has been made of the likely effect of this change on the strength of our civil air fleet? This fleet constitutes a most valuable reserve in case of need, and it seems possible that it may now be reduced in size as a result of this policy and of other decisions taken in other directions by the Government. Once again, it seems that the Government are deliberately closing their mind to the importance of maintaining reserve capacity adequate to back up the Regular Services in the event of emergency.
  Those are points which I had made a note to put forward before the Seventh Report of the Estimates Committee on the movement of Service personnel and stores. A quick study of that Report reinforces the views which I have already expressed. There are some particularly forceful criticisms on page xvii. In Paragraph 40, we see it said:
  "… a reduction in current civil air trooping capacity may have far-reaching effects not confined to the purely military field."
  In Paragraph 41:
  "… it is Your Committee's duty to consider value for money being spent and from this point of view it is impossible … to endorse the proposals of the Ministry's Working Party. In Your Committee's view it would have been better to have framed plans for a more even
  386
  distribution of trooping tasks between Transport Command and the charter companies."
  Again, in Paragraph 42:
  "Your Committee recommend that in considering the future ordering of aircraft for Transport Command … the possibility of making more use of the capacity of the charter companies and the Air Corporations … should be examined much more closely than hitherto. They consider that a serious waste of public money may occur from ignoring civil air trooping capacity."
  These criticisms are serious and it was disappointing that the Under-Secretary seemed to brush them off. The House may want an early opportunity to debate this in full. I know that the hon. Gentleman has not had time to consider them at length, but his reaction to these weighty criticisms might have been more serious than it appeared.
  What plans are there for further re-equipment of the R.A.F.'s tanker force? I know that the replacement for the three-point Victor tanker is complete, but what will follow? We have been told that the Ministry is having discussion with the British Aircraft Corporation VC10s, but is the Minister merely considering acquiring conversion kits for the 14 transport VC10s already ordered, or does he see definite advantage in increasing the total order to provide a squadron of VC10 tankers?
  What do the Government intend should replace the Hercules? This will not be indefinitely up to date, even if it is now. What consideration has been given to a possible military requirement for the Fokker Wulf 614, the 40-seater Dakota replacement now to be built by West Germany, and which is to have a Bristol Siddeley engine?
  The House will have noted with interest the sentence in the Statement:
  "We are also examining what benefits we would get from a new staging airfield in the British Indian Ocean Territory "—
  At Aldabra, presumably. The Secretary of State believes that a staging airfield could be constructed at small cost. The Statement continues:
  "These arrangements would offer us greater flexibility on our future defence planning, particularly in relation to the Far East."
  This seems to be an admission of insufficient flexibility for the Government's purposes at the moment, it also makes interesting reading in conjunction with a passage in Paragraph 58 about the work of the Defence Operational Analysis

  387
  Establishment. This is in my constituency, but it is, I believe, of general importance. This passage reads:
  "The main value to their studies lies in what they can do to define clearly the extent to which decisions can be founded on ascertained fact rather than on empirical judgment, and to expand the area of fact by the systematic collection and critical examination of evidence."
  This is a commendable exercise, but after reading the Statement and listening to the debate, one is left feeling that, in the future rôle of the R.A.F. in particular and the Government's defence policy in general, far too many decisions have already been taken on a foundation of empirical judgment rather than of ascertained fact and that the judgment has been faulty.
  In our debate two years ago, the then Minister told us, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) reminded us in a powerful and excellent speech:
  "What the Royal Air Force requires more than anything else is a precise statement of the job it is expected to do set in the context of a clear worldwide defence policy and a knowledge of the kind of weapons and aircraft it will have to do the job."
  Just before he said that the Minister had told the House:
  "When the defence review now going on is complete, the essential tasks of the Service over the next decade will be clearly defined."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1965; Vol. 708, c. 454.]
  That was two years ago.
  If I might remind the House of this, also, I find that I was prompted by those statements to comment:
  "What we have instead is a decision to acquire certain aeroplanes now and to build a strategy round them later."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1965; Vol. 708. c. 492.]
  I cannot see that anything which has happened since invalidates that reaction, and much of what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly and noticeably by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, reinforces my view most strongly.
  We have now been told that the Defence Review is a non-stop process in the true traditions of "Windmill" government, with the participants wearing noticeably fewer clothes as the time goes on. But this in itself is no consolation to us and it can scarcely be said to improve matters.
  388
  The Defence Review continues, and the role of the Royal Air Force remains undefined. Let us consider, for example, two adjacent paragraphs in Chapter 1 of this year's Defence White Paper, paragraphs 42 and 43. The first of these says, in part:
  "Since Britain's contribution to N.A.T.O. will have a critical influence on the composition and deployment of all three Services, final decisions on the shape and size of our defence forces in the 1970s must await the outcome of the N.A.T.O. discussions."
  The next paragraph says, in part:
  "… plans have been made to satisfy the main equipment needs of all three Services until at least the mid-1970s."
  There we are. We have decided to buy certain equipment, and we will build a strategy round it later, and the Government are proudly claiming to have settled the needs of the Royal Air Force and the other Services before they have decided their shape, size, composition and deployment.
  This does not seem to be a process in which logic can have played much part, and the illogicality of the Government's present posture is nowhere more clearly shown than in the highly confused series of pronouncements on the subject of the F111. We have heard a lot about this in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans very rightly devoted much of his speech to this subject. Other hon. Members on both sides have spoken about it at length, and I make no apology for returning to this point, and to the points made by other hon. Members, because this is the last chance which the House is likely to have to debate the subject before the Minister of Defence signs on the dotted line for the 40 aircraft on which we retain an option until the end of this month.
  Before the right hon. Gentleman gets himself a gold pen for signing a commitment for about £100 million of British money as a minimum figure, I think that the House has a right to know more about a number of things. First, we need to know more about price. What is the ceiling price? What does it include? Does it cover spares and back up stores?
  Mr. Lubbock: No, it does not—not after two years. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Onslow: There seems to be some disagreement. The hon. Member for

  389
  Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) is most knowledgeable on this matter, but I am asking the Government for a reply, and, as the Minister says, the hon. Member for Orpington is not yet a member of the Government.
  Mr. Lubbock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Onslow: I have a number of questions to ask, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. If we can obtain an answer from the Front Bench opposite, I have no doubt that both the hon. Member for Orpington, and I will be interested in it.
  I believe that the House has a right to know more about the modifications. Is there a requirement for strengthening the undercarriage of the F111K, and if so, why? Does this represent a need to carry a greater pay-load on take off?
  Is it because the F111K is expected to operate from rougher surfaces, or is there some other reason about which we have not yet been told?
  We need to know more about development problems. I agree that these may be overcome. I have heard it said that when the Americans have a problem they do not bother to solve it; they just hammer it to death. The resources of the American aircraft industry are probably capable of overcoming the problems of the F111K, however serious, but we should know more about it, and we should know one thing in particular—what increase in cost is this likely to represent if at any time the Government find themselves wishing to buy over and above the initial 50 to which they are committed? Many suspect that if the Government require any more F111Ks they will turn out to be far more expensive than the price so far agreed.
  The House should know about the serviceability of the aircraft that we are to get—and, in particular, the 40 which will be operationally deployed, as against the 10 trainers, which, we understand, will be based mainly in this country. It seems most unlikely that more than 30 of these would be operational at any one time, at the outset. They will not all be acquired together, so there is a process of wastage which will, presumably, play its part, and there is loss by accident and loss, perhaps, in operation. There
  390
  is the toll of rising maintenance costs as the aircraft get older and faults appear which we do not yet suspect. The House may be interested to know what the ratio is between the aircraft's flying hours and the hours needed for its maintenance. This is a very interesting equation, if we can get it.
  I hope that the Minister will not plead security in this matter. I find his argument on this most thin, just as I found his reaction surprisingly excitable. The Minister has developed a habit of being disarmingly frank about things which do not matter at all and obstinately silent about things which matter much more to us and are much more valuable to us than, presumably, to our enemies, who will doubtless have the means of working out the answers for themselves, either by access to public information in this country, or, more probably, information already published in the United States.
  We have a right to know much more about roles and targets of the F111K. Many hon. Members have said this and so far, whatever the Minister may feel, the House is not satisfied. The Minister has been putting up quite a smoke screen on this subject. We had him saying, a year ago, that
  "in addition to the main base where F111s will be kept in the Far East"—
  which, by implication, is Singapore—
  "we shall also have minor bases "—
  in a number of places in and around the Indian Ocean—
  "which will give us extraordinarily wide coverage of the whole Middle East and Southern Asia and East Africa."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1966; Vol. 725, c. 2041–2.]
  More recently, there has been a shift of emphasis, and a very interesting and revealing one. On 28th February. 1967, about the F111K, the Minister said:
  "the last Government planned the TSR2, which the F111K and the AFVG will replace, essentially for a rôle in Europe and not outside it …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 392.]
  and the following day, in answer to a Question, he said:
  "This aircraft replaces the cancelled TSR2, designed by the previous Government primarily as an aircraft for use in the European theatre."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 477.]
  That is not untrue. The Minister may laugh, but so often in Government information there is small print to be

  391
  read. Industry certainly knows that if TSR2 had been intended exclusively for use in Europe, they would have come up with a rather different kind of aircraft. It is naïve to pretend that there was no Far Eastern specification for the TSR2 and the F111K. The Minister knows it, and he knows that the F111K has it. This is what makes it important to discover the gap between 1970 and 1975 that the F111K has to fill and the V-bombers cannot.
  There is a need, is there, for all-weather reconnaisance outside Europe, or is there an imagined need for a nuclear strike capability outside Europe, a point which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) put his finger on, and a point which gained strength from the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), that the nav-attack system in the F111K has only nuclear accuracy? If this is not true, we shall be interested to hear it.
  We understand the desire of the Government to want to please their back benchers below the Gangway, to throw a bone to the pedigree chums, but their attempts are not very successful or very intelligent because of the possibility, the probability, the certainty that in the Government's mind there is this nuclear rôle for the F111K, and this appears to us more transparent every day. It is up to the Government to admit it, and, if they do admit it, to justify it, because we cannot have a sensible or serious debate about the policies of the Government in the field of this Service or any other unless they are prepared to say what is the purpose for which they seek the aircraft which they ask us to authorise them to buy.
  At the same time, I think that hon. Members opposite below the Gangway will be disappointed if they look for any immediate saving from the cancellation of the F111K, because this is being bought at the moment largely "on tick".
  There has also been some pertinent and persistent questioning of the Government on the AFVG. It was very ingenious of the Under-Secretary not to mention this in his opening speech, particularly as it was part of his advertising. The AFVG is proclaimed as the core of the British aircraft industry, but how
  392
  firm is it? How satisfied are the Government that the type of French uncertainty there has been in relation to plans for NATO will not spill over into this field as well?
  The Concord, at the moment, is the core of the British aircraft industry, and the Jaguar seems to be coming along to reinforce it, but if the AFVG is to become the future core of the industry it will require much greater certainty than it has at the moment. It is certainly not a cheap aeroplane. Even the elastic slide-rule which the Minister keeps producing, and which adjusts so many of his calculations in the Government's favour, cannot make this out to be a cheap aeroplane. Indeed, all the facts indicate how difficult and expensive it will be for the Government to replace the TSR2.
  There is confusion about the O.R. demands; that AFVG is wanted for different purposes by different people, which must mean that it will cost more. But what is it for? What do the R.A.F. need this aircraft for? The Government really have not made out their case on this; they must tell the House more about it.
  This has been the main burden of the debate—not criticism of the Under-secretary, certainly not criticism of the Royal Air Force, but criticism of the Minister and his policy and the future aircraft programme to which he lends his name. We know the Minister to be a professional optimist, the Pangloss of the Defence Ministry who is always making out that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds. He sits there and smiles very genially in assent, but this is not a field in which unbalanced optimism is desirable.
  It is a most dangerous fallacy to assume that everything will be all right on the night, that our world must become progressively more peaceful, that our interests and responsibilities will progressively diminish, that new interests and responsibilities will not arise to replace the old, or perhaps that by the time they do this Government may well have gone and their successors will have to worry about it. That seems to be the view of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton.
  But no matter whose problem in the end this may be, the question that faces

  393
  us now is that the men of the R.A.F. know that there is a veneer of professional optimism covering their future. They want to know what is underneath it. However proud the Under-Secretary may be of the new Air Force he claims to be building he must understand that the R.A.F. will serve the nation best only when it knows what it is expected to do. That, so far, it does not know, and nor does the House of Commons.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Chapter I of the Defence White Paper deals with the new functions of Ministers in the Ministry of Defence—a Secretary of State, two Ministers and three Under-Secretaries. Obviously a great deal of discussion took place on the next step following the 1964 changes. I feel extremely strongly, as far as the R.A.F. is concerned—and I know that this is true of my other right hon. and hon. Friends—that it is right to keep the single Service board. It gives managerial responsibility. There are different philosophies, but while that is right we believe that the system which now obtains—a Secretary of State, two Ministers and three Under-Secretaries—is right. In our view, the new system is working and will develop in the years to come.
  I have been asked about relations with the Ministry of Technology. These are very early days. I put the suggestion, which I know my right hon. Friend has considered, that perhaps under the new set-up of Ministers in the Department it might mean in future years that the pattern of the Estimates debates will change to match this arrangement. I put that forward purely as a suggestion.
  A year ago, at the end of the Defence Review, according to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), the R.A.F. personnel said, "Good". If they said "Good", that was rather different from the view which the Opposition took. The complaint this time is of uncertainty. A Defence Review can never be a once-for-all. Defence in its relationship with economic and foreign affairs cannot be stable. We shall constantly be developing. Whichever Government are in power, uncertainty to some degree is the key word in defence policy.
  The hon. Member asked me the cost of the additional aircraft types in main-
  394
  tenance and training, for example. I admit that I have been unable to obtain these figures. Indeed, to obtain them would involve considerable cost, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not pursue it. He said that we have a mixture of aircraft instead of two aircraft carrying out a number of rôles. On many occasions, it is a waste to use a sophisticated aircraft for a minor rôle. With the larger number of aircraft that we have, we can use an aircraft for a particular rôle, and there is economy to be made. An example is the P1127 in a ground attack rôle.
  The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) raised the question of the use of airfields by light civilian aircraft. By prior notice, light civilian aircraft may land at over 50 airfields. The question of time arises. It is our wish to be as helpful as possible. We recognise the growth in the use of light aircraft and we are in touch with the Business Aircraft Users' Association on this and other matters.
  The hon. Member asked about abolishing the system of signing on at an early age. This is a difficult question. My hon. Friend spoke on it last night. The whole question is being looked at. I assure the hon. Member that in the R.A.F. there are grounds—compassionate grounds and purchase if the trade is under-manned. I realise the difficulties, and the situation is being looked at. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) also raised that point.
  I was not here at the time, but I understand that my hon. Friend raised the possibility of the use of Leuchars. We did so, and subsequently it was used by civil aircraft. The situation is that, because of the inability to use the civil airfield, we allowed civil aircraft to use Leuchars. We put that forward until 1st April, but it will have to cease then. We were in the happy position that training was not at such a high pitch at Leuchars, but it will be from 1st April. It was very much a temporary arrangement, in order to help out as far as we were able.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) discussed air trooping. I take his point that he is glad that Transport Command is doing more of it, but I have no evidence to support his suggestion that the charter

  395
  companies have provided bad service for our troops. No doubt if he has any points to raise at the moment, he will bring them to our notice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) brought has knowledge of meteorology to the debate. The House may like to know that he brings his knowledge to me very frequently, and I am extremely grateful for it. He referred to the Report of the Estimates Committee, which was very laudatory to the Meteorological Office. The suggestions that were made are being looked at, and my right hon. Friend has been in touch with other Ministerial Departments to see what can be done to inform weather sensitive industries of the great savings which can be obtained from the work of the Met. Office.
  My hon. Friend made reference to an article which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph a few days ago, and I have had that looked at. It would seem to be a garbled version of the World Weather Watch project which is on the stocks. The headline,
  "Britain to get met, forecasts from Russia",
  and the suggestion that we shall lose our place as one of the world's major weather centres probably derive from the fact that the United Kingdom will not provide a world centre in the project. We shall be a regional centre. There is a great deal of work to be done, and the part to be played by us has yet to be decided, but certainly the World Weather Watch, via the United Nations, is something which we shall do all that we can to help.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) raised the matter of air-sea rescue. He will be pleased to know that I have had only the briefest notice of this, just as I had only the briefest notice of the Estimates Committee Report, which came out today. The fact that I do not say much about it does not mean that I am brushing it off. I am not very good at instant politics yet. Perhaps I shall improve in time—[Interruption.] No doubt I could learn a great deal from my right hon. Friend, as perhaps could the hon. Gentleman.
  I notice that the Report on the "Darlwin" disaster is out today. I was involved in that matter some time ago, and
  396
  I am pleased to note that the Report pays tribute to the search and rescue work done by the Services.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) raised one of the many points which rather floored me. His was a highly technical one, asking if I had discovered the difference between the figures in Vote A and those on page 66. We have a contingency figure, otherwise, if the Vote A figure was not being kept to, we could recruit someone and then have to tell him that he was surplus to our permitted number. Then one has to subtract from that the local forces recruited in other parts of the world. In that way, one arrives at the figure on page 66. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my notice.
  I can assure the hon. Member that the R.A.F. will be able to deal with the new aircraft. There are deficiencies in recruiting in certain trades, such as steward, gunner, fireman, and supplier (Equipment Branch). However, in the higher technical trades, we do very well on recruitment.
  A number of hon. Gentlemen, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) latterly, suggested a greater use of Malta. Malta is much used by R.A.F. aircraft on training flights from the United Kingdom and Germany for operational training and navigational flying training, and those flights will continue. It is another matter to base aircraft in Malta for training purposes. We have looked at this matter carefully. There are savings to be made from concentrating the base of our training in this country, and while there are benefits to be derived from flying to Malta, the actual basing of it there has been rejected.
  A number of hon. Members have asked questions about the F111. As we have stated before, the cost is £2·1 million. This is a fixed price for each of the 50 aircraft when the option is taken up. Other questions were asked about the supplemental ceiling price of the British version, the F111K—that is, for the undercarriage, escape capsule and avionics—and the figure for this version, £2·5 million, has also been given before. It was stated clearly by my right hon. Friend.
  I was asked if the Americans could recoup on spares, since we have obtained

  397
  such a favourable price. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are being unnecessarily suspicious about this. The price we will have to pay is firmly stated. It will be the same price as is paid by the American Air Force; and that Air Force, the American Department of Defence, strikes a very hard bargain. The complete cost of the F111 is covered by the offset agreements—by the direct purchases and by the combined purchases together. Altogether, 127 million worth of offset has been obtained for direct sales, and the co-operative sales are going very well.
  Understandably, hon. Gentlemen opposite raised the question of drag. Despite the problem of drag, the aircraft will more than meet our requirements. As for the problem of air intake, having been in the United States recently and having had with me some highly skilled technical members of the R.A.F., I repeat that we are satisfied that this problem is already being dealt with. I insist that it is wrong to think that only the F111 has problems in its development. This happens in the development of all modern aircraft. These problems are bound to arise, but I assure the House that this aircraft will meet our operational requirements.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman referred to co-operative "sales". Did he mean "sales" in the plural? Is there more than one such sale extant?
  Mr. Rees: No. Co-operative sale or sales, I certainly did not mean to indicate that there was more than one.
  A number of questions were asked about the rôle of the F111, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) wondered how the aircraft would be used in advance of war. I assure him that that was the point I was endeavouring to answer, and not the rôle when war has started. I wish to make it clear, having carefully looked into the matter, that we do not use satellites and that, in any case, their accuracy would not be nearly good enough for a tactical rôle, It is in the tactical rôle that reconnaissance is required.
  I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for being absent while he was speaking. I had to attend a short meeting. I
  398
  have dealt with the question of unit and fixed costs, so I hope that I have answered the question he put.
  Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell indicated dissent.
  Mr. Rees: It is fixed at £2·1 million over the whole of the 40 aircraft, and there is nothing more I can say about that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian also asked me to comment on the implications of the United States Navy no longer being in the market. Having checked on the matter, I can only tell my hon. Friend that it is not for me to comment on what is happening in the United States, except to say that I understand that this is not the case at all.
  I was questioned about the undercarriage of the F111, and I can best answer by referring to a Written Answer which I gave to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in July of last year, when I said:
  "The FBIII undercarriage will confer greater operational flexibility and a greater degree of safety when operating at higher weights, for example on a long-range reconnaissance mission, particularly from less developed airfields ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 276.]
  I was also asked about the operating efficiency of this aircraft. The answer is 50 man-hours—not 50 men, which was a mistake I made earlier—for one hour in the air, and it drops to 35 man-hours. I was given a figure in the United States assuming that the engine of an F111 failed in the jungle, perhaps, with no equipment available. That is an engine in one hour. Even if that is an exaggeration, it still shows that the Americans have given a great deal of thought to the operating efficiency of an aircraft of this type.
  I was asked about the other British equipment. I looked very carefully at the escape capsule in the United States. I was impressed to find escape at zero-zero, which is quite incredible. The escape capsule is a great step forward. It is being developed and made down at St. Louis, and will be taken to the aircraft at Fort Worth.
  Mr. Onslow: Could the hon. Gentleman explain the necessity for the strengthened undercarriage? Why is that required by the Americans not for all their F111s but, presumably, only

  399
  for a small number? Why a strengthened undercarriage—that is, greater payload—for tactical reconnaissance? Presumably, it means that they will operate at extreme range.
  Mr. Rees: The answer lies in the greater amount of aviation fuel they would be carrying, but the major point is the type of runway from which they might be operating. There is also the point that the American operational requirement of TAC is different from the requirement for their SAC, which is the FBI 11. This is where they had the heavier undercarriage, and this is something which we on our professional side were advised to fit to our aircraft.
  As to the range of the F111, I went into this matter earlier today and attempted to answer some of the points in the article in The Times today. Time is passing, but I will go over those points quickly now because I know they are of interest to hon. Members. Last year I read the words of the White Paper that the key to the deterrent power is our ability to obtain early warning of the enemy's intention through reconnaissance and to strike at his offensive force at a distance. The rôle is not only east of Suez; two-thirds of all aircraft are in the United Kingdom.
  I promised to look at the number of operational aircraft. I regret that I am not able to give the figures—I am advised very strongly that it is not the practice of Governments to give this information—but I assure the House that it is not a case of 10 aircraft in the OCU. The mere fact that we have 10 as a first buy should not be taken as the number for the OCU. The figure given for the number of aircraft is a gross under-estimate of the true figure. The point about the F111 is that it is part of a mix of aircraft. There are the V-bombers in the conventional rôle; the Phantoms for the short-range rôle, and in the long-range rôle it is vital to replace the strike carrier.
  I was asked about the time scale. The Phantom we had earlier than the P1154; the C130 earlier than the HS681. The argument on the F111 was that it was cheaper and as good as the TSR2 and broadly in the same time scale. I have dealt with the question of the capsule.
  400
  An hon. Gentleman quoted from "Jane's Fighting Aircraft"—I suggest that HANSARD might be a better place to look than, perhaps, "Jane's Fighting Aircraft" in this sense, because I looked at HANSARD to find out what I had said originally. As to rough airfields, I have read what I said last July.
  Any modern aircraft can easily be equipped for nuclear weapons, but the 10 F111 aircraft and the 40 which are to come are for a conventional rôle. The nuclear strategy rôle is for Polaris. The major rôle for F111 is for reconnaissance. We had V-bombers in the Far East in a deterrent rôle, but they were deployed in a conventional rôle. The AFVG—
  Mr. Hastings: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the F111, does he recall that I asked if he is satisfied that the development of electronics in America for British requirement is not behind-hand and not inconsistent with the operational delivery dates he has quoted?
  Mr. Rees: I have checked thoroughly and find that the time-scale is good. The hon. Member also asked whether it could be used with only nuclear accuracy Neither is the case.
  Interesting points have been raised about development with the United States and the AFVG. The answer to the question about development costs being greater than for the F111 is no. The AFVG is considerably smaller. We have had arithmetical ratios tonight, but there is an arithmetical ratio relating to size and cost. The sales aspect is not being ignored by my Department. I took the opportunity at St. Louis to speak to 500 engineers in the plant there. I expressed my view that we might buy aircraft from them off the peg and on a 50/50 basis, but I stated my view that to have a viable British aircraft industry depended on whether there was r. and d. in this country. I found that the Americans accepted someone who spoke plainly on this matter. The basic force is built on the AFVG with some F111s, but the AFVG has not such a range. The V-bombers are the stop-gap supporting the Army and the navy.
  I was asked about the Operational Requirements Committee and the E.I.R. Division. Sales are well represented

  401
  there. There has been a change in organisation on realistic management of military projects. The project teams are in the Ministry of Technology. I have noted the point about AFVG costs and passed it to my right hon. Friend. One of the effects of the offset agreement is that we are in the United States market. We have broken through there because of procedure arrangements.
  The hon. Member for Orpington raised the question about Aldabra. I make clear that no decision has been reached. It is not an island base but a staging post. There is a great difference between the two concepts. It is needed and it is covered with dense vegetation, I am informed. The height above sea level varies between 5 ft. and 15 ft. The height above sea level of the Island of Gan is about 5 ft. One can get to the Far East, the Middle East and many parts of Africa from the island when it is used as a staging post. No decision has yet been taken. I am not in a position to give the cost, but the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the capital cost of Gan to date has been just over £6 million.
  One of my hon. Friends raised the question of dead bodies, and I understand that he argued that there were more facilities for embalming in the Far East. We have stated that where possible it will be done. I agree that this has taken a long time; I understand that the question of dead bodies has been discussed in defence matters for 60 years. There is a slight victory in our doing that in the past few months.
  I was asked if we had anything in Thailand, and the answer is that we have nothing at all. Other questions were asked by two of my hon. Friends who are not here now, so I shall not deal with those matters. I was asked a question about Hong Kong. The R.A.F. has precious little there except a communications flight and a staging post, and the rôle in Hong Kong is certainly not an R.A.F. rôle.
  402
  Questions were also asked about TSR2, but the answers to those are also in HANSARD.
  Mr. Goodhart: The Minister was talking about embalming. Does he intend to say something about the possible continued presence of the R.A.F. in Aden before he closes?
  Mr. Rees: No—not at this time of night.
  There was a question about the Chipmunk replacement. Present stocks will last some years, and therefore we do not now have that problem. The aircraft is not sophisticated and we can fairly readily acquire another. We have only four C130s and shall not be worried about a replacement until about 1980.
  I hope that I have answered as many questions as I can this evening. I now return to my first point, that I regard the job in the R.A.F. as managerial.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: The Minister has not said anything about Coastal Command, and we have heard very little about it in the defence debates. Can he assure the House that he is seized of the importance of Coastal Command, whatever rôle it must fulfil in the future?
  Mr. Rees: I said something about that when I opened this afternoon. We are fully aware of the rôle of Coastal Command. Coastal Command and the Navy worked together in the anti-submarine rôle in the last war. Its rôle might change, but I am sure that the R.A.F. will play a part, whatever it is.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That a number of Officers, Airmen and Airwomen, not exceeding 128,000, all ranks, be maintained for Air Force Service, during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1968.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Refuse Disposal Plant
  Refuse Disposal Plant
  Derelict Cars (Disposal)
  Derelict Cars (Disposal)
  Professional Men (Local Lists)
  Professional Men (Local Lists)
  Development Areas (Industrial Development Loans)
  Development Areas (Industrial Development Loans)
  Foreshores (Public Access)
  Foreshores (Public Access)
  Rate Deficiency Grant (Population Figures)
  Rate Deficiency Grant (Population Figures)
  Car Park and Picnic Facilities
  Car Park and Picnic Facilities
  Highcliffe Castle, Hampshire
  Highcliffe Castle, Hampshire
  Barnsbury Environmental Study
  Barnsbury Environmental Study
  Dangerous Structures (Powers)
  Dangerous Structures (Powers)
  Land (West Midlands Region)
  Land (West Midlands Region)
  Tyneside (Boundaries)
  Tyneside (Boundaries)
  Committee Meetings (Press and Public)
  Committee Meetings (Press and Public)
  Local Government Officers (Superannuation)
  Local Government Officers (Superannuation)
  Redditch New Town (Planning Proposals)
  Redditch New Town (Planning Proposals)
  Half Rates
  Half Rates
  North and Mid-Cornwall Water Board (Precepts)
  North and Mid-Cornwall Water Board (Precepts)
  Land Commission (Members)
  Land Commission (Members)
  Buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest, Hampshire
  Buildings of Architectural or Historic Interest, Hampshire
HOUSING
  Chipboard Floors
  Chipboard Floors
  Local Authority Houses
  Local Authority Houses
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  Fair Rents (Leaflet)
  Fair Rents (Leaflet)
  Rent Registrations (Wandsworth)
  Rent Registrations (Wandsworth)
  Rent Rebate Schemes
  Rent Rebate Schemes
  Council House Tenants (Income)
  Council House Tenants (Income)
  Council Houses (Mortgages)
  Council Houses (Mortgages)
  Rent Assessment Committees and Rent Officer Service (Cost)
  Rent Assessment Committees and Rent Officer Service (Cost)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anglo-Indian Relations
  Anglo-Indian Relations
  Tasmania Disaster Fund (Contribution)
  Tasmania Disaster Fund (Contribution)
  Jamaica (Personal Case)
  Jamaica (Personal Case)
  Malta
  Malta
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Fiji (University)
  Fiji (University)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  National Coal Board (Electricity Cables)
  National Coal Board (Electricity Cables)
COAL
  Transport Cost
  Transport Cost
TECHNOLOGY
  Concord Aircraft (Development Cost)
  Concord Aircraft (Development Cost)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Prices and Incomes (Standstill)
  Prices and Incomes (Standstill)
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Investment, Expenditure and Unemployment (Forecasts)
  Investment, Expenditure and Unemployment (Forecasts)
  Foreign Debt (Swap Facilities)
  Foreign Debt (Swap Facilities)
  Foreign Currencies
  Foreign Currencies
  British and Rhodesian Balance of Payments
  British and Rhodesian Balance of Payments
  Economic Growth (Imports)
  Economic Growth (Imports)
  Income Tax (Blind Persons' Allowance)
  Income Tax (Blind Persons' Allowance)
  Lancashire Textile Industry (Government Orders)
  Lancashire Textile Industry (Government Orders)
  Income Tax and Surtax (Children's Allowances)
  Income Tax and Surtax (Children's Allowances)
  Taxpayers (Capital Gains and Losses)
  Taxpayers (Capital Gains and Losses)
  Gross Domestic Product (Government Overseas Expenditure)
  Gross Domestic Product (Government Overseas Expenditure)
  Stationery Office Publications (Prices)
  Stationery Office Publications (Prices)
  British Forces, Germany (Foreign Exchange Costs)
  British Forces, Germany (Foreign Exchange Costs)
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Exchange Control Act, 1947 (Examination of Letters)
  Exchange Control Act, 1947 (Examination of Letters)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Textile Areas, Lancashire (Ministerial Visit)
  Textile Areas, Lancashire (Ministerial Visit)
  Temporary Import Charge
  Temporary Import Charge
  Exports
  Exports
  Seamen's Strike (Effects)
  Seamen's Strike (Effects)
  Manufacturing and Distribution (Investment)
  Manufacturing and Distribution (Investment)
  Queen's Award to Industry
  Queen's Award to Industry
  New Industries, Wales (B.O.T.A.C.)
  New Industries, Wales (B.O.T.A.C.)
  Welsh Industrialists (Assistance)
  Welsh Industrialists (Assistance)
  Car Hire Firms (Hire-Purchase Restrictions)
  Car Hire Firms (Hire-Purchase Restrictions)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY
  BRITISH FORCES, GERMANY
  CAMBODIA
  CAMBODIA
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy (Effects)
  Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy (Effects)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Output (Permissible Growth)
  Output (Permissible Growth)
  West Midlands Economic Planning Region
  West Midlands Economic Planning Region
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Redeployment
  Redeployment
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Wage Earners (Earnings and Hours Worked)
  Wage Earners (Earnings and Hours Worked)
POST OFFICE
  Property, Camberley
  Property, Camberley
  Postal Services (Diversion to Telephone Service)
  Postal Services (Diversion to Telephone Service)
  Letters (Advertising)
  Letters (Advertising)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  New Exchange, Goole (Equipment)
  New Exchange, Goole (Equipment)
  Underground Cables (Cost)
  Underground Cables (Cost)
  Connections
  Connections
  International Calls
  International Calls
  Cessations
  Cessations
  S.T.D. (Overseas Calls)
  S.T.D. (Overseas Calls)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Local Radio Stations
  Local Radio Stations
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Chieftain Tanks (Cost)
  Chieftain Tanks (Cost)
ROADS
  A614 (Thorne Canal Swing Bridge)
  A614 (Thorne Canal Swing Bridge)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Economic Development Council (Recommendations)
  Economic Development Council (Recommendations)
  Roads in England Report
  Roads in England Report
  Motorways
  Motorways
RAILWAYS
  Workshops
  Workshops
  Passenger Services (Closures)
  Passenger Services (Closures)
SHIPPING
  British Railways Services
  British Railways Services
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Noise)
  Motor Vehicles (Noise)
  OVERSEAS CABLES
  OVERSEAS CABLES
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  BLUE ASBESTOS (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  BLUE ASBESTOS (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)
  ADEN
  ADEN
  POPULATION
  POPULATION
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICE
  GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICE
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND W.E.U. (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND W.E.U. (PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION)
  APPROVED SCHOOLS
  APPROVED SCHOOLS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Unstamped Eggs (Fines)
  Unstamped Eggs (Fines)
  Fat Cattle (Payments)
  Fat Cattle (Payments)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Amateur Fencing Association (Grant)
  Amateur Fencing Association (Grant)
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Teachers (Salaries)
  Part-Time Teacher Training (Married Women)
  Part-Time Teacher Training (Married Women)
  Retired Teachers (Part-time Teaching)
  Retired Teachers (Part-time Teaching)
HOSPITALS
  Pedal Car Race, Bristol (Treatment of Spectators)
  Pedal Car Race, Bristol (Treatment of Spectators)
  Hospital Administrators
  Hospital Administrators
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Hire Car Drivers (Medical Examination)
  Hire Car Drivers (Medical Examination)
  Traffic Wardens (Equal Pay)
  Traffic Wardens (Equal Pay)
  Foster Child, Monmouthshire
  Foster Child, Monmouthshire
  Foster Children
  Foster Children
SCOTLAND
  Hospital Pharmacists
  Hospital Pharmacists
  Scottish Fishery Protection Fleet
  Scottish Fishery Protection Fleet
  Coast Protection Schemes (Cost)
  Coast Protection Schemes (Cost)
  A8 Glasgow—Edinburgh Road (Double White Lines)
  A8 Glasgow—Edinburgh Road (Double White Lines)
WALES
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Civil Airfield, Mid-Wales
  Civil Airfield, Mid-Wales

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

THE COMMON MARKET: AGRICULTURE AND COMMON WEALTH TRADE
2.36 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that they will continue to reject all proposals that Britain should forthwith offer to sign the Treaty of Rome, leaving conditions for home agriculture and Commonwealth trade for post-signature negotiation.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, the Treaty of Rome is not open for signature by additional candidates for membership of the European Economic Community. In accordance with Article 237 of the Treaty, a fresh agreement would need to be negotiated with the existing members. Should Her Majesty's Government decide to apply for membership, they would hope that the negotiations could concentrate on main issues.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the noble Lord this further question? Does his reply really mean that there is no possibility that Britain might sign the Treaty of Rome before the conditions for Commonwealth trade and agriculture are satisfied and known?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been making a series of visits to the European capitals. In the light of what they have heard and said there Her Majesty's Government are now
172
discussing what the next move should be.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I take it that the Minister's reply really "shoots down" the suggestions and the pressures, which come from many quarters, that Britain should at once advance to sign the Treaty of Rome? Does the Minister's reply rebut that entirely?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, clearly I cannot anticipate the decisions that will be taken by Her Majesty's Government in the light of the information which is being collected.
2.38 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that, before any decision is taken on the question of application for entry into the E.E.C., Parliament shall have an opportunity to debate the issue in full knowledge of conditions proposed for home agriculture and for safeguarding Commonwealth trade.]
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, should Her Majesty's Government decide to apply to negotiate for membership of the European Economic Community, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has given an assurance that there will be an opportunity for debate before any such application is made. But it would not be in the public interest to say in detail what our terms and conditions would be on particular questions.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I put this question to the Minister? Although details may not be known, can the Minister give an assurance that when such a debate takes place Parliament will have knowledge of the broad conditions on which Her Majesty's Government propose to insist in regard to Commonwealth trade and home agriculture?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, certainly the broad outlines will be available for discussion. Whether the noble Lord's interpretation of "broad" would be the same as that of some other people, I do not know.

FUTURE BUSINESS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, inview of the large volumne of business for this week, and perhaps for the convenience of noble Lords who remain to the end of business, I should like to inform the House that light refreshments will be available in the Guest Room to-night and on Thursday. On Wednesday suppers will be available in the Dining Room from 7 p.m.

PRIMARY SCHOOLS: THE PLOWDEN REPORT
2.40 p.m.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON rose to call attention to the Report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England) entitled Children and their Primary Schools (The Plowden Report); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a matter of satisfaction to me, and I hope to all noble Lords, that this House is once again taking the lead in debating something of the utmost social significance, even though in this instance we are possibly anticipating another place by only two days. The Plowden Report not only is a profound survey of a large sector of the maintained system of education, it is also a record and an examination of many of the ideas and attitudes of contemporary society. There has been nothing quite like it for more than thirty years, and it is a fairly safe guess to say that there will be nothing quite like it for at least another thirty. Therefore I found it somewhat difficult to make up my mind how I should set about speaking to my Motion.
I sought inspiration by looking up the memorable debate that we had in December, 1963, on the Robbins Report—but to no avail. On that occasion, the mover of the. Motion for Papers held the rapt attention of your Lordships for no less than 54 minutes, which is something I could never do. But, in any case, the situation then was very different. There were political axes to be ground, "I-told-you-so's" to be said; and the Government had already before the debate announced their acceptance of the Robbins findings. Morever, the
174
noble Lord, Lord Robbins, himself could, and did, testify to the excellence of his child. Lady Plowden cannot testify to the excellence of her child, but we are fortunate in that her husband can, if he is so minded. I propose to cast myself this afternoon in the modest role of midwife, to deliver the child into the world of Parliament, to offer a few comments, to raise a few questions, and then await with much interest the views of subsequent speakers. Your Lordships may think that my metaphor is not altogether inapt if you reflect that, although it is highly desirable that a midwife should be expertly trained and fully qualified, it occasionally happens that her duties have to be performed by somebody who is neither.
I have long held the belief, and I think I have expressed it in your Lordships' House, that on the whole the primary schools are our most successful schools. There is nothing in the Report to make me change that belief. On the contrary, although Lady Plowden and her colleagues were clearly concerned all the time with the achievement of perfection, in so far as perfection can be achieved without wholly unrealistic expenditure, the Report is a convincing vindication of primary education at its best, and even at its average. In some ways I think that this is the most important feature of the Report, and it is illustrated by such remarks, which I have selected at random, as these:
"We have for the most part described English primary education at its best. That in our belief is very good indeed, only rarely is it very bad. The average is good."
And again:
"Our review is a review of progress and a spur to more."
And, again, that the primary schools are
"rapidly becoming leaders in educational advance."
I would particularly commend to your Lordships Chapter 8, which describes the assessment of primary education made by the Council after all but 676 of the 20,664 primary schools in England had been placed by Her Majesty's Inspectors (in fact all the inspectors responsible for primary education) in one of nine ingeniously devised and exhaustive categories. I hope that your Lordships have found (or will find if you have not already done so) the assessment as reassuring as I

175
have done. If I may say so without presumption, the Report is very well written. It is extremely readable; the use of jargon is kept to the minimum, and I hope that electoral pundits everywhere will heed that salutary lesson. And where the authors use terms of art, they take the trouble to define them. There are hardly any blinding glimpses of the obvious, though I spotted one or two—for instance:
"Children are born every day of the year."
And:
"Whenever a school is unpopular that should be an indication to the authority to find out why and make it better."
My Lords, I probably should not have noticed those two examples had they not been so exceptional in this fairly long document.
Whether or not one agrees with the many conclusions and recommendations of the Council, they are almost invariably argued with great cogency. But I must admit that my credulity is stretched by two items. One is the reservation on religious education by Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Wilson. These gentlemen advocate the setting up of committees of teachers, lecturers and parents within local education authorities and institutes of education in order to devise an acceptable code of ethics not based on theology. My mind boggles at the thought of committees attempting something which has baffled philosophers down the ages.
The other item is the extravaganza on the theme of abolishing corporal punishment. I personally am in sympathy, up to a point, with what the Council say. But in their zeal, which is, alas! at variance both with the evidence they received and with their essential common sense on punishment generally, they have gone to the length of recommending that no independent school should be recognised as efficient if it retains the right to even an occasional use of the cane. In other words, my Lords, they are saying that however excellent an independent school may be, the necessary and sufficient test of efficiency should be the non-use of corporal punishment. Your Lordships will know that recognition of efficiency is a statutory sanction vested in the Secretary of State. I forbear from further comment on this except to say that in so far as the Plowden Council have made a recommendation affecting
176
all independent schools, including those of a secondary character from which they did not take evidence, they have strayed outside their terms of reference.
Above all, the Report ranges over an immense field, and here I am going to venture a mild, "I told you so." When this House last debated primary education in April, 1964, shortly after I went to the Department of Education and Science with responsibility for the schools, some noble Lords—and I mention no names—doubted my assurance that the Plowden terms of reference were sufficiently wide and fundamental. My Lords, I trust that those doubts have now been removed, at any rate from the minds of those who have read the Report.
The Report contains 197 main recommendations and a host of subsidiary ones. Where they involve additional expenditure they are costed, and where legislation is needed that is indicated. That is very helpful. They are addressed to individuals and bodies too numerous, I think, for me to list without being a bore; but, broadly speaking, the addressees may be put into two groups: those who are concerned with administering the education service at any level and those who teach or care for children, or who teach those who do, and the parents of the children themselves.
The sections of the Report which deal with the latter group are in many ways the most stimulating, because they bring together in two documents and in fully digested form all the wisdom that has been expressed at some time somewhere. But I am going to make no more than two comments on these sections, because I do not feel qualified to do so. Both of them are concerned with the curriculum. First, I am delighted that the Report conclusively refutes the lie, so often heard, that the schools are turning out pupils who cannot read. Because I am old-fashioned enough to believe that reading ability is the key to everything else, I welcome the Plowden finding that the most successful infant teachers have refused to follow fashion and to commit themselves to any one method of teaching reading. This finding should give assurance to those parents, and there are many, who feel that methods of teaching reading in the schools tend to be dictated mainly by the availability of staff to do the teaching.
Secondly, I come down on the side of the majority of the Council in their recommendation that generally there should be no change in the present arrangements for religious education. The dissenting minority—not the minority I mentioned earlier, but the larger minority headed by Professor Ayer—say that whether children,
"end by accepting or rejecting Christian theology they ought to be given the opportunity to acquire an adequate knowledge of all that it implies. They should be presented with the arguments in its favour and the arguments against it and allowed to decide whether they find it credible." (Vol. 1, p. 490.)
The minority then go on to argue that, because children cannot make such a judgment by the time they reach the age of 12, therefore there should be no religious education at all in primary schools. The majority, however, think that there should be. They say that children
"should not be confused by being taught to doubt before faith is established. Inevitably at some stage of a child's growth the truth of religious teaching will be questioned and a free judgment made as to its truth or falsehood." (p. 207.)
This is, of course, entirely a question of opinion, but it seems to me that the view of the majority is the more sensible argument of the two. I am sorry in a way to have to say this, because I had the good fortune to be Professor Ayer's pupil and his teaching has been the greatest of all influences in my life.
I come now to the main recommendations directed to those responsible for administration. The most controversial is that which calls for positive discrimination in favour of priority areas, which are defined as areas where poor homes and bad neighbourhoods put a child at a disadvantage. The criterion is schools containing 10 per cent. of the most deprived children, and the Report makes precise proposals about the methods by which priority should be given to them. I am sure that this recommendation should be welcomed in principle. It is fully in keeping with the policy which we pursued when in office of favouring deliberately school building in the North-East and favouring the replacement of primary schools in Inner London. But I do not think that the policy should be pushed too far—at any rate, I do not think that more generous staffing in priority areas,
178
which is one of the strongest recommendations, should be allowed to result in levelling down over the whole field. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether or not the Government accept this recommendation. It would be slightly ironic if they do.
Yesterday The Times newspaper, in a rather cynical leading article, said that the Plowden adoption of positive discrimination puts on trial the Socialism of the present Government. And so it does. But not for the reason given by The Times, which was a political one. If the Government accept this important recommendation, then they will be saying in effect, "It is not in the national interest to select the ablest children for privileged secondary education, but it is in the national interest to select some children for privileged education if 10 per cent. of them come from poor homes." It is not for me to resolve this paradox, which is of the Government's making, but I hope at any rate that the Government will accept this Plowden recommendation in principle. What I want to see is widening of opportunity without loss of excellence. On the details of how this recommendation should be implemented, I would say but one thing. The Plowden Council are not on quite such strong ground as they think in using the analogy of doctors to support the proposal for extra pay for teachers in priority schools. They have ignored the fact that there are over-doctored areas, whereas there is no such thing as an over-teachered area.
The next most important recommendation is the training and use of teachers' aides, which of course is a term used by the Council to describe trained ancillaries who are capable of giving substantial help to teachers both inside and outside the classroom. I think that my noble friend Lord Eccles may be saying something on this subject of teachers' aides, so I do not need to say very much, but I know that it is the sort of proposal that has been dear to the heart of many Ministers of Education. The suggested safeguards for the status of teachers seem to me to be wholly adequate, and I personally hope that the Secretary of State will now proceed to seek the agreement of the profession without delay.
I should be most interested to hear the views of subsequent speakers and, of

179
course, of the Government on the Plowden Plan for recasting the structure of primary education; that is to say, changing the ages and stages of transfer. If it is right, as they recommend, to raise the age of transfer to secondary schools from 11-plus to 12-plus—and I am inclined to think that it is—then the rest of the plan, indeed the whole plan, is beautifully logical. I will not describe it in detail; it is fully explained in the Report. This plan for recasting the structure involves a large extension of nursery education which would be most expensive. Is this justified? One knows—and the Plowden Council testify to this—that many mothers want to park their infants somewhere so that they can go out to work. The provision of such parking places may be a desirable social service, but the question is: should those parking places provide education? The Report says "Yes", on educational grounds. But, with all due deference to expert opinion, I am not wholly convinced by their argument.
How far is it advantageous to begin education as early as possible? The answer is—or, at least, the answer that I derive from the Report—that nobody really knows, because so far research is inconclusive. We know that a distinguished Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, could read at the age of three. We know, too, that subsequently she had a highly distinguished academic career. But from my reading of the experts, one could not be certain that there was necessarily a causal relation between those two remarkable events. My children, taught by my wife, could read with reasonable fluency before they were four, and we hoped that this would be to their subsequent advantage. But I do not honestly believe that, except for a very few years, this facility gained them any advantage. I am certain that if this nation embarks on a larger scale expansion of nursery education, we should act upon the recommendation of the Minority Report, that a parental contribution should be made by all who can afford to pay. I hope that we shall have from the Government to-day some views about this big and expensive question of the provision of nursery schools on a much larger scale than we have them now.
I have nearly come to the end of the time that I allotted to myself, but I wish to say a word or two about buildings. One of the important recommendations of the Plowden Council is that much more money should be spent in future years on the improvement of old primary schools. I welcome that recommendation very warmly indeed. I think that in the past part of the trouble has been that local educational authorities have been unwilling to spend money on the improvement of old buildings which they knew were to be replaced sooner or later. When I went to the Department of Education and Science, I went there with the wish, more than anything else, to be able to do something to get more of our worst primary schools improved without spending too much money. I found innumerable obstacles; and in any case I was not there long enough to have much chance of doing anything.
I should like to add one further comment about building. The findings of the Council and their recommendations on school buildings, reinforce something which I have said before in your Lordships' House, and I make no apology for repeating it. It must be wrong to spend money on the alteration and improvement of secondary school buildings purely so that they may be used as part of a viable system of reorganisation of education on comprehensive lines, unless the expenditure of that money is justified simply because of the defects in the buildings themselves. Your Lordships know my views on comprehensive education; I have made them quite clear in the past. I am sure that if money is spent on buildings when the state of those buildings does not really justify it, it is bound to result in injustice.
Finally, I would say this. I am sure that the nation is immensely indebted to Lady Plowden and her colleagues, and that their Report will be a standard textbook throughout the world on education. It will be the subject of ceaseless discussion. Sentences will be lifted from it in support of every conceivable hobby-horse. And it is a challenge to the Government. I have not fired embarrassing questions at the Government, and I hope the noble Earl the Leader of the House is grateful. But I cannot resist saying that I have the wry thought that had my Party been in office now, and had I been the responsible Minister in this House, I should prob

181
ably have been pressed long before two months was up to announce firm decisions on the part of the Government. I hope that we shall hear some decisions to-day from the noble Earl. If we do not, then we shall certainly go on asking until we get them. I beg to move for Papers.
3.7 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for calling attention to this Report, and for paying such a tribute to it. I, too, think that it is an extremely well-written Report—the sort of Report that will be a standard textbook in the years to come. I am glad that the noble Lord said this. I would also thank Lord Newton for his interesting comments upon the Report. Like him, I looked back at the debate we had on primary schools about three years ago. What struck me was how many of the recommendations and suggestions that were put forward in the debate in this House were taken up by the Plowden Council. We might perhaps take this as a pat on the back to ourselves; or, on the other hand—and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, touched upon this—it might be felt that this was because the Report dealt only with blinding glimpses of what was to us then obvious. However, I do not believe that is true.
From these Benches, of course, we strongly welcome the Report, and virtually everything in it. I personally am particularly glad that the Report focuses attention upon primary education. Primary education has been very much the "poor relation" in the educational field. It has a worse staffing ratio, as we all know, and a lower per capita allowance. I know that there are various reasons why, in the case of older children, the per capita allowance has to be bigger. For instance, scientific equipment and other items of that sort are necessary for children over 15. Nevertheless, in many respects, primary education needs more money, not less. Primary children are children who have not been taught to look after things such as books: they need more pictures and more paper to play with, to cut up and write on, than the children in the older groups. Primary schools also need more teachers, not fewer. This is where the whole subject of teachers' aides is dealt with so usefully.
182
There is another aspect of the "poor relation" treatment of primary education which the Plowden Report touches on and which I think is worth emphasising; that is, the system of school managers, which a great many of us regard as a bad one. The Plowden Report suggests that the school managers should be abolished and that in these cases we should fall into line with the system of governors which we have in secondary education. I am not sure that we should not go still further and do away with the managers altogether; that there should be instead some properly constituted education committee to deal with this work. It may be suggested that this is getting away from one of the aspects of primary schools which the school managers were possibly originally meant to fulfil; that is to say, to try to get more involvement between the parents and the schools. I know that, so far as working-class parents are concerned, they tend not to get involved enough, whereas middle-class parents, it has been suggested, are often too involved. So the more we can do to make working-class parents become more involved, the better.
The system of school managers is thoroughly bad in every way. So many people who are totally unfit are appointed to be managers yet they are responsible for running the schools, and they are influential in selecting the heads of those schools. The only advantage this system of managers might have had was that it was thought useful to promote that involvement between parents and teachers and schools. But I do not think that the system does this, and the sooner it is done away with, the better. It is an aspect of the "poor relationship" and the bad system in the case of the primary schools, which has long since disappeared in the case of the other schools.
Then again, the lower status of the primary school teacher is another aspect of the "poor relation" side of the question. In fact, I think this ties up with another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newton: that in primary teaching the primary schools have, in a way, been leaders in educational thought, and to-day a great deal more is known about the development of young children and the relationship of the home, the school and the community. This important point about primary education has, I

183
think, become more evident to people's minds in general, and in the same way the status and standing of people who teach in primary schools must go up. Quite clearly, if a whole branch of education is giving more and better thought in that direction, the people who do this will be considered more important.
With regard to the Plowden Report itself, I think that we all probably feel that it comes down to a matter of priorities. It is not only the priorities in this particular Report: each of the other Reports—the Crowther Report, the Newsom Report and the Robbins Report—all urge priority for their own particular branch of education; and now, in the Plowden Report, we have a whole new set of priorities. Not only that, but in order to try to implement Plowden at all we have to find additional funds. It is not just a question of re-allocating the funds which already exist in the educational field. If we do that we shall merely level down. We must face up to the fact that we have to find new funds.
Quite clearly, we cannot do everything at once, and we have to decide in what order we shall do the things that need to be done. The Plowden Report suggests a very good list of priorities. Naturally, for a person like myself to depart very far from those priorities would merely be impertinent, but possibly each of us has his own aspects of the problem which he regards as being most important. I am inclined to think that I would rearrange the list of priorities by putting nursery schools first. I do not think the Plowden Report put them first, but I would do so. This is not because I think it is highly important that we should be able to take advantage of the brilliant brains mentioned by the noble Lord, or because we should try to encourage people like the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, to read at the age of three.
I do not think that this is what it is about. To me, it is the question of preprimary school education and the emotional tie-up between home and school—and this is probably even more violent in the deprived children than in those coming from good homes. I think it is important from the aspect of the emotional tie-up rather than trying to teach people to read before they are five.
184
I cannot remember whether the noble Lord said this, or whether it was in the Plowden Report, but I think that possibly it ought to be put as a priority before the raising of the school age, and certainly before the reorganisation of comprehensive education.
Next I would put teachers' aides, because I think that follows on from nursery education. So far as nursery education is concerned, we really have none at all. We have day nurseries where children are looked after while they play, but we have no nursery education in the Plowden Report sense of the term. I think that teachers' aides follow on from this, because that would make it possible for more teachers to be available in the primary schools who are not doing the nose-wiping, tidying-up, bootlace tying and all the rest of it. So far as I understand this is now acceptable within the profession, though for a number of years it obviously was a difficulty.
I took the point of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, about the paradox between whether one devotes extra priority to ability, or whether one tries to overcome handicap. I admit that this is a paradox, and I do not quite know how one gets over it. I remember a distinguished economist and educationist, Dr. Robin Marris, saying that if one threw open scholarships at all public schools to everybody, the middle-class boys would still win them because of their better home background and a thousand and one things, and that therefore one would have to put a handicap in their way in order to make it really equal. This may sound ridiculous, but I think it is true. I know it might be said that one should spend all one's money and energy on training and helping the really clever children. I do not accept this: the really clever can take care of themselves to a much better degree. But where a great potential is being wasted is by letting many children who are not mentally handicapped but socially handicapped go by the board. This is where the priority areas can help tremendously.
I have one or two comments to make about the priority areas which seem to me to be important. The designation of a priority area must be open to frequent and flexible review. There are sudden population increases, and certain schools will be swamped, but this is all part of

185
the general policy of the alleviation of poverty, and it really ties in with that. I hope that the Government will implement the priority area scheme and put money into that before they spend it on raising family allowances. I am not sure whether the Plowden Report says anything about it, but that is my view.
There is one other aspect of the mechanics of the priority areas. Will it help if a bonus is paid to the teachers who go there? I rather gather that there is some doubt in people's minds about this, not necessarily because the wrong kind of person goes there. I do not accept that. But I have a feeling that there are other ways in which this could be done better than by offering another £120 a year, or whatever the figure is; first of all, a better staffing ratio. I am sure that obviously that is a "must" because the actual hard-slog working in one of these deprived areas with 40 children all at once, trying to teach them and at the same time wipe their noses and do up their laces, is a physical feat beyond most people.
This is where teachers' aides again come in, and I suspect that in a way it is better to have good conditions than to have the extra pay. The same goes for greater per capita allowance, and the same goes for better buildings. In this context the noble Lord mentioned something important. If you are going to rebuild a building completely in five years' time, that does not mean you ought not to spend money on it in the meantime. Do not let the best be the enemy of the good. Lastly, one other point from the view of making life easier for the teachers in schools of this kind. Instead of teachers getting stuck in a groove at one particular school in one area, year in year out till they are driven "round the bend", why not let them change round and go to different schools? I think things of this sort might do more towards making the priority area system a success than a bit of extra pay would.
The last priority I want to mention— I cannot remember where it comes in the batting order in Plowden, but to me it is very important—is the question of flexibility in the age of transfer from primary to secondary schools. I do not think it has great emphasis in Plowden, but none the less it seems to me impor
186
tant. There is, after all, a complete change of atmosphere and method between primary and secondary education; it is an enormous change for a child. I think it could be a traumatic change, and children should be moved only when they are emotionally and educationally and physically ready for it, and not at a specific age. I imagine it is not really a very difficult problem if left to the individual decision of heads and so on, but the age varies a good deal. This raise another problem, which is the whole question of the link between primary and secondary schools, or indeed between secondary and higher education, and this of course gives scope for yet another educational report. It is a subject which is quite difficult and which I think wants attention.
I have been given a great deal of advice on religious education and on corporal punishment, but I cannot make up my mind on the right way to approach either of these problems. So I say very little, but I would say this with regard to corporal punishment. It has been suggested that there are certain occasions when it is really the only answer. I accept this, but I would also say that the very long history of school masters and flogging shows there is a connection between it and misplaced sexual excitement, which to me rules the idea of corporal punishment out altogether. I do not know. It is a very difficult point.
So much for my own personal comments on the Plowden Report. I, too, like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, feel it is an exceptionally well written one, a most interesting and really splendid document in every way. I know it cannot all be implemented at once, and we all have different priorities, but I hope that to-day the Government will be able to give some sort of indication of how their mind is working with regard to their own priorities.
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for initiating a discussion on the Plowden Report. He was highly esteemed in the Ministry when he was Minister of State there, and in what he has said to-day he has shown once again a shrewd understanding of the main issues involved, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Henley.

187
It is perhaps noticeable that the first three speakers in this debate were all educated at what Mr. Gladstone once called the queen of all schools of all the world, although others have applied much harsher epithets.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am not surprised to hear some noble Lords saying, "Hear, hear!" to that comment. It may be that in a debate on primary education my noble friend Lady Phillips, who has taught for many years in primary schools, will be still better equipped to deal with the topics. A large number of celebrated speakers are going to take part. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has been compelled to cry off. He initiated in noteworthy style the last debate we had in this House on primary education, indeed a whole series when we were in Opposition, in the course of which he expressed his own deep concern and that of my Party.
Perhaps I may be allowed to welcome in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, who speaks all too seldom, if I may say so, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, former Ministers of Education, and also the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, who has already been welcomed, and who may fairly be described as the Prince Consort of primary education. I hope he will not be discouraged by the example of Prince Albert the Good, who only once appeared in your Lordships' House and even then did not speak. It was in a debate on the Corn Laws in 1846 and his presence was criticised here as representing an undue influence, and he never came again. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, will not in any way follow that example.
May I just say this to the noble Baroness who is to follow me and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles? We on these Benches have been capable of criticising their regime in the past, as I have no doubt they are capable of criticising ours, but none of us has ever doubted their dedication to the cause of education. The share of national resources devoted to education to-day is around 5½ per cent. of the national income, compared with 3½ per cent. of considerably smaller resources some ten years ago. A good
188
share of the credit for this must go to the Ministers I have mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and Ministers like Sir Edward Boyle.
I hope they will agree on their side with equal chivalry that at the present time we have a Minister of Education of exceptional talents. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be the first to tell us that. We shall be listening to all these interesting speeches. I cannot imagine that the task of the Government spokesmen—that is, Lady Phillips and myself —is easy. Indeed, I cannot remember when it was more difficult. What the House might want to hear from us—though the noble Lord, Lord Newton, was kind enough not to press us too hard—are the Government's conclusions, and here the trouble arises.
The Secretary of State has already said that he greatly welcomes the general tenor and philosophy of the Report. It will make, as he has said, a major contribution to our educational thinking. Once again on behalf of the Government I endorse that opinion. The thoroughness with which the Council have approached their task, the width and depth of their investigation, make this Report a historic document, a landmark, I think it may fairly be called, like other notable reports about education in recent years. Lady Plowden and her colleagues are to be congratulated and thanked most warmly, and I am sure that primary education will feel the impact of their work for many years to come.
So far as the Government are concerned—and of course there are many lessons here for teachers and local authorities—the House will hardly be surprised to hear that I have no decisions to announce this afternoon. In these studies we must have regard, as all Ministers and ex-Ministers will be well aware, to the resources likely to be available over the whole period, and not only to our own calculations but to the views of the associations of local authorities and teachers. These are being actively sought, and indeed I understand are expected shortly. While I was preparing for this debate I learned—no doubt we all did—that another place are going to debate the Plowden Report on Thursday. This removes (if I might put it this way) the last remaining tooth from an already toothless man, so the

189
House will understand exactly how I am situated.
Nevertheless, I have come here provided, I hope, with a few shining dentures, and I will begin with one or two figures. Certainly the Plowden Council are to be congratulated on the care with which they have estimated the cost of their proposals. They reckon that, according to the present policies, expenditure in the primary schools will increase, if prices remain the same, from £340 million this year to £480 million in 1978–79; that is, about 41 per cent. in 11 years. Their own proposals, if implemented, which include the nursery provision, would add about £74 million by 1978–79 to the latter figure, so that would be a further increase of about 22 per cent. over this year's figure, 63 per cent. in all. That is a broad calculation.
If one takes the calculation per pupil, of course the increase is not so rapid, because there is a considerable expansion in the number of pupils. On present policies the Council estimate that the expenditure per pupil would rise from £69 to £88 in 1978; that is, by over 27 per cent. Their own proposals, without the new nursery provisions this time—because we cannot really bring them into this in quite the same way—would increase the latter figure to £93; that is, by about a further 7 per cent. So if you are taking it by increase of expenditure per head of the pupils, leaving out the nursery expansion, that would be an increase of 34 per cent. in 11 years, and one could call it 3 per cent. a year. It is of that order of magnitude. Everybody will form his own opinion whether that is too fast or too slow a rate of increase.
What about the recommendations? As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has told us, there are 197 recommendations in all. I do not propose to deal with many of them or any of them in detail. Perhaps the simplest course—and I offer this for those noble Lords in the House who have a copy of the Plowden Report available—is to turn to paragraph 1,201, page 441, where there is noted the order of priorities which is laid down by the Council themselves. The first priority should be the establishment of education priority areas. Secondly, the recruitment of teachers' aides will be an immediate
190
and essential source of help to schools everywhere. Thirdly, the essential improvement of bad primary school building should be undertaken as soon as possible everywhere. Fourthly, the extension of nursery education, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Henley, placed first among his priorities; and the fifth major recommendation was that planning should begin on changes in the national dates of entry and on the ages of transfer between the different stages of primary education, about which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said quite a few words.
The long-term pattern can be summarised in this way. First, nursery education, which would be mainly part-time and would be generally available to all the children from the age of 3 whose parents wish it. Secondly, entry to school only in the autumn term following the child's fifth birthday—that is, an average age of 5½ years; and then half-day attendance, at parent's request, up to, broadly, the age of 6 years. Then a three-year course in infant schools; transfer to middle schools at 8-plus; a four-year course in middle schools, and transfer to secondary schools at 12-plus. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, dealt with some of those points. The Council also stressed what they call the need for continued advances throughout the system, with special emphasis on school building and the improvement of staff.
That is a very short summary of the main proposals. As I said, there are, in fact, 197 of them. Perhaps I may offer a few comments, taking first this question of the staffing ratios—and we all know that, in a sense, everything depends on achieving an improvement there. Overall, staffing ratios have recently improved, although none of us thinks there can be any ground for complacency. In spite of a large increase in the number of primary school children in the past few years, the average number of pupils per teacher in 1966 was slightly better, at 28·3, compared with 30·9 in 1955. That is only a slight improvement in eleven years. There has been a very big expansion of pupils, and we can be gratified that in the same period over the past ten years the percentage of primary classes of over 40 has fallen from 29·5 to 12·4. Therefore former Ministers of Education have not laboured altogether in vain: nor has the present Minister.

191
These improvements, against a background of a very rapid increase in the number of pupils, have been made possible by the increase in the number of teachers. There has been a massive expansion of student numbers in colleges of education, from 61,600 in 1964–65 to over 84,000 this year. That is, by any showing, a very large increase. Naturally I concede that much of this flows from plans left by our predecessors—that is obvious to anybody. But quite an amount of it can fairly be described to what is rather crudely called the increase in productivity which directly followed the speech of the Secretary of State to the National Union of Teachers in 1965; indeed, it is right to say he has shown tremendous energy in this cause above all others.
The number of children in primary schools will continue to rise, perhaps by as many as 150,000 a year, for some years yet. But the schools will be benefiting from the large increase in the number of teachers in training. It is dangerous to prophesy, but there are prospects that by 1971 the current shortage of about 21,000 qualified primary teachers may well have been halved, so that by that time we shall be very near to eliminating classes of over 40 in primary schools. That will not be a moment to sit back and enjoy ourselves, but it will be a very great improvement over what we have seen in the past.
I should like to pass on to the proposal for educational priority areas to which the Council give their first and, indeed, overriding priority. These areas are to be identified as those in which children are mort severely handicapped by home background. The Council favour positive discrimination, as we are all by now aware, in favour of schools in those areas. They intend to assist them by appointing more teachers, by paying additional allowances to teachers, by encouraging the appointment of more aides than in other schools, by giving priority in building programmes and by adjusting Exchequer grants. Those are the methods to be adopted, and they should be very effective. I was not quite clear what the noble Lord, Lord Newton, had in mind when he seemed to be seeking to fasten a dilemma on the Government. He seemed to feel that the Government in some way had placed themselves in
192
a difficulty here. So far, the Government have avoided either solving the problem or being crucified by it. They are just studying it. I am not sure how the Government can be blamed for the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, thought that there was some paradox involved here. I do not see any very great paradox. He asked, in a sense, whether the Government would be more concerned to help the clever children or the stupid ones: the most gifted or the most handicapped. I should think that any father or mother of a large family deals with that along common-sense lines. Probably parents would give, I suppose, most help to children who were working for a scholarship at one end, and to children who were going to educationally subnormal schools, at the other. I imagine that in a large family that would be what most parents would do. I do not see any very profound paradox or dilemma here, although there are practical issues of great importance.
I would suggest that these proposals have aroused wide sympathy, and I wish I could say something more definite to-day. They have repercussions outside the education service. They call our attention once again to certain areas with unsatisfactory living conditions and a high degree of ill-health or disablement. Certainly these areas and these sections of our population represent not only a challenge to the Government and to the Ministry of Education, but to the whole community. Certainly it is not a problem which can be just allowed to solve itself, but is one which must be tackled against those considerations.
The educational priority areas would start with 2 per cent. of the population and not cover more than 10 per cent. in the foreseeable future, although no doubt that proportion would rise later on. But these areas and the proposals for these areas should not be regarded as standing apart from the general body of the Report. They flow clearly from the overall philosophy of the Plowden Report which may be fairly described as that of trying to see the child as a whole. It is significant that the chapter on educational priority areas follows immediately on one entitled "Participation of Parents", and that one on a chapter called "The Children—Their

193
Growth and Development". The whole thing hangs together.
One of the great merits of this Report is that it describes more vividly than ever before the value of the interrelationship between parents and schools, and the ways in which the teachers and parents can co-operate, and indeed are co-operating, to help the children. The national survey carried out for the Council brought out the immense influence upon educational performance of parental attitudes. That phrase, parental attitudes", comes, quite rightly, again and again in the Plowden Report. I suppose that few of us who have been concerned with education or children would be unaware of this point, but I would think the Plowden Report brings it out with quite a new force.
Again and again the Report demands a greater involvement of parents in the primary schools attended by their children, not just in the backward areas but in all areas. Certainly it gives some striking examples of how this occurs at present. I will mention only one out of the many they offer us. For example, a swimming pool was built by a team of fathers who included surveyors, building foremen, carpenters, metal workers, painters and a foreman concrete mixer described as being as strong as an ox. That is just one example out of many that they give us. But I think that anyone who has read that part of the Report would learn things that he did not know before.
Here the philosophy of the parental involvement and the philosophy of the educational areas come together. In this way the educational priority areas are those where the parental involvement tends to be the least satisfactory. It is not the only handicap under which they labour, but it is the one most stressed by the Plowden Report, and this is one strong reason for positive discrimination in favour of these particular areas. To take but one aspect of that, though an important one, where the parents most need help in these particular areas the teachers at present, just because the areas are remarkably unattractive, tend to move away most quickly. So there is less stability in the teaching force. Quite unprecedented efforts must be made by all concerned to strengthen the
194
teacher force in these areas, and to try to preserve a stability among them, if these children are to be given an equal chance with others.
I cannot pursue the general philosophy of the Plowden Report much further, but will leave the rest to Lady Phillips, including, for example (there are so many topics one could dwell on), the most interesting section dealing with health and that in connection with the social services. But I cannot close without making some reference to religious education, about which Lord Newton spoke so firmly and so well, and in regard to which Lord Henley, obviously after a great deal of consideration, confessed himself less certain in his mind. To many of us, including myself, no section of the Report is more interesting than this one. I include in that comment the note of reservation by 6 out of the 25 members who do not believe that religious education should figure in the curriculum at all.
The Report does well to insist that teachers (this is in paragraph 575)—and of course the same goes for the Government—should be highly sensitive of the feelings of children of parents who are non-Christian, who are agnostics or humanists. That is an obvious duty, not least when we remember the unique services rendered to social progress in this country by the Jewish community in proportion to their numbers, and by so many individual humanists from Beatrice and Sidney Webb downwards. But, after all, we are collectively a Christian country in Britain in 1967. If anyone doubts that, let me remind him that it was only in 1944 that a daily act of worship was made compulsory in all our schools. Since then, the aid to denominational schools has more than once, indeed quite recently, been increased.
The present Cabinet, whatever its manifold and manifest feelings, can fairly be described as a Christian Cabinet; so could the last, or any conceivable alternative in this country to-clay. If it were not so, I should not be much interested in being a Minister of the Crown. Does it mean nothing that the political Parties preface their Party conferences with a Christian service or message? Does it signify nothing that the present Government, led by the Prime Minister, attended a special service to renew their dedication after the last Election—a service con

195
ducted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and the noble Lord, Lord Soper?
We are informed in the Report that in 1965, 80 per cent. of those interviewed thought that the present arrangements for giving religious education should continue. That hardly squares with the alleged decline in religious belief about which we hear so much. As to the effect of such education in childhood, or on any one individual person, who can say? The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, in the most delightful autobiography for many a day which appeared recently, tells us that she was reading the New Testament in Greek to her father before she was 10, and to-day she puts the humanist case more attractively than anybody. You can draw what conclusion you like from that.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, used to say that he was deliberately brought up without religious training, and yet, in what was almost his last speech in this House—I am not sure that it was not his last speech—he felt able to take part in a debate on Christian unity, and he wound up with the words which I think are not easily forgotten:
Jesus of the Bible",
he said,
"is called in the Revelations the bright morning star. Let us fix our eyes on that morning star and with the light of it make a new and happy Christian world even if it does not admit me to it."
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has in two fine volumes told of a long spiritual odyssey, but at the end of the second he comes out unequivocally. He concludes:
"We have to choose, and the choice of this book is the Gospels".
With greatly gifted individuals of that kind, prediction is impossible. But who can doubt that the country which teaches Christianity throughout its schools is much more likely to be Christian than one which does not'? The attitude of the Plowden Report, I should hope, is as heartening to the great mass of the Christian population of this country as it should be reassuring to the minority who cannot believe or whose beliefs, equally sincere, are different. As the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has pointed out, the Plowden Report itself is perhaps the best evidence of progress made in our primary schools in recent
196
times. The noble Lord has said that our primary schools are perhaps the most successful schools we have. Certainly they have a high reputation throughout the world. Our infant schools are regarded almost everywhere as the best that could be found. May this debate, and the debate in another place, and the national discussion which is now proceeding, help us more clearly than ever before to perceive what it lies within our power to achieve and help us to persevere until we achieve it! We are all very grateful to the noble Lord for initiating the debate.
3.51 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the three speeches which have begun this debate, and various points I wanted to make having been already covered, I will not repeat them. But I should like to say that I am glad that the discussion in the Report on religious education has been mentioned and has been so well described. At any rate, I can say that I agree fully with what has been said, and need not take up your Lordships' time by saying any more on that subject.
This Report is a very big one, packed with facts and figures, and is an interesting document. I am quite certain that it will be a reference book for us for many years to come. It was natural and right that the Council should be asked to go into all aspects of primary education, and that they began to look into the home life and early life of the children so that then they would be able to realise what sort of education was suitable, what was lacking, what was good and how they could help to make it even better—in fact, nothing was neglected. There is a chapter on immigrant children, and we hear of canal-boat children, gypsy children, and so on. I do not believe there has ever been a more thorough Report, and sometimes when I have thought to myself, "I wonder whether there is anything on so-and-so in the Report", I have only had to look in the Report to find it, whatever it may be. Therefore, one has to practise severe restraint in addressing your Lordships on this subject because one could say so much about so many things, but it is only right that one should pick out one or two points and deal with them.
I should like first to deal with the educational priority areas. It has been said quite rightly that we in this country

197
have some very good schools and some very bad schools, but I am glad to know that the number of very good is a great deal higher than the number of very bad. But surely, that being so, the thing to do now is to go out and tackle afresh the very had. It has always been suggested, and I have always been in favour of this, that we should deal with those in need before those who perhaps can carry on in the meantime with what they have already achieved. There are, of course, going to be a great many difficulties, and in the Report we see the ideal—we see the perfectionist speaking. When I read the Report, I thought, "If ever this comes to pass, if ever there is the money, the manpower and the building which is envisaged in the Report, oh, how I would envy the Minister of Education of that time!" Everybody, whether in central Government or in the local authorities, knows that what one has to do is to select and try to do the best one can, because one will never be able to do all one wants to do.
Various suggestions are made in the Report as to selection. In regard to building, I agree with my noble friend Lord Newton that in some cases the local authorities do not in the least want to improve old buildings, and I sympathise with them. One has seen these old buildings, one knows how appalling they are and that they ought to be demolished. But they cannot be abolished because there are still houses round them, the homes of the children. You have to decide: Is this going to be a slum clearance area? Are people going to move with their families to other areas? Or is there going to be no clearance, with the same number of children going to school, so that the school ought to be improved? I think that a good deal can be done. The Plowden Report suggests on minor works that about £5,000 ought to be allowed to these schools. I think that there ought to be a good deal of flexibility in the amounts for minor works, for minor works can make things a good deal better.
We read in the Report that in some of these schools the Council saw the ingrained grime of generations, which is quite true, but this can be dealt with by cleaning, by painting, and things can be made a great deal better. They speak of
198
outdoor lavatories without roofs. In those schools you might be able to add indoor lavatories, but at least you can tidy up the outdoor ones and give them roofs. I knew a school which was immensely improved by its windows being enlarged. It was possible to do that, and the extra light and air, cleanliness and paint, made a most marvellous difference to that particular school. With a little ingenuity and thought, and not very much money, can be done.
I should now like to mention the subject of priority being given to teachers, and the matter of classes not amounting to more than 30 pupils. It has been suggested that in order to get more teachers to go to certain areas there should be a supplement to salary of £120. I do not in the least object to the payment of the £120, but I have met some teachers who did not like the idea of giving any extra money to teachers to go to these priority areas. But I ask myself: supposing there are schools not far away in which the classes are over 40, should you make such a differentiation to give these areas the advantage of so much smaller classes. Should we not aim, as we have been aiming for years, to bring all the classes at any rate down to 40? When I went to the Ministry of Education, I asked why it was supposed that the maximum number of children per class in primary schools should be 40, whereas the number in secondary schools was 30. The only answer I got was the fact that there was not the slightest chance of getting them down to 30 in the primary schools. We are now getting a bit nearer this aim, but in regard to the particular point on the priority area having classes of 30, I wonder whether we should not wait until the classes in other parts of the same area are not over 40.
I should now like to come to teachers' aides. I am a little doubtful about this, and I know that my noble friend Lord Eccles will be speaking about it a little later in the debate. Both he and I in this House have spoken about teachers' helpers. I envisaged somebody who was not highly trained and who would simply be there to assist the teacher, with the very small children: somebody who could help in all the little odd jobs—helping the children on with their coats, tying up their shoelaces, looking for their handkerchiefs and helping them to blow

199
their noses. And when the children knock their books and papers off the desk, the helpers could teach the children to pick them all up, rather than actually doing any picking up themselves. I though they would he there to take on tasks of this nature, and it was that sort of person of whom I was thinking.
Now, however, we have envisaged somebody of a different nature as an aide. She would be trained for two years, a part of which time would be spent in the school. I got a little muddled up between the welfare assistant, the teachers' aide and the nursery assistant. I feel that something a little more simple would be of great use in the classroom. I do not think that the teachers would regard this in the least as dilution, for I think they would appreciate this help. The suggestion has been made that in the priority areas there would be one aide to two classes. I should like to see one helper for each teacher, one in each class. This would be an immense help, and the teacher would perhaps be able to deal with the class until we could get enough teachers to reduce the number of pupils in individual classes.
The other suggestion is about the nursery provision. Whatever we may like, we must face the enormous expense, the enormous amount of extra people, extra help and trained help, which we should need. I am perfectly certain that if we can get more nursery provision, particularly in regard to learning to read (I still think that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was very well brought up if she read before the age of three; I do not know when I could read, and I sometimes doubt whether I can now) we should do the best we can for the priority areas. There are a good many voluntary societies who help with nurseries and get a Government grant, and who might be urged to help in nursery education in these priority areas.
It seems to me that the two most difficult problems in primary schools are the provision of teachers and the nursery arrangements. I looked through the Report to see whether there were any new ideas or suggestions for the nursery provision, or for extending the number of teachers or the opportunities for them. Then I looked, as I often do, at the reservations, because there one sometimes
200
finds something controversial, something which it would be very good for us to bring out in a debate and consider. I know that some people would be entirely against some of the schemes suggested.
Let me take first the nursery provision. There is a reservation by one member of the Council which suggests that instead of nursery schools there should be play places, and that those play places might be helped a great deal if the mothers would help in the nursery playgrounds. Many of the mothers would like to do that; it would keep their interest and very little trained help would therefore be required. The same member also pointed out the difficulty with regard to getting a sufficient number of nurses for hospitals from the girls who are above school age. With the help of mothers and other people we might be able to manage with fewer nursery assistants.
I was not surprised to see another reservation—because this wrangle has been going on for some time—about the difference between day nurseries and nursery schools. It was the case at one time that day nurseries were under the Ministry of Health, and that nursery schools were under the Ministry of Education. We then reached the stage when there was a joint authority, and now this reservation—I was not surprised to see the name of Sir John Newsom on it—suggests that the day nurseries should be linked with the nursery schools, all coming under the Ministry of Education. Therefore, from the age of two onwards the child could be considered to be in the education area.
To my mind that rather links up with the next reservation, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, mentioned, which poses the question whether, since one of the great difficulties in doing more for nursery education is the cost, a payment should be made by the parents. We must remember that parents already pay when their children go to a day nursery. Very often the mother finds that for a payment she can put her child in the day nursery and can then go out to work. Of course, she earns a good deal more than she is paying for the child in the nursery. If nursery schools are to be looked upon as part of the same educational system, is there any real reason why, if mothers pay for

201
their children to go to day nurseries, they should not pay for nursery schools?
I know people may say that you cannot differentiate, and that people who could not afford to pay would probably take their children away. But over and over again we have arranged things when there are differences. After all, under the school meals service about 7 per cent. of the children get their meals free. Over and over again, right through the educational service, there is a differentiation, even in the case of those going to the universities. If the parents are very well off they get no help, and for others, there is a graded system. I do not think there is any argument whatever against this and we ought to consider this system if nursery education is to be increased.
Another reservation is on the subject of teachers. I thought this was a startling reservation, but it was signed by Lady Plowden and others, including Sir John Newsom, who I knew would have considered the matter very carefully. I quite understand why they say that they paused before they made that reservation, because the majority of the Council were entirely against them. Their suggestion is this. As we know, we have at present reached the stage when a teacher's training course lasts for three years. The Council gave the figures for women teachers in the schools, and the fact is that, from 100 young women who have been in the training colleges, at the end of three years there are 46 left in school, and at the end of six years there are only 30, because the wastage, as it is always called—probably because they get married—takes them away.
So we have that tremendous wastage in the colleges, both of money and of space. The members suggested that thought should be given to a scheme under which young women could opt for two years in the training college, then go into school, and after a certain number of years—I think they put it at five years, but I should prefer three—they would then take another year's training. It would be a sort of sandwich course. I think that suggestion might be considered, especially when they tell us that in the early 1970s it would make a difference of about 10,000 extra teachers.
I have discussed the various points which came to my mind, and the reservations, and I should like to say this in
202
conclusion. We know that the Report calls for much more money, much more manpower, and much more building. We know that any Government has to decide what percentage of the national dividend can be given to one service or another. They have to consider between housing, schools, education, the National Health Service and all the rest, and they have to decide on the amount for each service. We know that there is always competition between Ministers trying to get a little more for their Departments. We know that there is always competition for manpower or, on this occasion, for womanpower—for the girls who are leaving school. Should they become teachers or should they become nurses? I know this so well, because when I was at the Ministry of Health I used to attend various prizegivings in girls' schools, and I found myself doing my best to interest them in nursing as a career. I then went to the Ministry of Education, and I found quite suddenly (I had not realised the change) that I was trying to interest them in becoming teachers. We have not a great supply, and what we have must be allocated as well as it possibly can be.
Once a Minister has obtained the amount for his Department he has then to allocate it between the different services in that Department; and I would appeal to the Minister of Education for more for the primary schools. I believe it is absolutely necessary that those schools should get a better chance and a better share than they have had in the past—I do not say in the very far past, but in the recent past. I know the difficulties. I know they are saying, "The universities must have more for building. Here are all these young people coming on, so well educated, and we want to get them into the universities". I know, too, that the secondary schools are asking for more for this, that and the next. I know that that is the short-term policy. I know that the country will benefit from the people who can go to universities. The universities have already been tremendously enlarged, and if they are enlarged further then the country will benefit more.
It may be said that giving a good education and training to the small child is a long-term policy, and that we cannot wait for that at the moment. But if we do not look to this long-term

203
policy, and to the training and education of the child from, say, five years onwards, then in the future we shall not have the people who will have the ability, who will have learnt how to learn and to tackle a job, and who will be wanted in the years to come for the universities and for all the other skills that are required. Above all it is the long-term policy for the child himself, because his training in his primary school is his training for the whole of his life.
4.12 p.m.
LORD PLOWDEN: My Lords, it was with some hesitation that I decided to take part in this debate. When the noble Lord, Lord Newton, suggested that I should speak on behalf of the Chairman of the Council, my doubts all returned. Then the noble Earl the Leader of the House likened me to a sort of Prince Consort, and reminded us that on the only occasion on which a Prince Consort had appeared, even though silent, he had given offence. However, it has not been possible to live in my house for the past three and a half years without learning something about education and something of the problems that have most concerned the Council during their deliberations.
In the post-war years the whole range of education in Britain has been examined and charted, but in a curiously piecemeal and, indeed, illogical order. First we had the Crowther Report, which dealt with the ages from 15 to 18. This was followed by the Newsom Report, which dealt with the period from 13 to 16. Then we leapt forward with the Report of the Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins; and now we have gone back to the beginning with the Report that we are now discussing, which is concerned with children between the ages of 3 and 13.
As the sequence of Reports shows, since the 1944 Act there has of necessity been an emphasis on secondary education; but at the same time there has been increasing evidence of the vital importance of the early education of children, and a quiet revolution in the quality of primary schools has been going on. As the Report reminds us, primary education in this country is good; but there is an all too familiar ring about the
204
passages in the Report which speak of the need to improve the average towards the best, and in particular to deal with the real laggards. This is the most important and, in my view, most urgent part of the Report, and it is to this in particular that I want to call your Lordships' attention.
As various speakers have said, the fundamental question is whether we can afford to implement this Report. I believe that we can; and, indeed, that we must. As has been pointed out, a large number of the proposals need no additional expenditure, and I hope to show that others are well within our grasp—but only if we are prepared to think decisively about priorities, not just in primary education but in the educational system as a whole. I also believe that the time has come to think in this way about the Welfare State as a whole. To implement the majority of the recommendations in the Report would cost little or nothing. They could be nut into effect quickly if we had the will to do so and if the Government would give a strong lead. For instance, children below the statutory age of entry could be admitted part-time. As the Report says:
"a long day in a large class is no way to start school."
The Council recommend a short-term plan for entry to school until it is possible to have a single term of entry once a year for children over 5. This interim proposal could start at once.
But, my Lords, education is not a process necessary to earn a living: it is part of living itself. For far too many families, even to-day, it is a thing which is done to their children by an outside agent—"they" rather than "we"—requiring neither the support of the parents nor the active participation of the children. A more positive relationship with parents by administrators and by teachers is strongly recommended by the Council. This would cost nothing, and would require no legislation. The survey commissioned by the Council showed that the majority of parents care about the progress of their children, and it also showed how it is the actively interested parents who have the interested child. It must be recognised that it is parents who have the ultimate responsibility for a child. Yet it should be one of the functions of a teacher to work with the

205
parents. This, of course, will be an added burden for hard-pressed teachers; but all parents should be able to know how their child is being educated, which will for many parents increase their appreciation of the relevance of education and thus improve the chances of their children's benefiting from their education. Even as marital discord harms the emotional growth of a child, so lack of understanding and of mutual respect between teacher and parent harms his educational growth.
But we must not look at the problems and the costs of primary education in isolation. Now that we have had all these surveys of our education system—and, indeed, taken action consequent on some of them—I submit that it is time for the Government to consider the system as a whole over a period ahead and against prospective resources. We should look at the separate parts in order to ensure that they are consistent one with another, and that we are using our scarce resources so as to get the best available results. For instance, we need to be certain that we are making the best use of our existing resources.
The Report has suggested a full-scale inquiry into the training of teachers. The National Advisory Committee for the Supply and Training of Teachers has not been reappointed. With the growing demand for teachers it is essential that their training should be of the best. Are we sure that the present method of training is relevant to the growing knowledge of the development of children, to a changing society, to changing conditions in the schools? As the noble Baroness has reminded us, the majority of primary school teachers are women. Does their training take into account the altered pattern of women's life, now that they marry earlier and have an increased span of life once their immediate responsibilities for their children lessen?
One of the great differences between the position of teachers in this country and in many other countries is the freedom given to teachers here: freedom to teach children "according to their age, ability, and aptitude". A centralised curriculum in many other countries withholds this freedom from teachers. This freedom emphasises the knowledge and skill needed by teachers and the import
206
ance of training, but it also brings extra responsibilities.
The Council have recommended that teachers should now take on the added responsibility of using trained teachers' aides, in the same way as other professions use trained assistants. The Council have stressed that these aides are to be used only under trained teachers. The fear that these aides may be regarded as substitute teachers is, I submit, unfounded. Moreover, as an industrialist constantly seeking, and indeed being pressed, to provide more assistance to skilled workers so that they can make better use of their skill, I find this fear somewhat surprising.
My Lords, in deciding how to set about bringing the below average up to the level of the rest we need to think about the allocation of resources in a way that is relevant to all the other activities of the Welfare State. The leading article in The Times, to which reference has been made, put this point. I believe that in tackling this problem we are in the happy and far from universal position that the ends of social justice and of natural progress can be followed by the same means. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" has been one of the most powerful expressions in the history of education. But in adult life, as we know from painful experience, there will always be bitter controversy about the meaning of necessity and the problems of incentives for ability. Few would now argue, however, that because a man is less happily situated than others he needs less care, or that less effort should be taken to help him make the most of his abilities. How much more does this apply in the case of children, who have no responsibility for their environment!
Our economic progress, which will determine our power to reach almost all our national objectives, depends on our success in making the most of the inherent potential of all our population. The overriding priority in an educational system designed to make the maximum contribution to national objectives is, therefore, exactly the same as that required to give all children equality of opportunity. All the work done in recent years, including the extensive inquiries during the pre

207
paration of the various Reports on education, lays stress on the wastage of potentially able children during the earlier stages of their education. The present Report emphasises the major importance of the earliest years of schooling. Because of the well-known vicious circle, those who begin badly drop further and further behind; while increasing attention is given to those who have been fortunate in their beginnings.
In this connection it is interesting to find a striking similarity between the Reports made in 1966 and 1967 of the National Advisory Council on the education of dis-advantaged children in the United States and Chapter 5 of the Plowden Report. This chapter, on "Educational Priority Areas", is central to the whole Report, since it is here that the Council spell out the relation between "necessity" and equality of opportunity. A great deal of our thinking on social problems is bedevilled by using these terms in a variety of meanings. As a general proposition, no one would deny that equality of treatment should have regard to the circumstances of the recipient; but in practical life we swing uncertainly between the ideas, shall I say, that those whose health requires it should get pills, and that if anyone is to get pills everyone should have them.
It seems to me that we have reached a point in time when we ought to ask ourselves whether we are making the best use of our resources in the Welfare State as a whole. There is a great deal of muddle and inconsistency in our thoughts; and part of this arises in connection with the different meanings we give to the term "needs". The original idea behind the Welfare State was to provide everyone with a floor, a basic minimum level, below which no one should he allowed to fall; and the money was to be found by taxation at a progressive rate. But this admirable idea is being gradually more and more overlaid with a vague wish for absolute equality, which no State in practice has ever achieved. And since the community would refuse to go so far as this, the practical result is that what resources can be extracted are spread thinly around, so that something goes to everyone, whether it is needed or not, and the submerged minority are still left far
208
behind. All the people are to get free prescriptions, subsidised school meals, subsidised council houses, whether they could pay for them or not.
Recently, we have been hearing a good deal about increasing family allowances—again, perhaps, to be paid irrespective of need. If this happened it would do very little for the children whose need is greatest. Even if the increase reached them it would not solve all their problems. Like the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I believe that if money is available for increased family allowances it should not be applied indiscriminately across the whole population.
My Lords, what is needed is positive discrimination of the kind suggested in the Report for educational priority areas: positive discrimination for the deprived children, in their schools, in their teachers, and in the social services which help their families. Only thus can those who are being left behind be reached; only thus can the cycle of poverty be broken. In the case of primary education, it is evident that children who are at a disadvantage, because of circumstances connected with the home, the background or the area in which they live, cannot start level with those more fortunately situated. There must, I suggest, be discrimination in their favour.
As the Report reminds us, this principle has already been partially accepted for more than a generation through the weighted grants to local authorities designed to equalise the resources available irrespective of the wealth or poverty of the area. Despite grave efforts made here and there, most local authorities distribute these resources on a basis of equality by schools. It is quite clear that equal distribution of current resources is not enough. Equality must give way to discrimination.
My Lords, I urge the Government to discriminate in this way. and I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House will represent this to his colleagues even though he was unable to give much encouragement himself. But to do this will require political courage because the electorate continues to identify discrimination with a means test and the mass unemployment of the 'thirties; something which full employment, one would hope, has abolished for ever. But, my Lords, we often forget that every

209
wage and salary earner is subjected to a means test by the Inland Revenue.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, quoted figures to show how much has been spent on education and how much the natural growth in the population would require if we were only to stand still. The running cost of the proposals for priority areas is estimated in the Report to be just £11 million a year by the year 1972, by which time the total capital cost spread over five years would have amounted to nearly £47 million. This compares with a present total annual cost for primary schools of £335 million, including capital costs, expected to rise on present policies to £441 million by the year 1972.
The total cost of education was estimated in a recent article in The Times at £1,664 million in 1966–67, rising over the next three years to nearly £2,000 million. It may be thought that in relation to these figures, £11 million for the running cost of educational priority areas is negligible. None the less, if no extra money were available it would I believe make a positive improvement in the system as a whole if this amount were found by diverting it from within the present spending on education. But as I have already suggested, a different approach to this problem of need by discrimination within the Welfare State as a whole in favour of those least privileged would, I believe, give much more positive results for the money we spend.
My Lords, the extension to all primary schools of the good work done in many could be accelerated if the public and administrators recognised its importance. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that primary education has been something of a "poor relation", and I think that anyone who has read the Report we are discussing will see that that is so. Much of the growing amount of money spent on secondary education cannot be well spent unless the children reach the secondary schools knowing how to learn and wanting to learn. The compulsory lengthening of secondary education, with the demands that it will make on money and manpower, will be wasteful—at a time when we can ill afford it—unless at the same time the primary base is strengthened. All children should have an equal chance to develop their ability,
210
and this chance can be given only at the stage of primary education, since many of the mistakes made at this stage by deficiencies in the system can never be retrieved. This Report on Children and their Primary Schools, the first since 1931, has again focused attention on primary education. It is important that it should be acted upon.
4.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and I thank him particularly for the passage on social philosophy. I could not help thinking what wonderful conversations he and Lady Plowden must have at breakfast. While I thank my noble friend Lord Newton, for introducing this important debate, in a speech which obviously commended itself to the great majority of the Members of your Lordships' House, I have also to apologise to him for the fact that an engagement with the Architecture Club will prevent me from hearing the end of the discussion, for which I am very sorry.
The very first Press notices warned us that the Plowden Report, compiled with care and skill and charm, contained a great deal that was already very familiar; and indeed it is the case that five or more years ago the Department had already considered most of the major recommendations in this Report. That made me wonder whether the elephantine delays were really a fair price to pay, or whether Ministers should not have taken action themselves upon issues that were so well understood in their Department; for example, on minor works in primary schools, on teachers' aides, on special allowances to attract teachers to unpopular areas and on greater flexibility for the entrance of children up to the age of six.
All those things were on the Minister's desk at least in 1960, if not before. The fact is that we have to look elsewhere for the real and lasting value of the Report. The studies in the development of the young child bring together a rich store of information that will be of the greatest help to parents and teachers, and I hope that every local authority is giving free a copy of the Report to every head teacher in its area, secondary as well as primary.

211
As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, pointed out, and I am fully in agreement with him, the really important lesson to be drawn from Plowden is that we still have to grasp the full significance of the interaction of school, home and environment. I suppose that we have been so taken up with the effort to build, equip and staff the schools that we have underestimated how much it hurts a child to be considered, not as one child, but as two children, one at home and quite another one at school; and how much it matters that every small boy and girl should be cared for, not in fits and starts, but all day long, so that their happiness and security is not broken every morning when it is time to go to school, or every afternoon when it is time to return home. Plowden has done an excellent job in putting home and school in better perspective.
In any large city it is all too often true that what is all right at home is all wrong at school, and how bewildering that must be to a small child. When parents are indifferent about how their child is taught to behave, and the home actually works against the school, the teachers may be forgiven if they abandon the struggle to create some kind of unity between what they are trying to do and what the parents recognise as good for their child. The Report points out in various ways how we may stimulate the active and benevolent interest of parents. I am sure that we all agree that we ought to try to do this, but I suggest to your Lordships that unless we begin at the beginning, where concern is first felt for the child's education, we are not going to reach the Plowden objective. The starting point is what is commonly called parents' choice. Most parents, if they are to feel some responsibility for the school, must have had a genuine opportunity to influence the choice of the school to which their child has gone.
I regret to say that not all those in authority care very deeply about parents' choice. Indeed, some experts are frankly scornful. They believe that county hall always knows best what is good for the child. They would like to zone the catchment area for every primary school so that the child can go only in one direction, to what is technically known as a neighbourhood school. That con
212
tempt for parents' choice offends against the humanity of the Plowden Report, and if I had only one thing to be grateful for in the Plowden Report—I have much else—it would be that it shows us so clearly that it is wrong in principle to go for neighbourhood schools.
Now I return to the recommendations as a whole. When they are taken together, they will cost a great deal of money, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, have said—and not only money, but many more trained teachers. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, said about teacher training. Then there is this body of 50,000 teachers' aides which has to be built up from nothing. Are these just paper dreams or are they practical proposals? I am bound to say that the stagnation in our economy and the alarming rise in Government expenditure make it hard to see just how and when such large fresh commitments can be taken on. Indeed, it is not only the prospects for Plowden but also the overload throughout the whole range of the educational service which now force upon us the conclusion that the Secretary of State should stop pretending that he can do so many things at once and instead recast his priorities so that what is most worthwhile doing can be done well.
The noble Earl asked me not to be unkind to Mr. Crosland. Of course, I do not want to be unkind to Mr. Crosland. I want the education service to be run by the best possible Minister and I should not like to see Mr. Crosland earning the reputation of an amiable, unpractical academic, who is all too inclined to accept the advice of every interested group and every civil servant, and afterwards, when he comes to add up the bill, to find that he can do only a part of what he has promised. What will he do now that he is challenged by the Plowden Council to give highest priority to millions of new expenditure on the primary and nursery schools? He might try—and I am very frightened that this is what he will do—to conceal his financial embarrassment and make some inexpensive gestures towards the Report. It would be much better if he had the courage to cut back some of the existing programmes in order to give the recommendation the priority

213
for which the Council make so strong a case.
Before I attempt to suggest what is the right answer to this, the big question of policy raised by the Report, I should like to spend a few minutes on one or two matters in the body of the Report itself. The Ministry knew all about the black list of bad old primary school buildings long before the Plowden Council were appointed. For years and in no spirit of complacency we had to live with them, and I must observe that the account given in the Report of the post-war building programmes understates the most significant fact about this period.
Lord Butler's Act of 1944 was essentially a secondary school Act. Every child over 11 was required to move from junior school to a separate secondary school. That obligation created the need for a vast number of new secondary school places, which number was immediately increased by Miss Wilkinson's brave decision to raise the school-leaving age from 14 to 15. That was the dominant duty laid by the Act on Miss Wilkinson, on Mr. Tomlinson and on my noble friend Lady Horsbrugh, whom we were so delighted to hear in such good form this afternoon, and her successors. Our first job was to pull the over-1 Is out of the all-age elementary schools, and to do this we had to give the lion's share of the building programmes to the secondary schools.
When the over-11s went off to their new buildings they left behind thousands and thousands of vacant places available for the growing numbers of infants and juniors. Obviously that reduced the claim of the primary schools for new building, but—I think that this is not brought out in the Report—they had a very real compensation. They were able to make striking advances in the education they offered to their pupils precisely because they enjoyed stability, in marked contrast to the turmoil going on in secondary education.
The new techniques in British primary education, which have rightly been held to he the envy of the post-war world—far more visitors came from abroad to see our primary schools than to see any other part of the education service—were made possible because the teachers in those schools were left in comparative peace. The secondary schools, particu
214
larly the modern schools, were bound to have serious teething troubles. That was why we needed the Crowther and Newsom Reports far more urgently than we needed Plowden, and why Plowden offers so few recommendations that the Department were not anxious years ago to put into operation had they had the resources.
In the field of primary education one serious charge lies against all post-war Governments. We, none of us, spent enough on minor works for these schools. The minor works programme brought out the inhuman worst in the Treasury. It was not that these gentlemen did not give us money in other directions—they did—but they argued that minor works, being small jobs quickly finished and distributed all over the country, were the ideal instrument through which to increase or decrease at short notice the volume of public investment. Accordingly they fixed ceilings on minor works, which were altered up and down to suit the miscalculations of the hard-hearted planners in Great George Street, to the great harm of generations of small children in the schools. If the Secretary of State is so financially straitened that he can do nothing else to implement the Plowden Report, let him insist on the complete removal of the ceiling on minor works. He must not be content with a revised ceiling. Mr. Callaghan and his officials will snatch away the extra millions the moment that the economy picks up. We must watch closely to see that the removal of the ceiling is complete and permanent.
I turn for a moment to the proposal to give above-average resources to schools in deprived areas. This is really an extension of slum clearance, and in my view is wholly admirable in principle. But in the form recommended in the Report it would be exceedingly difficult to administer. First, there is the definition of such areas, which would obviously arouse acute controversy. How is it to be done? It could be done by reference to the poverty or the ugliness of a certain area. It could be done by reference to the number of children of immigrants in the schools. It could be done by the proved difficulties of a particular school in attracting and keeping an adequate staff, whatever was the local cause—and as a matter of fact this is perhaps the most practical way.

215
To give every teacher in a deprived school a flat bonus of £120 a year is altogether too naive. The embattled ladies of the N.U.T. would soon be clamouring for a rise for everybody of the same amount, making great play with the fact that the Plowden allowances were not attached to any posts of particular responsibility. The future Burnham settlements would certainly be undermined.
Yet something must be done to attract teachers to really unpopular areas. I venture to put forward a suggestion that was made many years ago. Each local authority could be given an annual sum, proportionate to the number of deprived schools, upon whatever basis it had been agreed to define them. Then these authorities, at their own discretion, could distribute these sums in special allowances attached to particular posts in the deprived schools. In this way it would be possible to strengthen the staffs where they are weakest, without undermining the whole salary structure; and it would be much more flexible when the time came and you wished to classify some school as having got out of the bad area, and bring in another one from outside.
One hears it said that it would be a waste of effort to do this for the primary schools if the deprived areas were not being tackled as a whole—and I mean housing, roads, secondary schools, amenities, and so on. I do not take that view. We are up against a problem of deep national concern, and we must make a start somewhere to get it right. And what more sensitive and rewarding place to start than the schools to which the youngest children go? But perhaps the Government are going to tell the House of Commons on Thursday—since they will not tell us—that they have not enough money to do anything significant about Plowden. Mr. Crosland described the pressures for more educational spending when he was explaining in another place his discriminatory action against overseas students. Your Lordships have already expressed an adverse opinion on the reasonableness —"reasonableness" was Mr. Crosland's word—of raising the fees for overseas students. This afternoon we can note how hard-pressed the Secretary of State must be to produce such an unpopular economy in order to
216
save a sum trifling in comparison to the cost of the Plowden proposals.
Here is Mr. Crosland's own list of the demands upon him for more money than he has to spend. (I quote from the Hansard of the other place of February 23, column 1988):
"…more teachers, more buildings, more for going comprehensive, more for industrial training, more for the universities, more for science, and so on indefinitely."
He forgot the very large sums to which he is committed for raising the school leaving age from 15 to 16; and to-day we want him to add to his list the millions required for Plowden. It is pretty clear that unless the national revenue is to grow a great deal faster than anyone can reasonably expect, the bulk of Mr. Crosland's existing commitments will not be carried out according to his plans and time-tables. He shows evidence of slipping all along the line. He must know this. Yet, foolishly, as I think, he goes on trying to do something for every programme, with the sure result that he will do nothing well.
Ministers of Education have found themselves in this predicament before. In the early 1950s we were desperately short of everything. In fact, we were so much worse off for buildings and teachers than we are now that the Crosland policy of something for everybody might have appeared the only political line to take. But we did not do this. Out of the half-a-dozen extremely urgent tasks, we selected two only to share the highest priority for whatever funds were available for new reforms. The choice fell on the reorganisation of secondary schools in rural areas, and the reform of the technical colleges. Everything else was made to take a back seat. I may have been right or I may have been wrong to insist on standing firmly on those two priorities; but at least it had one good effect, in that both programmes were well done, and the way was left open for the crucial increase in teachers' salaries which was made in the mid-1950s.
To-day we are in a similar position. The Department is being pressed on all sides to do more at once than it can do. Which then are now the highest priorities, and which programmes ought to take a back seat? I must ask your

217
Lordships to bear with me for a moment if I look at education as a whole. Where, if anywhere, could the resources be found to carry out well the Plowden recommendations? The prospects are bad. Looking ahead, we see the numbers are increasing of the children entering and staying on at school, and of the boys and girls who want to go on from school to further education. Merely to cater for these growing numbers at today's standards of education will cost immense sums of money over and above the present level of expenditure; and in my judgment a good deal more than was estimated in the defunct National Plan.
It must follow that the margin for new developments, ranging from nursery schools to post-graduate universities, simply does not exist, unless we assume very much heavier contributions from the rates and taxes, or directly from parents, much heavier than most people would consider tolerable or, indeed, anything but self-defeating. And yet it would be shocking to lay aside for five or ten years every new advance in education. What are we going to do? For my part, I see two programmes of outstanding national importance which demand much more money and drive than they are getting at present.
My first priority would be the boldest and most effective plan for industrial training. All our policies depend on the strength of the economy, and that calls for a keener acceptance of technical change. The resulting pool of temporary unemployed, considerably larger than we have been used to, would be tolerable only if industrial training were on a greater scale and better done than at present. And not only on a greater scale, but made more attractive and fruitful by linking industrial training with a fresh expansion of the training colleges. This expansion is itself tremendously important, for the further reason that the better education of boys and girls between the ages of 15 and 18 who have left school is now so urgent that it needs no further argument from me. This job could best be done in combination with industrial training. This, therefore, is my first priority.
Plowden would be my second, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, said, it strengthens the whole base of the
218
educational pyramid; and that we certainly now ought to do. For that, the minimum required is the complete removal of the ceiling on minor works, money for local authorities to distribute in special allowances in deprived areas, a training scheme for teachers in nursery schools, and the recruitment of 50,000 teachers' aides. Without these aides the trained teachers will not be able to bring the improvements in the standard of primary education that we all wish to see.
Where is the money to come from for industrial training combined with the technical colleges, and for the Plowden Report? It is tempting to argue that parents want better education so much that it would be safe to ask them, in the affluent conditions of to-day, to pay directly important sums towards the education service. We must be careful about all suggestions of that kind, for however they are dressed up payments by parents must fall on families with children. Are we sure that it is right to single out these families to provide the resources for greater advances in education?
Take, for example, the well-worn proposal to charge the full cost of milk and meals in school, operating, as now, a means test to exempt children from the poorest families. It is said that by shifting the cost of these services on to the parents we could save £50 million, or even £75 million, a year for Plowden. My Lords, I have grave doubts about this proposal. An increase of 1s. 6d. a meal—from a shilling to half-a-crown—would fall so heavily on the low-income families that one of two things would have to be done; either the means test would have to be made much more generous (and your Lordships will appreciate that the more generous the means test, the more embarrassing for the teachers to administer it) or family allowances would have to be increased, in which case there would be no certainty that the money would be spent on the children's dinners, and the net burden on the Exchequer might remain much the same. I am also worried by the possible reduction in the number of dinners taken, which might seriously affect the health and alertness of precisely those children who most need the good meal provided by the school.

219
Whatever the saving might be it would fall far short of the money required to do my top priorities properly. Therefore I must look elsewhere, and I find two large programmes which, by comparison, are of low priority and could be reduced, and a third which could be held where it is and not allowed to expand further. Taking these three programmes in turn, can it now be right to spend over £100 million in capital, over £50 million a year in running costs, and to make use of 20,000 teachers, on raising the school—leaving age from 15 to 16? When that decision was taken, everybody—the Labour Party in the van—thought that the economy was going to continue to expand. But it has not done so, and we now realise that in our grave economic situation there are more important things to be done in education to help get the country right. The case was well put by Mr. Walter James in a signed article in that rejuvenated periodical, The Times. Therefore, while holding firmly to the principle that we ought as soon as possible to raise the school-leaving age, I would now postpone it for a few years, and in the meantime I would give further serious thought to whether those children between 15 and 16 who do not particularly want to stay at school for the extra time might be offered, as an alternative, a full year in a technical college.
Then can it be right to spend money on "going comprehensive" in cases where the particular schemes call for new buildings? Where two or more secondary schools can be efficiently welded into one without damaging the sixth form (and that is an important proviso), then let the schemes go forward. I have always been in favour of that, and I still am. But, at a time like the present, to divert resources to "going comprehensive", rather than to making a good job of industrial training and the Plowden proposals, is to play politics at the expense of the strength of the nation.
Thirdly, the universities. Rightly and belatedly they have embarked on huge expansion projects. I feel that they need more time to digest these projects before another round of expansion can be reckoned among the highest priorities.
An interesting conclusion can be drawn from the present overstretched condition
220
of the education service. It shows how wise it was to put the whole of education under one Secretary of State. Sooner than I thought it has become essential in one central place to weigh, sift and revise the priorities. I have as much reason as anyone in your Lordships' House to be sympathetic with Mr. Crosland in his deteriorating position; but sympathy pulls no chestnuts out of the fire. In education, as in the other great spending departments, there is no substitute for good housekeeping. It is better housekeeping at Curzon Street that the Plowden Report makes so vital—even more than it has ever been before. But I hope—and no one will congratulate him more than I shall—that the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to put his finances in better shape, making ample room to do well what Plowden asks.
5.8 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, it has, I know, seemed strange to a number of foreign observers that in a sequence of significant and important Reports from the Central Advisory Council we have only now arrived at the important stage of the creative first years of education. There have been reasons for this, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has just told us, but I hope that we shall not let it be thought that the order of consideration is the order of priority of importance.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I came to examine official Reports by looking for glimpses of the obvious, and I had included one which he did not mention. The opening sentence of this Report says:
"At the heart of the educational process lies the child."
I thought that was a truism, but after listening to, perhaps, some of the more gloomy parts of the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I wonder whether it is not one of those truisms that need to be said again and again, because we may so easily find this vital part, to which we all attach importance, pushed out by financial considerations. I believe that in this valuable Report there are many points which would not require an immense amount of capital expenditure to carry through, and it would be sad if some of those were to sink, if the economic waves were too great for the whole ship of primary education.

221
It is not, as is obvious, the purpose, and there is not the time in this debate, to enter into a discussion of the detailed proposals of the Report. What we have in the Report is a reflection of some of the best and most recent thought and development; and from the Church's point of view we welcome greatly the compassionate spirit and humanity of the Report, and its generous recognition of the good which is being done by so many gifted and devoted teachers, often working in difficult material conditions, with over-large classes.
The assessment that is made in Chapter 8 of the results of the detailed survey is encouraging to all concerned, and not least to the voluntary bodies which in the past have carried almost the whole burden of national education and which to-day have still a large share in the enterprise. May I remind your Lordships that, as the Report shows, 40·7 per cent, of all primary schools are voluntary schools, and they provide for 29·5 per cent. of all primary school children? The Church of England's share in that is 31·5 per cent. of all primary schools, and the Roman Catholic Church has 8·3 per cent. We can say here that we speak with knowledge and experience, and all that we know confirms the assessment made in this Report.
Nevertheless, it should not be thought that there is any complacency amongst those responsible for voluntary education in primary schools. We are desperately concerned that there is still so much to be done to improve material conditions. There are primary schools with buildings long overdue for modernisation or replacement, which the Churches are desperately anxious and ready to improve the moment they are allowed to do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, if I heard him correctly, said that minor works are apt to bring out an inhuman aspect of the Treasury. I would only add that restrictions on minor works have produced some remarkably un-Christian remarks from some of my brother Bishops as chairmen of their boards of education. Nothing has been more frustrating than to know the work that needed to be done, to be told that it could be done, and then to be stopped when just about ready to begin. I hope very much that what has been said about removing the ceiling
222
on minor works, for which the financial implications cannot be excessive, will be noted and carried out, so that essential work can be done, and done quickly.
We know, too, that in spite of the splendid work of the teachers, not least in the small rural schools, many of which are Church schools, there must be a continuous development of teaching methods and new approaches to the children's changing needs, and I think we can say again, speaking for the Churches, that in the voluntary schools and colleges of education there is a great awareness of the educational insights of to-day, not least those which stem from a secular approach.
Reference has already been made in this debate to the relationship which should exist between the school and the home and the community. Here again, perhaps we may say that we in the Churches speak from experience, for it is precisely this which the churches have sought to encourage and it is for this reason that we have valued the continuance of the voluntary primary schools. For the Church primary school is by its very nature in close touch with the parents who have chosen to send their children to it, and it is in equally close touch with the Church community who contribute financially to its existence and development. And the freedom of parental choice is obviously a vital part of the proper relationship between home, community and school. We were glad to see the strong reinforcement by the Plowden Report of that principle. We have always to be on our guard, as we have been reminded, that it is possible to have a very fine scheme of parental choice yet render it ineffective through administrative action or by a little bit of tidy planning to prevent children from having to travel too far.
I have referred to the extent of the Churches' involvement in primary education which the Churches themselves are determined to maintain, so far as they possibly can. We are there in primary education to make plain our concern for education itself. We believe that there are Christian insights which are vital for the upbringing of children in these early and formative years. We value our schools greatly, not as instruments of a denominational or exclusive pattern of education, but as the means through which

223
those Christian insights can be expressed and developed, so that all children may be given those insights which we believe are necessary for their growth and development as full persons.
I had thought that it might be necessary at this point to make a spirited defence of the religious element in primary education, but noble Lords who have spoken before me have made it unnecessary for me to do that. Their advocacy perhaps exceeds in cogency that which could have been produced from these Benches, and therefore I will not labour the point, except to say that we know from our own inquiries that it is the wish of the great majority of parents and teachers that religious education and the act of worship should influence the entire curriculum and set the tone of living and learning for the whole school community, as the Plowden Committee describe it in Paragraph 558.
From the Churches' side, we would insist on the fullest freedom of conscience for parents and teachers, but subject to that we would maintain that to learn about Christian faith is a necessary part of a child's education. I hope that not too much will be made of the suggestion that the act of worship should be divorced in some way from religious education because that might, among other dangerous things, turn religious education back into being religious instruction, from which trammels it has happily been escaping in the last ten years. But I hope that we shall see more flexibility and freedom in the interpretation of the law on the act of worship.
Reference is made by the Plowden Council to the fact that further inquiry is needed into the content and method of religious education. Of course that is always necessary. The process has already started. The Churches are deeply involved in it, and, as I said in your Lordships' House on a previous occasion, the Churches are anxious and ready to co-operate in further inquiries. The Church of England Board of Education have recently set up a working party under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Durham to advise on this whole question and to be available to help in any national inquiry which we hope will be set forward.
224
There are many points on which we should all wish to comment. There is only one which I think I ought to mention myself at this stage, that which arises in the Chapter on The Ages and Stages of Primary Education. It may be that in some cases and in some areas the three-tier system is the only practicable system. The dioceses are anxious to cooperate with the local educational authorities in developing these proposals, but there are pastoral and social implications in this kind of reorganisation which must be considered along with the mere educational need. I venture to express the hope that time will be given for an adequate consideration of these other issues.
Co-operation between local education authorities and those responsible for voluntary schools is accepted as a part of our partnership. But co-operation is two sided. It is not merely the dioceses co-operating with the local authorities; we hope to see in one or two cases more co-operation from the side of the local authorities with the voluntary bodies. Here there are places where undue haste to carry through a scheme could do untold harm, both to the relations with the voluntary bodies and, we believe, to the interests of the children concerned. But that is a relatively small point compared with our concern for the whole field of primary education. We indeed add our own congratulations to those already given to Lady Plowden and the members of her Council for this most valuable Report. We hope that it will not be long, in spite of all the financial problems, before some steps are taken to implement their proposals. We hope that in this the educational priority areas will receive the attention they need, for the need is great, the good will is very manifest, and the needs of the children must be served.
5.20 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for initiating this debate and for his most interesting and temperate speech. I sympathise with most of it, particularly his reservations on encouraging mothers to park their young children in nurseries while they go out to work. Here I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh—I am sorry she is not here now—on one of her very rare speeches, and I wish she would

225
not deprive us for so long of her experience and wisdom.
I must confess that I approached this Report, the fourth of this aristocratic quartet—Crowther, Newsom, Robbins and now Plowden—with a slightly sinking feeling, because I knew that all the statistics and recommendations in the field of education were destined to lie fallow until money was forthcoming. All the same, I hope that we may have better days soon and that some of the recommendations will be put into effect. Kipling's poem If sprang to my mind, and I could not help Bowdlerising it and adding a line:
"If you can plan and not make plans your master".
At present the money is just not there, and the Government cannot profit from these tomes of Wisdom. They are indeed very expensive signposts for the 'seventies, but all the same they are the texts for future expansion. I thought that here the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, was peculiarly unsympathetic as an ex-Minister of Education, seeing that, after all, when he was Minister, I think, they were better days than the troublesome times the Government are having to-day. The Plowden Report deserves its full measure of praise for its exhaustive survey of our primary school educational scene, and for its wise, constructive and humane recommendations.
Until now the primary sector has been the Cinderella of the educational services. This has been said. It has had no extra provision since 1944, and here perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, would take note. The expansion of secondary education has been made at the expense of the primary. The Plowden Report makes it clear that so far we have had better value from the primary schools than we really deserve from the poor investment in them. And again I must speak to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and say that his explanation does not really explain away why the primary schools did not get more money. Of course, it is obvious that primary and secondary education is interdependent. If we invest more in primary education, we shall get higher dividends from secondary education.
This Report emphasises once again, as did all the other Reports, that there are
226
still untapped resources among our children in the country, and suggests we should begin by drawing on these in the primary schools. No one, as yet, has assessed the potential of ability or the effect this would have on increasing our economic growth. Here I should like to point out to noble Lords opposite, when they ride this cliché about comprehensive education, that comprehensive education is the philosophy behind just this: the fact that we have to educate as many of our children as we can—not just a few of our children or some of our children, but the greatest number of our children— to the highest possible degree.
My Lords, I agree myself with the major recommendations in the Report, such as the large expenditure on nursery education, the single date of entry and the transfer to the middle school at 12. But as these changes are part of the expensive reforms at the moment—we cannot afford them—I should prefer to comment briefly on a few of the recommendations that cost relatively little or even nothing at all. Even when they involve a legislative change, the change is not a controversial one. Perhaps the most attractive aspect of the Report for me was its psychological, and one can almost say philosophical, approach and its common-sense flexibility. It laid particular emphasis on the two-way relationship between the primary school and the community; not only was the school to be an active part of the neighbourhood, but people in the neighbourhood were to take an active part in the life of the school. A much greater partnership between schools and parents is advocated, wider than is achieved by parent-teacher associations to-day, or by managers or governors committees.
The Report goes so far as to say that the primary school should be the centre of activity in the community. There are already in existence some remarkable examples of such voluntary enterprise by parents, and the noble Leader of the House has referred to one of them, where the parents built a swimming pool in one neighbourhood. Mothers sew and make equipment for the children. Fathers, for another school, raised £8,000; not only has a swimming pool been built, but a museum centre, a theatre, a greenhouse. All of these have been built by parents' efforts. This exhortation to stimulate

227
home-school relationships can do nothing but good as well as raising the status of the primary school, which for some reason is lower than the secondary school's. It was evident from the Report that, for instance, the status of school managers for primary schools was lower than that of governors for secondary schools. I cannot think why they are called managers and not governors. Changing their name to governors would be a very painless piece of legislation, a good thing and absolutely free.
We know that not every management or governors' committee is competent or effective. It depends on the personnel and the emphasis on the concern with education rather than with politics, but when these committees are good they are not only a wonderful help to the head of the school but are a wonderful education for parents. I have just, very regretfully, resigned from being a governor of a boys' comprehensive school because I was not able to attend enough of the meetings. That is because I am away for three months of the year. This school is neither very large nor is it in an affluent neighbourhood. It is true that the committee was made up of persons who were distinguished, active or experienced in the teaching profession or other professions, and very concerned about education. But I was very impressed by the close consultation that existed between the headmaster and the committee. We freely discussed everything from the appointment of new staff or the violent behaviour of a problem pupil to the latest broken window. To-day the task of a headmaster or a headmistress is a particularly heavy one. The Ministry of Education has only recently asked for a small percentage decrease in the number of staff, when we know the shortage that already exists. Any improvement in the management committees of primary schools would be invaluable.
The Plowden Committee recommended, with one reservation, the abolition of corporal punishment. This again would cost nothing. I realise that public opinion, in the teaching profession and outside, is against it. I would only point out that public opinion sometimes needs to be led as well as followed, and that we might take into account the fact that we in this country have a bad record of cruelty to children, as is evident in the
228
courts to-day. The greater flexibility urged by the Report in the matter of part-time schooling in the first year, where parents desire it, is most commendable. Some children are exhausted by a full day's schooling at the age of 5. It is not too much to ask for half-day schooling until the age of 6.
I am glad that the teaching profession has overcome most of its suspicion and hostility to the idea of teachers' aides, less expensively trained manpower, and that the Plowden Committee have made the bold recommendation for inducements of higher pay for teachers in educationally deprived areas. This, incidentally, would be a double benefit, because it would alleviate conditions in immigrant areas and so help in race relations. Unless I have my sums wrong, which is not unlikely, the additional expenditure for this measure would be £3 million by 1972—not an enormous sum to contemplate. Also, in order to obtain adequate equipment for primary schools an additional sum of from half a million pounds to £1 million is needed. That again, is but a small sum. These are some of the less costly improvements in the Report to which I wish to refer.
We cannot overcome our educational dilemma to have expansion while we have inadequate resources and relatively fewer teachers; but we can make-do-and-mend with some of the cheaper recommendations put forward by this Report. Meanwhile, the Plowden Report, together with the three other great Reports, stands as a foundation for a logical progress in education that is the hallmark of a civilised and advanced society. And one of the most dismal things to contemplate, depressing and sometimes even frightening, is the prospect of an ever-increasing number of our children materially better off but poorly educated.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder if I could take up one point that she made—the question of corporal punishment. She says that our country has a bad record of cruelty to children. Of course cruelty to children is not to be condoned. Whether we have a bad record or not, I do not know. But if we have, it certainly does not come from corporal punishment in the schools. I worked for some years—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to intervene, but is the noble Lord asking a question? Unless the noble Lord is asking a question, it would be most unusual to give a commentary.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am sorry. I will try to put what I have to say in the form of a question. Does the noble Baroness imply, then, that our bad record for punishment comes from corporal punishment as it stands in our schools to-day?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, no; I do not imply that the bad record that we have in this country of cruelty to children, which, as I say, is often to be seen in the newspapers, comes as a result of corporal punishment in schools. But I think there is some relationship between our zest for corporal punishment and the fact that the worst of our parents are sometimes cruel to their children.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, in relation to its effect on young children, and quite apart from brutality, at least corporal punishment could be administered in a form of chastisement which may do them good, as it did me?
5.35 p.m.
LORD JAMES OF RUSHOLME: My Lords, it is all too easy for some of us to be complacent about our primary schools, for many are first rate and some have been so for a long time. I myself remember with gratitude and affection the education I received in a maintained elementary school fifty years ago, though neither the buildings, nor, I suspect, the methods would perhaps seem adequate to me to-day. I remember with still greater regard the primary school in Manchester where my son received the first part of his education soon after the war, where some of the teaching was so good that the worst punishment with which we could threaten him was illegally to keep him home from school for half a day. There was not much wrong with those two schools.
Since then we have made immense strides. I was reading the other day a booklet on school development in the last twenty years in the area where I now live, the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is a record of what is virtually a minor
230
revolution—in accommodation, amenity and in approach. Reading such a record makes one feel admiration and gratitude to the administrators, the teachers and the laymen who have made it possible. We know, too, that under the impetus of enlightened local authorities and the architects' group in the Ministry of Education, primary school building represents perhaps the most significant contribution to English post-war architecture—at any rate, I think a primary school was the only building for which we got a gold medal at an international exhibition.
All this is a matter for congratulation, but certainly not for complacency. For in spite of the fact that the primary school can justly be regarded as one of the best elements in our education, the Report we are considering this afternoon makes it abundantly clear that we still have a long way to go before we can feel that great efforts are not required of us. There are still far too many schools that are physically sub-standard. That we all know. And we know, as we read this Report, what is required to remedy conditions that in some cases are still scandalously bad.
But that is only the beginning. Even if all school buildings were reasonable, they are but a framework. The Plowden Report indicates a number of lines of advance, and proposes a number of new approaches which we must explore if our primary education is really to meet the needs of our children and the community.
It does so in terms that are sensible and realistic, if I may say so. It costs its proposals and it puts them in order of priority. These are, of course, points on which many would disagree. We have just heard one discussed. Perhaps I might inform the noble Baroness, to set her mind at rest, that although I was headmaster of a large school in a city for 16 years, I am opposed to corporal punishment in schools—not that I think we should make too much of that subject.
With what, however, some might think my somewhat narrow educational experience, I am sorry to see that the single chapter in the Report on the needs of the unusually gifted child is the shortest in the Report and. as is so frequent nowadays, lends colour to the view that it is only outstanding abilities in the arts, in music and the ballet that need bother

231
us much at all. Although that is not a minor matter, I do not want to dwell on it or to let my disagreement about it colour my general wholehearted support of this Report. What I want to do is to comment very briefly on three particular questions which I think are of fundamental importance, and which I am sure demand the support of your Lordships' House and of the Government. Inevitably previous speakers have said a number of things that I wanted to say. I can simply add my support to their greater authority.
First, there is this genuinely radical proposal about what the Report calls "deprived areas". I would agree with the noble Viscount. Lord Eccles, that people in the Ministry may have thought of this years ago, but the plain fact is that from the point of view of the ordinary citizen and the ordinary teacher what is proposed in the Report is genuinely radical. Of course, we have long been aware of the way in which home and environmental circumstances, whether material, intellectual or moral, affect a child's development and, in spite of the efforts of the school, make much of our talk about equality of opportunity sound like a joke in rather bad taste. If we did not realise this clearly before, the Newsom Report underlined it with example after example. Plowden goes a great step further, because it makes hard suggestions as to what we can do if we will. Though we know, or ought to know, that the school in itself is but one of the agencies for creating a better society, we are given here two lines of practical approach to enable it to make a greater contribution to the mitigation of the effects of bad material and cultural background.
We have here listed a number of criteria by which we can identify areas in which pupils will have special problems; and although those criteria may not be the right ones, and although we may need to modify them or add to them, nevertheless they give us pointers on which we can work. We have, too, precise financial proposals to give extra help to the schools themselves. Very often, as we all know, it is the schools set in the darkest areas of our cities where staffs are most transient and most difficult to recruit. Yet it is pre
232
cisely the children in those schools who most need stability—and "stability" is a key word in a child's education—and more than usual help.
The suggestion that we should actually make available extra money for the staffing and maintenance of such schools seems to me as practical a step as we could take to tackle a problem whose difficulty makes one at times almost despair. In my view, it must be followed up. Here I very much agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, when he said that there should not be simply an automatic supplementation of the salary of every teacher who works in such an area, but by making the money available for salaries and other purposes in a flexible way we can help the schools to the best advantage. It is these schools, too, where the Committee's suggestions about special social workers, and the development of school welfare services which some of us have long urged, will be most important.
The need for some continuity and stability in the staffs of schools in deprived areas applies, of course, to all schools. Here one is forced back on the old platitude, though it is no less true and important for being a platitude. Our schools may be designed by our most gifted architects; they may have every visual aid and teaching machine and listening booth in the world; but they will still be good schools only if there are enough teachers, some of whom at any rate are good and some of whom stay in the same school for more than 12 months at a time. What is the position in this respect? With tremendous efforts, our colleges of education have doubled in seven years, yet the impact on the staffing situation has not really been all that impressive. Why? Because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, said, in a splendid and inspiring speech. out of every 100 women teachers leaving these colleges more than half will no longer be teaching in three years, and two-thirds of them will have gone in six years. And it is the primary school that suffers most from this exodus.
What can we do? We can, and must, press on in our efforts to bring back the married teacher after she has had her family. But that is not enough. I believe that we have to face resolutely the hard fact that we shall never have enough

233
trained teachers to give the kind of education we want. We never shall; and if we are honest we shall say so. What many children need—for instance, the immigrant children in the deprived school—is not initially class teaching at all, but rather to have someone to talk to in small groups in their new language. Such a procedure is unthinkable with any conceivable trained teaching force.
We are driven back inevitably—and even some of my friends in the teaching profession have realised this by now—to the solution proposed by the Report: to the use of teaching aides; that is to say, of girls and older married women who are not trained teachers but who can do many of the jobs a teacher now has to do, and often provide a sympathy and personal concern no less great. This is a controversial proposal, yet we must have the courage to adopt it. Is it so outrageous that the professional should be assisted by someone who is not so well qualified as himself? The hospitals and the laboratories of England would close, as we know, if it were not adopted in other fields.
I myself would go further. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, I would support wholeheartedly the Minority Report, which suggests that for a number of teachers the sacred cow of three-year training should be treated, for the moment, as not so sacred, and that a two-year course should be followed by some years in the school, when the third year's training could be added if the candidate wanted to remain in teaching. That revolutionary and much-opposed doctrine has the support of many people very experienced indeed in education. I know that politically this suggestion is simply a non-starter, but it is was, after all, supported by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, and critical situations demand unpalatable remedies.
It is clear, too, that to give a core of greater stability to schools, which is what they need, more men must be attracted to primary teaching. In this the raising of the age of transfer will help, but something more is required. It may well be that more men will see a career for themselves in primary schools if we give them more responsibility and more independence. What the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said about managers and governing bodies was, I thought, ex
234
tremely relevant. We have to make a man feel that his school is in some way "his" school. It is to this element that many of our present grammar schools owe their success. He will also realise that his is a career worth pursuing if he is given some share in training his successors, as in so many other professions. The barrier between the colleges of education and the schools is often, in my view, far too rigid. There is room for more frequent secondment of staff both ways; and room, above all, for a new attitude of partnership between those who teach and those who teach others to teach.
I myself have for a long time felt most strongly that it is vital that we should have a Report comparable with those which we have had in recent years—Crowther, Robbins and the others—specifically devoted to the more limited field of the education and training of teachers. I know that the colleges of education have had a very difficult time over the past few years. Their splendid efforts to expand have imposed great strains on them. One is reluctant to lay on them again the burden of a new inquiry. Yet without a fundamental, and, above all, constructive reappraisal of the aims and methods of teacher-training at all levels—and I include the universities—we shall not be able to introduce the reforms we need.
Such a reappraisal is particularly important in view of the third and last point to which I want to draw attention. The abolition of selection may be a good thing or a bad one. As your Lordships know, I am one of those pretty well prehistoric animals reactionary enough to defend the 11-plus, partly because it gave the teacher clear and recognisable goals of literacy and numeracy at which to aim; and I think that literacy and numeracy are good things. Nor did it really cramp creative effort in the primary school as the illustrations in this Report testify, which, after all, represent activities which were going on while the children were cramped by the 11-plus examination.
The primary curriculum is now, however, in a state of rapid change—and I expect that it should be. Its techniques are being radically altered. Here one must pay tribute to the work of the Schools' Council. The setting up of that Council, and the initiation of its studies of the cur

235
riculum, may well come to be regarded as one of the significant landmarks in our recent educational history, because from the Council is coming a body of information and suggestions which is of the greatest importance, such as their last admirable pamphlet (I mention it merely as an example) on French in the primary schools.
But the value of these approaches, these new advances in technique, is greatly diminished unless teachers are shown how to use them. As in every other field of knowledge, whether it is chemistry or physics or engineering, or whatever you will, the growth of knowledge about education itself is so rapid that one cannot speak of a qualified teacher as if he or she were a finished product. The teacher whose training finishes in 1967 will be ill-equipped to teach the children of the year 2,000, yet that is what he will have to do. The inescapable conclusion is that our colleges and departments of education must put an emphasis on in-service training far greater than anything we have previously visualised in this country, though it is common enough in the United States. One aspect of this will be the provision, as the Report suggests, of teacher centres as widely scattered as possible, so that teachers may come in the evenings—as I can testify from our experience that many will—to discuss their common problems and to keep bright their knowledge and their ideas.
Those are the three points in this fine Report which I wanted specifically to commend to your Lordships: the recognition of deprived areas, the provision of teachers' aides, and the radical reexamination of teachers, including great emphasis on in-service training. All of these reforms will cost money, and the Report is bold enough to say how much. About that I shall say only two things. If our finances are so straitened that we cannot do everything we want over the whole field of education, then let us get our priorities right. Here, of course, I am simply echoing the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord to whom we are so grateful for having initiated this debate.
I think one is entitled to ask, even if the noble Baroness thinks it a cliché, whether the strengthening of the founda
236
tions of public education is not more important, and will not yield richer and more certain dividends, than many of the schemes which are now being evolved for the reorganisation of secondary education. Secondly, I would ask whether as we read this Report, with its comparatively modest estimates as education goes, we shall simply say, "We cannot afford it." We should, I believe, rather say that if we as a country can afford hundreds of millions so that we can learn to fly to New York in two hours rather than five, or spend great sums so that we can see our television programmes in colour, then if wisdom and humanity are left in us we must still more afford the sacrifices required to strengthen the foundations of our national prosperity and the basis of our national character by enriching at its roots the education of our future citizens.
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, it is clear from this afternoon's debate that many ideas triggered off as a result of the marathon Plowden Report are common to noble Lords who have already spoken. Mention has been made of the quality of the Report, and any of your Lordships who have read it, certainly Volume 1, will realise the beauty of the language with which it has been produced. I will not weary your Lordships by being merely repetitive, so I shall scrap from my speech the points already covered and concentrate on one which I think worthy of emphasising here.
We have heard a great deal this afternoon about the priority areas, and I want to speak for a moment or two about the staffing problems of schools in those areas. Various methods of attracting teachers are put forward, some good, some not so good. The suggestion that teachers' aides should be provided is excellent. I was interested in what a former chief inspector wrote in Teachers' World the other day, when he said:
"The Council has courageously gone beyond what the teachers' organisations have in the past been willing to concede. The Report has strengthened the Secretary of State's hand in pressing with equal courage, but unavailingly so far, for something more than mere ancillaries in the primary schools. If the Government shows it means business over this Report, one hopes that the teachers' organisations will meet Mr. Crosland more generously on this particular issue. If

237
the profession wants the public's support on salaries, status and conditions of service, it cannot afford to be accused of restrictive practices."
Those are the words of Mr. Percy Wilson, a man who in his high position in the Department was known to care deeply about children and their education.
But in addition to teachers' aides, the real need for teachers is to be aided. I hope that the Government will not rest content with the suggestion that there should be a carrot of £120 extra allowance to lead the necessary teachers into the priority areas. Is not some imagination needed to avoid having a commuter force of teachers, moving in in the morning and out in the afternoon, detached all the rest of the time from the neighbourhood in which the children have their homes? The noble Earl the Leader of the House spoke of this with feeling, and I suggest that it is really a housing problem. If appropriate accommodation could be provided for young married teachers, or groups of teaching friends, somewhere near the schools, and if the kind of appeal were to be made which in another field is resulting in sending hundreds of young people through the V.S.O. and other agencies to service overseas, I am certain that the response would be rewarding.
Often these priority areas are in need of leadership, friendliness and enthusiasm. For two years after leaving a domestic science training college I lived near just such an area, teaching in a school where all the children and their parents had been moved out of the overcrowded East End of London into a vast, new housing estate. I was very conscious that what I might call cross-fertilisation was sorely lacking in that area. There was hardly any local leadership, no community feeling, no play centres, no youth clubs—nothing but hundred and hundreds of council houses that had come to be occupied by hundreds and hundreds of families, strange to each other and to the roads in which they lived. All contact with the children and the school ended at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, when the staff hurried away to catch their trains or their buses. It was not the teachers' fault. At that time, nearly forty years ago, if accommodation for them had been provided on the huge new estate, many of the teachers would have lived on the spot. As it was, no one was left behind
238
to make a contribution to life out of school hours.
In that housing estate the school buildings and equipment were new, but the income level was low and the need for leadership living in the community was every bit as great as in some of the priority areas described in the Report. Take the kind of area described in Chapter 5 of the Report. If improvement of some of the housing in such an area could be undertaken immediately and the accommodation then offered to young married teachers—therefore obviating the wastage of so many of the women who get married—and also to groups of teacher friends, I am sure that they would accept it and set out to make something of living in the area as a challenge to their social conscience. Young men and women often make a success of what they set themselves to do in incredibly difficult circumstances. The manner in which so many of the young to-day respond to what they see to be a real need is a shining example to us all, Perhaps the noble Baroness who is to reply, and who was at one time herself a teacher—and I am sure a much more skilled one than I ever was—will pass on this suggestion when submitting to the Secretary of State the ideas that have come up in this debate to-day.
6.2 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I want to deal with one aspect of the Plowden Report; that is, the problem of the immigrant schools—what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, in a recent debate in your Lordships' House, called the "ghetto" schools, The Report draws attention to the fact that over 200,000 immigrant children, so-called, have actually been born in this country since the large-scale immigration began, and that the numbers of children from certain Commonwealth countries are as follows: West Indians, 57,000; Indians, 29,000; Pakistanis, 7,800; and 13,200 Cypriots. Some 25 boroughs, including 11 in the Inner London Authority, have an immigrant population in school of more than 5 per cent., the highest single figure being 21 per cent. Because immigrants tend to concentrate in particular districts, the children attend few schools even in these boroughs; that is to say, they are concentrated in particular schools. In some schools, more than half the pupils come

239
from immigrant families. They are what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, referred to as the "ghetto" schools.
Many immigrant children are at an enormous disadvantage because of their poor educational origins. To quote the Report:
"It is difficult to discriminate between a child who lacks intelligence and the child who is suffering from 'culture-shock' or simply from inability to communicate."
This problem of "culture-shock" is one that concerns me professionally, in the sense that I am a professor of international relations, and I have seen a great many of the places of origin, if you like, of these immigrants. As a result of "culture-shock" and the inability to communicate, few immigrant children find places in selective schools. Few go on to higher education. In one borough with nearly 6 per cent. of immigrants in its school population not a single child was selected for grammar school in 1966; and children with high mathematical and technical ability are at a disadvantage because of their poor English. I have plenty of evidence of that from those who are striving to teach immigrants for technical school purposes.
This is a dangerous form of segregation, because it perpetuates the immigrant complex in the next generation. The fact that these children cannot succeed, that they cannot go forward to higher education, begins to react on them. Children of intelligence who have missed their way at school through "culture-shock" or language difficulties, or just inappropriate teaching—and teaching may be inappropriate even with sympathetic and patient teachers—are likely to discover that they have missed their opportunities, and may develop grievances; or they may be what in America are called "drop-outs". They are so discouraged by the inadequate and bad schooling, and by their sense of inadequacy in themselves, that they just do not persist with education. They do not try to "lift themselves with their own bootstraps," and they remain, going on into the next generation, as second-class citizens.
This is something which ought to concern us deeply, not merely because of the wastage of these people, themselves, but because here we have an inherent problem of great magnitude for the future. I would remind your Lordships that this
240
was the inflammable cause of the Watts riots in Los Angeles. We have seen in the schools, and indeed in the living conditions of the recent immigrants, a repetition of what was in fact the deprivation of the 1930's, which again built up an enormous head force of resentment. I would commend to my noble friend Lady Phillips, who will be replying, a close look at what has been done in America by the Job Corps to deal with the "dropouts". A great many lessons—lessons which will be very valuable—can be learned from them. Above all, I suggest that a look should be taken at "Head start", which is the name given to the desperate efforts which the Americans are making—some of them not very successful—to take children, particularly the Negro children, out of the impossible social quagmire at a receptive age, and try to prepare them for school. "Culture-shock" needs culture therapy. It also needs culture prophylaxis to mitigate the shock of exposure to an alien cultural training.
Like everything else in the problem areas discussed in the Plowden Report, the difficulties cannot be solved in the classroom alone, because they relate to a whole complex of social under-privilege; namely, the squalor of immigrant overcrowding, the "ghetto" mentality which is being generated in the community, the grumbling of racialism and job discrimination—the job, as the Plowden Report points out, they do not get when they go to look for it. Fortunately, as the Plowden Report also reminds us—and it is nice to be reminded of this:
"…colour prejudice does not cause much difficulty in the classroom. Children readily accept each other and set store by other qualities in their classmates than the colour of their skin. Some echoes of adult prejudice may invade the classroom but seldom survive among children".
That makes it the more painful when, outside the classroom, the immigrant child is tormented in his own neighbourhood or rejected when he comes to look for a job.
I have some suggestions to make with regard to the nature of the teaching of the immigrant children, simply because I have seen the conditions and the nature of the teaching from the other end; but I will not go into that now. But I believe—and I reinforce everything that

241
has been said about it—in the need for teaching aides. And I mean both aides (for I could employ more than 50,000 of them) and aids: technical aids. On the aids and aides to teaching we can elaborate at great length, and the effect could be extremely valuable.
But, there is one other aspect that I should like to emphasise. It follows what the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, had to say about service overseas. I believe—and I ask the House seriously to consider and reinforce my request to the Front Bench—that we should try to relate the whole problem of the immigrant schools, the ghetto schools, with the enormously advantageous effects of Voluntary Service Overseas with which I am closely connected, through the Duke of Edinburgh's Council. As the noble Baroness said, we have there a tremendous body of enthusiasm, of people who have actually been on the ground, who know the conditions, who in many cases have learned the languages and who know something of the cultural background which cannot be obtained from a textbook or fabricated in a teachers' training college. Therefore I think this whole problem of the ghetto school should be closely considered in terms of our whole overseas aid programme and the "come-back", as it were, of the people.
I am glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is back in his place because I think he was rather premature when he said that we had no questions on the matter of religious education. It seems to me that this question of the immigrant schools highlights the problem of religious instruction, or religious education, as the Plowden Report prefers to call it and I am glad they do: I only wish they would call it "education in religion". The real problem here is how to reconcile the argument which in an otherwise magnificent Report, if I may say so, is extremely evasive or excusing on this question of religion. Naturally, as the Report itself points out, the members of the Council were divided.
We must ask ourselves seriously what is the nature of religious teaching or religious education in the schools (in which we have a very large and diversified body of differences in religious content) and the nature of the "culture
242
shock" of people coming from the conditions of one religion, for instance, from India, of Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, coming to find themselves in schools where they are being expected to conform. Let us be quite clear about this. They are being expected to conform in the act of worship to an approach to a religion which in fact conflicts with all their background—as it does, to my certain knowledge. There are enormous differences between the conditions of home and school. But think how infinitely more difficult it becomes when you have a religious conflict between the teaching at school and the teaching in the home.
In an examination of the Plowden Report, I think we have to bear that in mind. It is the dividing of a child's mind, the dividing of a child's loyalties; not one child but two—because we have to accept that they come with their own ideas of religion, of Islam, of Buddhism, of Hinduism, or Animism and other varieties.
I ask the right reverend Prelate who is to follow me to believe that I am sincere in saying that the question of religious education and instruction in the schools, in terms of the problem with which I am dealing, (the problem of the immigrant schools and, therefore, one high-lighted throughout the whole of the teaching of primary education) is a very important issue indeed. I ask those who follow to go beyond the Plowden Report and ask again whether, in fact, in our whole approach to religious education we are coping with the nature of our times.
6.16 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WAKEFIELD: My Lords, I will try to take up a point raised in the last speech. I have absolutely no authority to speak on this subject, but I know that it is one which has been and is being taken up, and one to which very careful thought is being given by the Board of Education of the Church of England. One hopes that, as a result of that study, there will be at any rate some new viewpoint which can be contributory to this vitally important discussion which your Lordships have raised and for which I am grateful. I am afraid there is no immediate answer to this problem. Speaking personally, I have realised that it exists in the schools in certain parts, which I suppose would now

243
be called special areas, in my own diocese. It is a very practical problem.
In looking at this whole vast subject of Children and their Primary Schools one realises how significant it is that that title has been used. This Report, above all else, is looking at this matter from the point of view of the child—and the understanding of the immigrant child is as important as the understanding of the child of this country. The Church, I suppose, was doing the pioneer work in this field all through the last century; and the fact that many of its buildings are old and need modernising is to its credit rather than otherwise. Looking at this subject from within the long and, I consider, honourable tradition of the Church, and asking what would one like to see taking place, I find time and time again that Lady Plowden's Report has put its finger on precisely the things one would like to see. As has been suggested more than once, the Report will no doubt serve as a kind of textbook for the whole subject for a few years—although I must admit it is an intimidatingly bulky one. But, even if in other respects (as I am afraid we probably must expect) it will be pigeon-holed, as a textbook it will prove of very great value to education in this country.
As has been said, the insight of our predecessors and the suggestions they have made—particularly in the Hadow Report of thirty years ago—have been justified and refined by experience: for instance, finding out has proved better for children than being told. That may be the line we shall have to take on this whole religious issue. The chapter on "The Aims of Primary Education" could be criticised, in spite of what has been said about the language, as somewhat banal; and from the point of view of the Christian tradition the aims are limited because they give no hint that there might be places beyond this world for the child to explore, to find out about and prepare to take his place in. But considering the bitter controversies of the past and the questionings of the present day, I think that the whole statement—I am sure that my colleagues would say the same—is very fair. The emphasis laid on the importance of participation by parents (another subject which has already been mentioned), participation by parents in the
244
life of the school, as well as interesting themselves in the doings of their children, is of course to be welcomed and is something we have pressed for all the time.
It may well be that the whole of Part Three of the Report on the home, school and environment will turn out in the end to be the principal contribution which the Report makes to the whole discussion. We have always known what an influence the attitude of parents to what goes on at school has on the development of a child. It is only natural, but the extraordinary thing is how often it is lacking, and how apparently indifferent educationists can be. I must confess that I wish the Report put rather more strongly the part fathers should be encouraged to play, and not only mothers.
Now, on the basis of this Report, with its findings largely based on a national survey with the portentous title of Parental Attitudes and Circumstances Related to School and Pupil Characteristics, we have such evidence as should almost compel educationists to bring parents into the picture in every possible way. The recommendations made have the great merit that they call mostly for the expenditure of time, energy and imagination on the part of head teachers and their staff and not for the expenditure of public funds, and so one may hope that at least these will be implemented. Also, something which has not been mentioned, in Part Three comes the important chapter on the health and welfare service and the school child. The recommendations in the Report are somewhat tentative in view of the fact that the Seebohm Committee has not yet reported and what recommendations are laid are in line with the thinking of many of us who have the many-sided care of families of all kinds as our major concern.
A great deal more needs to be done to co-ordinate the various agencies which will become independently involved in school cases and, as the Report says, we need to reach an understanding of the partnership which makes teacher and social worker—and, I would add, sometimes the parson—real colleagues. I think that this is an important chapter which is worth noticing. I will not say anything about the proposal to make a planned and positive discrimination in favour of deprived areas because so much has been

245
said on that already. With Sir John Newsom on the Committee we can well understand how they were not allowed to shirk this issue. I remember very well, again about thirty years ago, a book by him called On the Other Side, in which he put himself in the position of different kinds of deprived persons in different situations in the country. By this Report we have been compelled to put ourselves in the position of a person in these deprived areas and that has been a very good thing for our consciences.
There are many other recommendations which will mean increased expenditure and these, too, have been discussed, but there are certain ones which will not require expenditure to which attention ought to be drawn. One of them in particular I should like to mention, and I was rather surprised at what was said about it very much earlier in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I refer to the recommendation about managers of schools. From our experience in the church schools we know how important a role school managers can fill and what a difference it makes if they meet regularly and are known to meet. They can indeed share their relations between school and community and they can indeed support the head teacher. And the staffs of many church schools testify to the value of having a group of people of this kind interested and concerned for the wellbeing of their staff and the children. True they can be a hindrance and have been known sometimes to hold up progress, but by and large we should want to support the plea that more should be made of them and that their responsibilities should be increased.
To return for a moment before I finish to the specific question of teaching of religion as an element in the curriculum—and here, of course, I speak from the Church point of view—this must be done with the same educational expertise and imagination as is afforded to all the other subjects; and the numerous recent research projects on the subject, particularly the work of Dr. Goldman and his colleagues, are to be welcomed. What is so surprising is to find that so few educational authorities have appointed advisers on this subject, especially when we remember that it is the one subject which must be included in the curriculum. The West Riding authority appointed an
246
adviser three or four years ago, and this has proved of immeasurable value to all concerned. I think that our authority would most certainly endorse Lady Plowden's Committee's opinion that such appointments would help to raise the standard of religious education.
Finally, my Lords, a word about the Report as a whole. It is about children, and children as individual persons; about their needs, their differences and the different environment in which they have to grow. The schools are described as "their" schools and are staffed, and the curricula are planned. for them. It could almost be called a "Children's Charter". While many of us would naturally have liked the aims to be expressed with a rather more definite Christian conviction behind them about the nature of man and the end for which man is created, being the glory of God, nevertheless, it does reflect the views that the Church holds and it is the stewardship of human life which is the first responsibility of every educational process. Because of that, I am sure that we heartily endorse what is said in the Report.
6.29 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, first I have to apologise for not being here for the major portion of the debate and for the fact that I have to leave early. I should not like to attempt to follow the right reverend Prelate in his theme, except to say one thing, that when my daughter was very young she chose to teach in a primary church school. The Plowden Report has already become an historic document. I must declare my interest in this debate by referring to my eldest daughter, whom I have already mentioned, who is a primary school teacher, and to one of my oldest friends who was the headmaster of a primary school. Both of them have helped me to write this speech. My second daughter until recently taught English at a grammar school, and my mother, on the day of her appointment, was one of the youngest headmistresses of an infants' school.
My contribution to this debate is to draw attention to the differences in pay in the teaching profession and what one would call parity of esteem as compared with other stages of education. Teachers still find that in the minds of administrators, especially in the higher flights, and

247
among the general public, the older the pupil, or the nearer he is to getting a job, the more important becomes the teacher. It seems that educationists and the general public are prepared to spend more on the final touches than on the foundations.
The Plowden Report suggests means of getting parents and local authorities more interested. There is already a growing interest and this must now be exploited. The public must be made to realise that the most important years of a child's life are those up to the age of 11. This calls for an enlargement of scope in the duties of primary school teachers, such as specialists in remedial work, both on the "three R's" side and on the physical side. On the physical side it would include special classes for correcting feet, posture, deafness and sight difficulties not serious enough for clinic or hospital treatment. This means getting away from the hard and fast rule of one teacher per class in primary schools—even for classes of thirty.
We shall realise, I hope, in the not too distant future the urgent need to spend more money on load-bearing foundations and not so much on the trimmings that are often found on the superstructure. There is too much gilding of the superstructure nowadays and we find that this gilt very easily drops off under stress. The basis of a child's character, apart from strong hereditary characteristics, is laid in the home and in the primary school. I am glad that the pundits who advocate the postponement of the age of entry are not likely to succeed. I went to school when I was three and I could read fluently when I was five. It was a very good start.
It may be wise to have second thoughts on increasing the school leaving age to 16. There might even be some merit in letting pupils leave at any time after 15 or even 14½ if they pass the modern equivalent of the old Labour leaving examination at 13, which was in effect when I was a boy. There is plenty of scope for people who want to learn, if they are slow developers, at night school. In my day many of us went to night school and we produced some excellent men. Some of them became Greek scholars, to whom I referred in a speech last month, and others became first-class mining engineers. The list is endless.
248
I should like to turn to the state of primary school buildings. Heaven knows how some devoted caretakers work desperately in buildings over a hundred years old, with insufficient wash basins and with outside lavatories, to keep them warm in winter, clean and tolerably hygienic. I heard of one case of school dinners being served under an umbrella because of a leaking roof. This school was within a borough whose education committee were spending a large sum on a construction where the main occupation will apparently be to turn shapeless lumps of stone into perhaps slightly more symmetrical lumps of stone. I cannot appreciate this modern art. I think that the priorities are slightly wrong when it conies to the question of primary schools. There should be some reasonable explanation for such a seemingly extraordinary state of priorities.
The age of the primary school population is constantly changing in any area, particularly where new housing estates are inhabited by families with young children, who inevitably grow older, and as the maximum stay in an infants school is three years, a new school serving such a housing estate could be much depleted over the course of even ten years. Is it not therefore worth while considering prefabricated mobile buildings which can easily be moved to where they are needed most? I have to declare no interest here. The firm in which I am interested do not manufacture prefabricated school buildings. We build buildings like St. Paul's Cathedral.
Some of the schools erected even 12 years ago are already grossly overcrowded. When architects plan the erection of schools, before they start designing they should spend time studying the interior of schools while the children are working in them. The 12-year-old school I referred to is out of date because modern infant and junior teaching methods require much more space for movement. Primary school children are no longer required to spend all day motionless in rows of desks. Architects must not only be up to date but also capable of visualising the needs of primary school teachers at least ten to fifteen years ahead. Good buildings are by no means essential to good teaching in an academic sense, but they are bound to be beneficial, by raising

249
the morale of pupils at the most impressionable age and certainly by raising the morale of their teachers, too many of whom, particularly in the winter, are still working under conditions which would not be tolerated in a modern factory.
It is a fact that graduates tend to look down on infant teaching. Is it because the intellectual achievement of children is so low or is it because graduates do not regard them as a sufficient challenge to their own intellectual powers? If that is so, I should like to ask the question: What is the difference between an effective infants' teacher and a professional child psychologist? The difference is that, in addiiton to the psychologist's work of observing, analysing and taking necessary action to rationalise children's behaviour, to counteract adverse home influences, to provide an atmosphere of affectionate security in which young children can achieve a normal emotional and social development, an infants' teacher is required to equip each child with a basic knowledge of reading, writing and arithmetic and to open doors to give him his first glimpses of history, geography, biology, literature and music. In a class of thirty or forty there may be, in addition to the full range of unstreamed intellectual ability, a fairly high proportion of problem children, the mentally, emotionally and physically handicapped. These children do not go to special schools until they are seven.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to say how thankful we are for the meticulous care taken in preparing this Report. The teaching of infants is not a job for a low-grade child-minder. It is a job for a really dedicated mature person, often deserving more first-class honours than universities can bestow, because examiners are not asked to award marks for depth of character or for a capacity for dedication, two of the basic essentials in a rewarding career as an infants' teacher. If this is not one of the greatest challenges, then I do not know what is. It is time we got our priorities right in regard to the status and payment of the primary school teachers, on whom we shall depend for the next generation.
6.40 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the hour grows late, and I know that many of us in the House are waiting for the noble Baroness to reply to the various
250
observations and questions which have been put during the debate. I will try to delay your Lordships for only a short time. The problems of providing facilities for children under 5 years old are a constant concern. The question of transfer from primary to secondary education has surely provided the subject for numerous speeches and discussions over many years past. A debt of gratitude, then, is owed to Lady Plowden and her Council for Part Four of the Report, on "The structure of Primary Education."
Noble Lords have already described this afternoon how the Report calls for an expansion in nursery education; but here there is an immediate practical problem. At the moment, by law, no local education authority may start nursery classes unless 12 married women teachers within the area return to teaching. This allows the authority to start its first three nursery classes, and after that the required ratio is reduced. Under this system, and possibly under any foreseeable system, the danger is that nursery classes will readily fill up with the children of married women teachers, and also, I suggest, the children of people engaged in such matters as social and welfare work. Then, in the rush for places the children from really deprived homes will he omitted. And, my Lords, there will be a rush.
In my own local education authority, East Suffolk, diagnostic classes were started a few years ago for 5- to 8-yearolds whose handicaps make the possibility of normal effective education for them an uncertain factor. The volume of inquiries received about these special classes leaves little doubt of the interest which nursery schooling will attract. If the Government accept the recommendation of the Report for a change in the age of entry into school, tied to an absolute need for nursery education, then I would follow the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Horsburgh, in supporting the note of reservation on parental contribution to the costs of nursery education signed by eight members of the Council.
I suspect that many teachers have agreed with the contention of the Report that part-time entry into an infants' or "first" school at 5-plus will relieve what the Report calls the abrupt "transition from home for many children". It may

251
well be strictly illegal, but I know of a headmistress who receives children every Friday afternoon—with their mothers, if they wish to come—during the term before entry into the school. In the light of that, I must say that I was shattered to read that over one-third of the parents in the National Survey did not even see the head before their children started school. I think that some of this is due to the system of "neighbourhood schools", referred to earlier by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
Possibly, from what has been said this afternoon, noble Lords will agree that Chapter 4, "Participation by Parents", is one of the most valuable parts of this Report, and especially paragraph 106.
"Parents",
the Report says,
"irrespective of social class, took more interest in their children's work in those schools in the National Survey which arranged as many as nine or ten meetings a year when fathers could come."
This was a fact referred to just now by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield, and it is something that I would beg local authorities to look into. That interest, and the love of the parents, is vital to the child. Perhaps I might add to what the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, said, in that, when teaching in a boarding school, I remember occasions when a child would evince inexplicable signs of distress or instability, and it might be months before the school discovered that this stemmed from trouble at the child's home. Anything which can draw the interest of parents closer to the school is surely right, and I strongly support the Report's "Minimum Programme" for parent-teacher meetings, open days, school prospectuses, and at least one written report a year.
The case for at least a four-year course in the junior or middle school, the final school of the primary sector, is surely also made out by the Council, if only by the argument that 11-plus is:
"too early for the educational decisions which follow from a change of school."
This is still important, because evidence apparently shows that transfer between streams in comprehensive schools is "uncommon", though surely this was precisely one of the dangers which comprehensive education hoped to avoid.
252
There are two other arguments which I feel bear close scrutiny. One is that children remain in many ways unselfconscious in temperament until 12 or 13: in other words, transfer before 12-plus is simply too young. The other argument is that an older age of transfer will do something to keep the ever-growing size of secondary schools in check, in view of the evidence in the Newsom Report that heads of schools in "deprived" areas were convinced of their children's need for small schools. What a pity it was that the Minister sent out his demand for plans to local authorities for comprehensive education before this Report was published! I warmly support these plans for the future structure of primary education, and the recommendation that the final age of transfer should be flexible to suit a child's progress and temperament. Every local education authority could immediately act on the recommendations for better liaison between schools in Chapter 12, on
"continuity and consistency between the stages of education",
all of which can be implemented at almost no cost at all.
My Lords, anyone who has read this Report must surely have been stimulated to discussion by Part Five on "The Curriculum and Organisation". May I for a moment or two put a few thoughts to your Lordships on the teaching of English, because of its basic importance, and also on the general development of a child? Future generations of children may have cause for gratitude to a Council which has so strongly argued the case for a three-year first-school course, just because this should give time to learn to read. This time span before the upheaval of a change of school will give more chance, also, for diagnosis and teaching of children suffering from some of the handicaps which cause poor reading, particularly if the Government and local authorities can implement—as some of them are implementing at the moment—at least some of the recommendations on the education of handicapped children.
The Report confirms the value of stories. It says:
"As children listen to stories, as they take down the books from the library shelves, they may be choosing their future and the values that will dominate it."

253
Some years ago, I knew of a boy from a good home who seemed to have something for ever holding him back. At last, a master from the school went to give the boy some extra coaching during the holidays, and there he found the answer. A good home it may have seemed, but there literally was not a single book in that house.
I know that there are present noble Lords who believe in music for children, not only for its intrinsic value but also for the opportunities it may afford to the backward or unsatisfactory. So it is with drama. But I disagree with the view, despite all the other most interesting things said in the Report about it, that formal presentation of plays on a stage is out of place. Certainly with children of 12 (and let us remember that we are talking of transfer at a higher age) tremendous benefits can be reaped by those who do not shine readily in other directions by participating in the artistic or production, as well as the acting, side of a stage play. It is true that there are dangers inherent in the school play. During the first term I ever taught, the school put on Dorothy L. Sayers' play The Man Born to be King, and unfortunately the Virgin Mary reached the final of the middleweight boxing competition and had a very black eye indeed!
There is an age-old problem of whether insistence on the correct uses of grammar restrict the writing of English. The Report stresses here that what matters is clarity of meaning, and that abler children should not become self-conscious about style. I take this typical, well-balanced advice with just a pinch of salt, as general slovenliness of presentation can be a result of a class which is too large for a teacher to cope with. The Report adds that
"the best writing of young children springs from the most deeply felt experience."
May I submit that this is no empty platitude. I am sure that there are other noble Lords who are thankful that they did not skip paragraph 605, in which a girl describes her mother. She says
"She is not tall or short and quite ordinary looking. She is patient and good natured and helps us in all we do. She always gives in to my sisters and to me. She says sometimes she wishes she was dead".
Perhaps the greatest single contribution of the Report is describing how the
254
general development of every child can be stretched by not streaming—and I think in all fairness it should be said that the Report is not dogmatic on this—at any rate in first schools. The Report points out that:
"Children's interest varies in length … and it is folly to interrupt it when it is intense or to flog it when it has declined".
The answer, then, is to teach in small groups, as the Report says, but let no one delude himself. At the present stage of pupil-teacher ratio this theory is dependent on the proposals for teachers' aides and for a supply of schools of modern design.
Three years ago in East Suffolk £2,000 a year was set aside for what we call "helpers". In view of what the noble Baroness said earlier in the debate, may I say that what we did was in the hope of encouraging the entry of married women—among other things, the local educational authority insisted on a qualification of five "O" levels—to help, among other things, in the classroom. I am proud to be able to report that there has been a good response. I do not believe a "helper" has ever been offered to a school without receiving a ready acceptance. One "helper" has completed a term of teacher training, and only a fortnight ago I heard that three more are to start teacher training in September.
Certainly it is pleasant to debate Lady Plowden's plans for facing the challenge of the future, but for some schools there must seem to be very little future. May I add my voice in general support only of the Council's recommendations for "the educational priority areas", even though the evidence itself does present some doubts? Is such special help simply investing in failure? What of other areas—are they to suffer in the process? What about rural areas, where the "take home" pay of many fathers may be a good deal less than that of parents in a poor "deprived" city district? Nor am I exactly certain how the various criteria for deprivation are to be judged, and I hope that perhaps the Government will take note of the plan put forward earlier in this debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
The noble Lord, Lord Plowden, spoke in terms about the Welfare State which, I believe, if noised abroad more fully, would find a ready response in the hearts

255
of more people, particularly young people. I submit that in general the Report provides an unanswerable argument for special help when it says:
"The justification is that the homes and neighbourhoods from which many children come provide little support and stimulus for learning."
I hope your Lordships will forgive me for including this, but for over five years I taught in a boys' independent preparatory school, and I think—and I say this without having conferred with any independent bodies—that people connected with independent schools will welcome the Council's recommendations as logical, if not immediately acceptable.
I wish the Council had seen fit to explore more deeply why it is that parents send their children to independent schools. In the case of boys, I believe that one main attraction is the boarding facility which is offered. Anyone who has taught in a boarding school can recall countless examples of children who improved out of all recognition just because they were able to find their place in a small community, and I hope that one educational experiment which will at least be considered soon will be a maintained primary boarding school, possibly linked to some form of educational priority area.
I hope the Council are not surprised if their recommendation to abolish corporal punishment, against the opinion of a large majority of the teaching profession, meets with opposition. Perhaps those who support this proposal will ask themselves whether they are motivated more by the fear that this punishment may be misused, rather than by a real belief that it is utterly wrong in itself.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: It is both.
LORD BELSTEAD: I hope that, because of this, the Report will not be construed (may I dare to say wrongly) as an encouragement to children to do as they like at school. As the council themselves say:
"It is not a question of saying, ' freedom is in. discipline is out'."
The key to discipline is to capture and hold the interest of children.
This Report may be debated in both Houses of Parliament and discussed throughout the country, but what matters is whether it is accepted by the teaching profession. We have moved a long way
256
since Oliver Goldsmith's village schoolmaster, in whom all authority and learning seemed to reside, but the teacher to-day is still faced with an eternal double responsibility: how to adapt to the requirements of each child, especially by practising the teaching methods described in this Report, and at the same time, by personal example, how to be a secure, unchanging guide on whom each child can always rely. This is the paradox of the teacher's art which makes the profession at once so rewarding and at times so exhausting.
The noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, called for more assistance for primary schools. Our future lies with our children, and their education will be constantly devalued if primary schools are treated as the poor relations. If only the training and deployment of teachers can continue to reduce the size of classes, a great future may exist for primary schools. Certainly this Report has pointed the way.
7.0 p.m.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, although my name does not appear on the list of speakers to-day, perhaps you will allow me to take up your Lordships' time for just two minutes. I wish to speak of one point in the Plowden Report, and this has already been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, with whom I agree. It concerns the question of corporal punishment dealt with in paragraphs 743 to 751 of the Report. Like many noble Lords and noble Ladies in your Lordships' House, my wife and I are the proud parents of three fine children. They are grown up now and married, and frequently attend your Lordships' House. They have known in the past, both at school and at home, what the term, "Spare the rod and spoil the child" means.
I confess that I gave both my boys a jolly good walloping when, but only when, they deserved it. Our sons took it as men, and they never disrespected me for having punished them in this way. I am pleased to be able to inform your Lordships that such a state of affairs only happened on four occasions, and I think it probably hurt me more in having to administer the medicine to them. At Eton I was tanned at least six times. I can assure your Lordships that I have no chip on my shoulder for having been

257
at the receiving end of the cane. I would therefore ask all noble Lords and noble Ladies, and the right reverend Prelates, who have taken part in this very interesting debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon to think once again on this particular issue.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am even more apologetic than my noble friend behind me, because he has occupied your Lordships' time far less frequently than I have, but I should like to say just one thing which occurred to me as I was listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. I am sorry that he is not still in the Chamber, but he will no doubt see what I had to say. I entirely agree with what he said about the problems of schools where there is a large proportion of immigrants. It is a tremendous problem. But to me the whole issue hangs on something that was said earlier in the debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London; namely, that this is a Christian country, and I think we must take it for granted that immigrants from other countries when they come here must realise that they are coming to a Christian country. If they are not willing to accept Christian teaching when they arrive here, then of course they must be excused. But I personally have no doubt that quite a large percentage of them would be.
When I taught for some years at Epsom College we of course had one or two there who were not Christians, one or two who were practising Jews, and they were, of course, excused from attending chapel and from Prayers and so forth. I remember one of my first experiences when I went there. When a boy failed to turn up for his lessons I left a note in his housemaster's pigeon-hole, and I got back a scrap of paper saying, "Gone to Day of Atonement". That was my first experience of the difficulties one comes up against. But they were excused, they were allowed to go to their own individual religious teachers, and I do not think that would be an impractical system to use in those schools where there are large numbers of immigrants.
However, I personally feel that this does not remove the importance of religious teaching for those who are willing to accept the Christian teaching
258
and for those whose parents are Christians. I therefore sincerely hope that this particular aspect of teaching will not be forgotten.
7.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I feel very humble in winding up this debate this evening when we have had so many distinguished contributors to the discussion, including (I hope my calculations are correct) at least two ex-Ministers of Education—I am told, three. Splendid! If I may add to the voices of other noble Lords, I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, speaking without a note and with such conviction and, as always, such sincerity, and I do hope we are going to hear her far more often.
The noble Lord. Lord Newton, to whom we are so grateful for introducing this Motion to enable us to discuss the Report, said in a very thoughtful and reasoned way that he felt the Plowden Report was a document of utmost social significance. I think words he also used were, "an examination of attitudes in contemporary society", and I do not think that anybody who has spoken subsequently has described it better. It will be a document to which one can refer often, not merely to talk on education but to talk on many things which are happening in contemporary society. To the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I would say that in his role of midwife he is to be congratulated on a very lusty child, one which commands our attention and will continue to do so for some time to come. The position is a little changed from yesterday's when we had an analogy regarding horses; to-day we have moved on to nursing babies, much more to my liking.
I should also like to thank the other noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. They have congratulated Lady Plowden and her Council, who sat for some 3½ years on this mammoth task, interviewing, visiting, discussing, and finally producing, as so many noble Lords have said, this very readable document. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said quite rightly that particularly the studies of children in this Report will provide a very real source of information, and the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, reminded your Lordships—and this is where I would begin—that

259
a large number of the recommendations need cost nothing. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, also reminded us of this. In this connection I should like to quote the comments of two primary head teachers. I have been chatting recently with many of my profession. One of them said, "Yes, it is a splendid and interesting Report, but let's face it, a great many of these suggestions have been carried out by enlightened primary schools for a long time now". And the second one said, "I am absolutely convinced that the most important thing in the Report is the stress on good relationships, parents to school, children to school and parents, and eventually both children and parents to those in authority". I suggest that this bears out the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, when she stressed that many of these recommendations need not wait on the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government or legislation, but could be put into operation right now.
I wonder how many of your Lordships have ever spent time in a primary school? It is an experience which I can recommend if you spend only a day there. Gone are the days when the children sat in static rows like little soldiers listening, with interest or not, to the words of the teacher. I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, had recently been in a primary school. He seemed to me to refer constantly to "class teaching" which, of course, has not been the case in primary schools for a long time.
Children move about the school intent on their learning, and they learn about learning and the desire to go on learning. They open books; they investigate everything from the inside of a frog to how to hammer a nail into a piece of wood. The walls are covered with their paintings—wonderful paintings—in every kind of medium, oils, water colours. Their murals are made from every imaginable material, newspapers, bottle tops, old tin cans. They have their own newspapers of happenings, written beautifully, phrased well and spelt well. I think that would conform to most of the noble Lord's ideas of literacy. They tend their animals, play their own music, often on instruments made by themselves, and even cook in full-scale ovens. It is a kingdom of little people, a community of
260
activity, and best of all, it is a first exercise in democratic living.
I should like to repeat the words used by the right reverend Prelate in the previous debate on this subject, in 1964, when he said that it requires more in the way of capacity and teaching ability to teach in a primary school than a sixth form of a grammar school. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in his marvellous speech, if I may say so, call this teaching an "art". Too often we forget this is not only a skill but indeed an art. The good primary school teacher is a pearl and a joy; she is constantly improving her skills—I say "her" because I believe that at the moment perhaps 85 per cent. are females—at courses which she can and does attend. I wonder whether your Lordships realise that many primary teachers actually spend two-thirds of their vacation period trying to qualify themselves in subjects, which knowledge they will then pass on to the children, or to brush up skills in which they are not so up to date.
The next important point I should like to emphasise, which will cost no money and need no legislation, is of course the participation by the parents. This has been emphasised, I am happy to say, by many noble Lords including Lady Gaitskell and Lord Belstead. Parents can always work with teachers, or they can work against them. The clever child learns that if two adults are in conflict she can always play one off against the other. Most mothers know how a child will return from school saying, "The teacher says I must do so and so", usually something she wants to do, and go back to the school teacher and say, "My mother says I must do so and so". There can be nothing but good from closer cooperation, much closer co-operation, between parents and children, and most parents are most anxious to help. I believe that if the Report did nothing else but to bring this out into the open, it would have served a very admirable purpose. We know, of course, that this is only one of its many recommendations.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, referred to the question of managers, and whether they should be "managers" or "governors". I remember when I became a manager of a primary school I received some instruction on how to be

261
a manager from a county councillor who had held that office on a good many occasions, and he started off, sensibly, by saying, "This is a misnomer; you manage nothing. If you get that into your heads you will make excellent managers." I think the term "governor" much more happily expresses the role which these very useful people play. I should like to pay a tribute to the voluntary work put in by these people. I felt that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley, had not been as fortunate as I have. I have met splendid managers, who do this work in a voluntary way, spending much of their time and money.
I should like to underline very strongly the need which has been emphasised by many noble Lords that the primary school status must he improved. I have found over the years a definite change in tone when, even among the profession, somebody inquires, "Where are you teaching?", and you are not able to say, "In a grammar school", or Eton, but you say, "Oh, in the Black Road Primary School". There is a change—"Well perhaps you are useful, but not really quite as worthy of approbation as the rest of us." I felt that a slight misunderstanding ran through the debate even in this connection. There was reference so many times to wiping of noses and tying of shoe laces. This might be true, I suppose, in some schools. Offhand I cannot remember wiping many noses in all the years I was teaching in primary schools. This work is a skill, an art. This is something in which any holder of a degree could be happy, occupied and rewarded.
I should like at this point to say that, whatever pattern of transferability the Government finally decide to discuss with the local authorities, this will in no way change the philosophy of comprehensive education. I should like to endorse everything that Lady Gaitskell said in this connection. This does not cut across the stages of education. The belief in comprehensive education stems from a different reason, that we must make the utmost use of the talents our children have. Whichever form this education takes, it will be for the better, we hope, for all children, and not merely for those who are brilliant, or for those who are deprived.
262
The particular recommendations which have been discussed this afternoon fall under five or six headings. A number of noble Lords have referred to teachers' aides. I feel like the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, that I deplore the number of names we seem to be offered: helpers, auxiliary welfare assistants, and so on. To me simply the name of "helper" seems to describe everything. I think it is heartening to note—and those noble Lords who have studied the Report will have noted it—that out of 156 authorities who answered the questionnaire in England and Wales, a number were already in fact using auxiliary welfare assistants; nursery schools, 115; infants, 58; junior, 17. These were schools actually using these auxiliary assistants already.
I think perhaps a little too much has been made of the professional attitude. I think it is fair to say that both the National Union of Teachers—and I notice the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to them as "embattled females" and I strongly suspect that those of them who read Hansard will have something to say to him tomorrow morning—and the other professional bodies have already accepted the principle of aides in the classroom. They merely wish to confirm that they will not be engaged on the duties which are regarded as teaching. I have never found the profession as having closed minds on this particular form of assistance. Lord Henley's suggestion for the number of aides is excellent, but I am sure he will have worked out that it would roughly treble the training and payment for them.
As a final point on the question of aides, I might quote one of my head teachers again: "Yes," she said, "splendid, if they are extra and not instead of more teachers".
When we came to the question of teacher training, the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, had quite a lot to say to us on this. He referred to the Minority Report on the shorter period of teacher training. I am not sure what Her Majesty's Government or my right honourable friend would have to say on this, but my own instinct as an ex-teacher and an educationist is against it.
I noticed that during the debate several noble Lords referred to "wastage." It is a horrid word; it is even worse than

263
"drop out". I should think that if a woman who has been trained to be a teacher marries she would be a good mother. We must remember that there are not going to be any spinsters soon because, for the first time in history, there are more men than women; so we shall not be seeing the same number of women needing to make a full-time career. But from my experience the trained teacher is surely a better mother on that account. Therefore I am always a little puzzled to know why we use the word "wastage". There is every chance now that these women will return to teaching.
Here I should like to pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. We must remember that he initiated the scheme for getting married women teachers to return. This has been highly successful. I would be kinder to him—I am sorry he is not in his place—than perhaps he is now to my right honourable friend, because he seemed to be able to say what my right honourable friend was going to do when neither my noble Leader nor I know. But there is no doubt that married women teachers returning to the profession bring to it something which is subtle and more useful, and therefore I would say that that will be a feature of our returning teachers in the next few years.
Certainly we shall need to train more teachers. My right honourable friend is well aware of that fact. Noble Lords will probably remember that he stated in another place his 14-point programme for teacher training. Colleges are to take a greater number of students with the existing accommodation. Outside annexes are to accommodate older students. There is to be help from colleges of further education; the establishment of four or five new day colleges in heavily populated areas of the country; a campaign to persuade still more married women to return; a register of women teachers not in service; and he said that he would look into the pension rights of part-timers. Nursery classes are to be provided that will enable an appreciable number of women to return to the schools. In that connection I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that this is only a beginning, and that there was never any intention on the part of my right honourable friend to have these nursery classics for teachers alone; it was a
264
short-term measure to attract teachers back, in order to get more children in the schools. I should not like the noble Lord to feel that this was an ending of the scheme. It really was an attempt quickly to solve a vital problem.
Then there are to be refresher courses for returning teachers; greater use of part-time teachers; new departments of education in suitably located technical colleges to be concerned with advanced work; part-time training, and still higher productivity within each college; more ancillary help for the teacher to carry out his or her professional duties. This was already the declared policy of my right honourable friend even before he received the Plowden recommendations.
In this connection, I would also draw the attention of your Lordships to the circular sent from the Department, on co-operation between colleges of education and schools. This has not been discussed this afternoon, but it was in anticipation of the Plowden Report. The circular drew attention to the importance of relations between the schools and colleges in order that the training teacher should enter the school more often and more frequently, so that both students and new teachers should have a much closer link.
We have discussed the problem of the immigrants in the community. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, spoke with great sincerity on the problem of these children who are often torn between the home environment and the situation as they find it in the schoolroom. Here I believe there can be greater use of the aides to which we have referred. Surely one of the best sources of help could be aides from the immigrant community. I should also like to take up here the splendid suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, that if we could inspire a volunteer task force, as she so rightly described it, to go into these areas, there is little doubt that teachers would go. I believe, with her, that one can appeal to the idealistic quality of humans far more often than you can appeal to them in relation to the small sum of money which would be offered and which may be swallowed up in tax extras.
The recognition of the deprived areas is, of course, one of the most important recommendations in this Report. The

265
noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and the noble Lord, Lord James of Rusholme, both agreed that the local education authorities should have sums to distribute, special allowances for posts in deprived schools. I have no reason to suppose that my right honourable friend would not receive this suggestion and look at it, as he will be looking at all the recommendations of the Plowden Report. In order to put into effect the recognition of these deprived areas it is estimated that we should require about 400 extra teachers in 1968 and 1,000 in 1972. That is not a vast figure and, I should hope, not one at which we need to boggle. There can be no doubt that this is something that should be done, and I should think that my right honourable friend would give this some priority.
The question of nursery schools was raised by several noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made it his first priority. I think he, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Newton, would like to know that we already have some 200,000 children between the ages of 2 and 4 in nursery schools and nursery classes. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, used the phrase, "Mothers park their children." The important emphasis in the mind of the teacher and the administrator is on the child, and not on the mother. Incidentally, if the mother is freed, and if she uses her freedom to go to work, or even if she goes, as has been suggested, to a "bingo" drive, that is her business. The value is in the social training which the child receives and, with the advent of high flats, congested areas, and many of the other situations which we find in this complex society, it appears that nursery schools will become more rather than less important.
If, in their tour of the primary schools, noble Lords have an opportunity of seeing a nursery class, I would say that this is an experience that I recommend. The children move about in their own world, putting away their toys and getting them out again. They are independent little human beings. I am sufficiently Philistine to suggest that the mother is not always the best person to bring up a child. This is one of the emotional conceptions with which we have been dogged for far too long.
266
With the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, I would remind the House that there are cases of child cruelty in vast numbers in this country, many of them by their own parents. If the mother loves the child, if she likes small children, if she is not overwrought, then she is the right person. But if she has four or five small children, all sorts of difficulties in the wrong situation are likely to arise, and, quite respectfully, I would suggest that the nursery class may well be better for the child. This, of course, does not presuppose that automatically we are going to snatch all children from their mothers. I hasten to say this, as the Press sometimes pick up the wrong impression.
In this connection, I should like to pay tribute to the work of the pre-school play groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, made reference to play centres and play groups. She will probably know of the work that this group has done, and that it is possible for voluntary groups with little money to help to organise successful groups for the pre-school child. In this connection, I should think that the mother would not necessarily be the best aide. Speaking now as an ex-teacher, I have found that I could always control even 50 children on their own, but 50 children plus 50 mothers I think would be a completely different proposition.
There are, of course, practical difficulties which I cannot ignore in the way of having nursery schools immediately. The provision of the accommodation even envisaged in the Plowden Report would cost £110 million. The launching and administration of training schemes might mean some 70,000 women. This does not mean that we should not think in terms of having these nursery schools, but I have often said that I feel we do not have to convert the Government to the need for education; we have to convert the British people. It seems to me that there is still not a real acceptance among very many people that money has to be spent if we are going to get education for everybody.
I will touch on only one other point, and that is the rather delicate question of corporal punishment. The noble Lords, Lord Vivian, Lord Somers and Lord Belstead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, referred to it. I would only remind those who think that this is necessary and desirable that a sharp smack

267
from a parent whom the child knows and loves and understands is completely different from the cold, removed punishment administered by the head teacher, possibly three days after the so-called offence. I can only say with some pride that I have never needed to use corporal punishment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, got to the crux of the matter when he said that the teacher must hold and keep the interest of the children; and no amount of beating or whacking will produce learning if the child has not an immediate link with the teacher. Smaller classes and better surroundings will surely remove the necessity for corporal punishment.
On the matter of religious education, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said he thought that the Plowden Report was perhaps a little evasive on this issue. For what it is worth I would tell the noble Lord that I am not evasive. This is described as a Christian community. I am sure he would not want us to change our system of religious education because of a small number of immigrant children. It is quite true that children who wish to withdraw even from the corporate act of worship do so, but anybody who has experienced the corporate act of worship in a school could not fail to appreciate that for many children this is the beginning of their day. This is often the only kind of prayer, the only kind of link with the Divine Being, that they have. To the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London I would say that I feel it is not necessary to remind him that Her Majesty's Government have of course shown their appreciation that the Church is involved in education if only in the small Bill which I had the honour to introduce, when great tribute was paid on all sides of the House to the work of the voluntary schools.
My Lords, I hope that I have covered the various points raised by noble Lords. I feel that I have come into the conference chamber rather naked. But I would suggest to those noble Lords who feel that we are perhaps having our debate the wrong way round, and that we should have heard from my right honourable friend first, that there is great merit in this procedure in that my right honourable friend will now have before him
268
the considered opinions, the wisdom and the comments of so many of your Lordships who have a great deal to bring to this subject. I hope that, either accidentally or deliberately, we have done this in the right way. We are at one with Lady Plowden and with Lord Newton that the education of our children is the most vital thing we are concerned with. I know that in this matter there is no Party consideration and that we all want to do the best both for the primary school children and for all children for the length of time they remain in school.
7.36 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that she has certainly covered the points which have been raised in this debate, and we are grateful to her. Although traditionally I cannot see her, I know that Lady Plowden has been present throughout this debate, and I hope that she has found her fairly long sojourn here worth while. I had every confidence that this would be a fascinating debate; and so it has proved. Every speaker who has taken part has made his own individual contribution, which is not surprising, considering the width and the range of the Plowden Report. Through every speech there has been one constant theme, and that is the demand first for decision by the Government—in fact, not just "decision" but "decisions" by the Government—and then action. The only thing I have found disappointing about this debate is that we have not had from the Government one single word as to whether or not they accept or reject a single one of the innumerable recommendations in the Report.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to say that that is a rather surprising remark? The noble Lord is well aware that the Secretary of State is speaking on Thursday, and I thought that the noble Lord's comment was a shade unnecessary. It is rather a pity, after such an excellent debate, in which the noble Lord has played such a fine part.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Earl may think that it is a pity I have said this, but it is perfectly true. We have not had one single word from the Government as to whether they accept or reject even the smallest of the many

269
recommendations in this Report. I certainly do not blame Lady Phillips for this, but the noble Earl is a member of the Cabinet, and if the Cabinet do not know about these things, I do not know who would.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: The noble Lord is trying to pick a quarrel. It is obvious that the Secretary of State for Education will be speaking on Thursday—the noble Lord is very intelligent, and I am sure he realises this—and it is hardly likely that we in this House should anticipate the speech of my right honourable friend. If the noble Lord cannot grasp that, I despair of him.
LORD NEWTON: I cannot grasp that. It seems to me an entirely new enunciation of constitutional principle. What the noble Earl is saying is that Members of this House may be entitled to ask the Government spokesman questions about Government policy, but they are not entitled to have answers to these questions until similar questions have been asked and answered in another place. This seems to me precisely what the noble Earl is saying.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Not at all.
LORD NEWTON: It seems to me to be an entirely new declaration about the Constitution of this country. I shall await with interest to see whether or not announcements are made by the Secretary of State on Thursday as to Government decisions on the Plowden Report. We may have to return to this matter later.
I would also follow up something the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said. She pointed out quite rightly as did others that a great many recommendations in the Report involve neither money nor, for that matter, even legislation. It seems to me to be incredible that we have not had from the Government any indication at all about their attitude on any of the recommendations. If we look at the beginning of the Report we see that on October 28 last year Lady Plowden wrote to the Secretary of State. Her letter said:
"I now have much pleasure in submitting the Report of the Council."
That means that the Secretary of State has now had this Report before him for four and a half months. I certainly do
270
not wish to pick a quarrel with the noble Earl. I will simply say that I think we may have to start pressing, to try to get answers to some of these questions.
It only remains for me to thank most warmly all those Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken in this debate, which I have thoroughly enjoyed, and which I think will be considered by those who read it as one of the more memorable debates in your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HONITON PARKING RESTRICTIONS
7.41 p.m.
LORD COLYTON LORD COLYTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government why, having just built a new by-pass round Honiton, they have now imposed severe parking restrictions in the centre of the town. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before entering into the particulars of this matter, on which I apologise for detaining your Lordships at this late hour, I should first like to declare my interest. I have been a resident of this part of Devon for nearly thirty years, and Honiton is my shopping town. Therefore this matter has a certain personal importance for me. Secondly, I should like to dispel any notion that this Question has been in any way inspired by political motives. Owing to my absence overseas for much of the past six months, I was not aware of the new regulations until I read my local paper a week ago. I put down the Question the same day and, as it turned out, this was the only day on which it was possible for me to ask it before the Easter Recess. I would certainly have done so even had there been no by-election in Honiton, in which, in any case, I have taken no part.
As many of your Lordships are aware, Honiton has for many years been famous not only, as in the past, for its beautiful lace, but for being the town which had the worse traffic jams in the whole of the United Kingdom. On the A.30, queues of cars bumper to bumper, 17 or 18 miles long, have in summertime been nothing at all unusual. This was not, I may say, in any way due to the size of the Honiton main street, which is wide and spacious, but to the access

271
routes to the town from the North-East and, again, from the South-West and the Exeter by-pass.
For many years there has been discussion and controversy about the building of a by-pass. Originally, many of the hoteliers and traders, as well as the Honiton Borough Council and the Chamber of Commerce, were opposed to this proposal as likely to take trade and tourists away from the town. By degrees the majority came round to the view that the removal of this heavy flow of traffic from the centre of the town would, in fact, be to their advantage. It was recognised that it would enable local residents to do their shopping in comfort, particularly on Saturday, which is our market day, and it would make it easier for visitors in transit to find somewhere to park in the town to enable them to do their shopping and have a meal.
At length, in the summer of 1964, the Ministry of Transport finally took the decision to build a by-pass around the town. It was only two miles long, but it entailed building two bridges and two underpasses, and it has cost £1 million. It took a long time to build, and it was finally opened only on December 12, 1966. However, during all this period, and indeed during all the years when I have lived near Honiton, there have never been any restrictions whatever in parking in Honiton High Street. This was partly due to the great width of the street, which was originally the site of the cattle market, but also to the good sense and patience of all those shopping there and of the Devon County Constabulary. Those traders, hotel-keepers and others who had been worried about the possibility of the damaging effects of the by-pass on trade in Honiton were encouraged by the thought that in future, and particularly in the summer and over weekends, it would at last be possible for residents of the area and tourists to do their shopping in comfort.
The completion of the by-pass was followed by a decision to install traffic lights in the centre of the town at the junction of New Street and High Street. Then, to everyone's astonishment, and, I may say, indignation, this has been followed by a set of regulations, which came into force on March 1, involving a complete parking ban, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, right in the centre
272
of the town, 250 feet each side of the road junction at both sides of the road and at the widest point in the High Street. The effect of this ban is to deprive the town of any parking space in the main shopping centre, and also of the only hope of attracting the custom of those travellers on the A.30 who may still find their way through the town. No one would for a moment dispute the fact that there should be a normal parking ban of, say, 25 feet on the approach side of the lights. But nothing can justify the extension of a parking restriction to cover the whole of both sides of this wide street over a large distance.
One of the effects of this ban is that there can be no parking at any time outside the parish church, even on Sundays, when there is not very much traffic. When there were four weddings in that church on March 3, trouble started when waiting cars, belonging to all of these parties, had to be moved off immediately after dropping the brides, bridegrooms and guests, and had to return after the ceremonies to pick them up again. On the other side of the street, too, there is a leading garage, with a filling station, which is now covered by double yellow lines, with the result, so the proprietor informs me, that it is losing much of its local as well as its transient business.
A further serious drawback is that the new state of affairs was bound to cause bad feeling between, on the one hand, the motoring and the shopping public and, on the other, the local police and traffic wardens, with whom in the past there has always been the most excellent possible relationship. I was informed last weekend in Honiton that trouble is already being caused between people, who are doing their shopping and wishing to park in the centre of the town, and the police. Furthermore, I think there is even danger in the new arrangement, for with the removal of parked cars from either side of the street there is bound to be a risk of cars travelling in both directions in this wide area seeking to pass one another there, with consequent danger to themselves and to pedestrians.
There are also certain quite extraordinary anomalies. For example, Honiton still has a Saturday street market in the centre of the town which belongs to the Lord of the Manor, and which is

273
let on a long lease to the Honiton Borough Council. Under the new arrangements the market will still continue, for even the Minister of Transport, apparently, cannot interfere with the Charter. Under the terms of the Charter stalls without wheels may still be erected on either side of the High Street. On the other hand, stalls which for convenience have in recent years been equipped with wheels so as to move them in and out more easily will now no longer be allowed.
The only explanation of this ban which has been given is that since the closure of the railway line from Sidmouth to Sidmouth Junction buses from Honiton station will have to operate through Honiton High Street, to link up with Sidmouth and other places now deprived of their rail services. I understand, however, that the local authorities were quite satisfied that there were other ways of funnelling these buses away from the railway station and away from the centre of the town. In any case, it now appears that they are being very little used, and that many of the services will shortly be discontinued. At all events, having regard to the very great diminution of through-traffic in Honiton, and the fact that there have always been buses belonging to the Western National and the Royal Blue line running through the town, this surely cannot be sufficient justification for this drastic change in a situation which has existed for all these years under far more difficult conditions.
The restrictions are bound to cause great inconvenience to the shopping public, as well as serious loss and hardship to local shopkeepers and hoteliers. I understand that the local authorities have urged that these vexatious and damaging regulations should be applied only for a trial period of three months. That would be better than nothing, but their advice has, I believe, been rejected. I myself have no doubt whatever that the right thing to do is for the Ministry to look at the whole matter again, and work out plans for diverting the new buses right away from the centre of the town, imposing permanent parking restrictions on only the minimum area of the High Street necessary for the proper operation of the traffic lights. The present situation really is too bad, and so unnecessary. It is a case of Whitehall bureaucracy gone mad. I hope that the noble Lord who is
274
to reply, and who is not only always extremely courteous and helpful but also the very reverse of mad, will bring these facts to the attention of his right honourable friend, and will use his great influence to get the matter put right as soon as possible.
7.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, in his very reasonable speech; and I would draw particular attention to the disadvantage that churchgoers suffer on Sundays. The Roman Catholic church which is centred on Honiton has a very wide area indeed, and a great many people can get to the church of their denomination only by the use of cars. That is a fact that should be recognised by the authorities.
In Exeter, my church is in a street in which parking is entirely prohibited on one side, at any rate, and limited on the other side, on weekdays; though on Sundays, thank goodness!, there is no restriction at all. I believe that no inconvenience at all would be caused by the complete withdrawal of parking restrictions in Honiton, as there has been a complete withdrawal of parking restrictions in Exeter, on Sundays. Honiton is very much dependent upon passing traffic. There are some excellent hotels and restaurants there, and the parking facilities, even on weekdays, are of great commercial assistance. I very much hope that that Her Majesty's Government will be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, a satisfactory reply.
7.53 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I should be the last person to accuse the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, of making this a basis for a Party political attack. I am regarding this purely as a technical problem which he is bringing to the notice of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, through me. I think I should first give the case for the existing regulations before discussing their merits.
The case put by my right honourable friend is that the by-pass round Honiton was constructed for the purpose of diverting from Honiton much of the very heavy

275
flow of through traffic, which the noble Lord mentioned, using the London to Penzance trunk road, the A.30. This is its primary aim, and I hope that this Easter will prove that it is functioning properly. This will be its first big test. But despite this draining-off process, the traffic circulating within Honiton remains substantial. Local traffic, including bus services, is augmented by vehicles using the A.35 Southampton trunk road.
Noble Lords may wonder why the bypass has not been utilised for the through traffic on the A.35 as well as that on the A.30. The answer is that although some A.35 traffic undoubtedly does use the bypass, the deliberate routing of all A.35 traffic in this way would involve, at this stage of the development of the trunk roads, an undesirable conflict with traffic on the A.30, with a definite collision hazard. We have in mind the possibility of constructing a slip road to facilitate the flow of traffic between the A.35 and the by-pass. We will have the situation very much under observation, and should congestion again become serious in Honiton we shall see whether the slip road should be given high priority. I hope the noble Lord will bear with me in taking what may seem to him a very circuitous route to the Question he has asked me. What I have said, however, is very relevant to the subject. As noble Lords will appreciate, we have in Honiton a situation where, despite the diversion of a great volume of through traffic, the residue of traffic necessarily using the High Street is still quite heavy and still requires some measure of control.
This brings me to consideration of the traffic position at the junction where the waiting restrictions referred to by noble Lords have been imposed. This is a staggered junction, and the High Street is joined at that point on both sides by narrow side roads. The side road to the south is used by buses, all of which are routed along the High Street and which therefore require to make the right-angled turn into, or from, the High Street. Until recently the junction had been uncontrolled except as required by the police. But by last year the Ministry of Transport realised that traffic light signals were urgently needed, particularly when it was decided to run extra buses to the station on the closure of the railway just over
276
a week ago. The installation of traffic lights at this junction had the acquiescence of the police and the Honiton local authority, although it is fair to add that the council would have preferred to see the junction improved by realignment of the highways. This would cost some £30,000, and in our view it makes little sense to spend a sum of that order and to create the considerable disturbance to local interests involved if a solution costing a relatively nominal sum lay to hand. Certainly I think noble Lords will agree that traffic lights should be tried before embarking on highway realignment.
I hope I can now explain the need for the waiting restrictions. It is a matter of repeated experience by the Ministry's divisional road engineers that a highly desirable, almost essential, corollary to the installation of traffic light signals is the imposition of waiting restrictions for at least a short length along the arms of the junction. Noble Lords may know of light-controlled junctions where this is not so, and I should not wish at this stage to be too dogmatic or sweeping on this subject. But the evidence in favour of such restrictions is mounting. The question has even been raised for consideration by the Ministry of Transport whether waiting restrictions should not become mandatory at all junctions, whether light controlled or not.
The traffic situation at the Honiton crossroads makes the staggered junction a particularly strong candidate for the imposition of waiting restrictions. The frequent use by buses and other traffic of the southerly crossroad (which, as I have mentioned, is a narrow street) involves turning movements which can be safely accommodated only by providing a two-lane approach to the junction in the High Street. Turning traffic can thus be directed into one lane, leaving the other lane unimpeded for vehicles travelling straight on. The High Street, as the noble Lord has pointed out, is wide, but it requires little imagination to see that, even so, cars parked at the junction or its immediate approaches would create a hazard. Visibility for turning traffic would be impaired. There would also be the inevitable tendency for a certain type of motorist to pull away precipitately and without adequate warning from

277
a parked position. This, as we all know, happens all too often.
I should now like to return to a general comment I offered at the beginning of my speech—namely, the hardship or inconvenience often caused by traffic restrictions to local interests and individuals—and I should like to relate this comment to the particular case of Honiton. The noble Lord has described the waiting restrictions as severe, but I think he made the point that he would accept some restrictions. What really divides us, therefore, is the amount of open space there should be at the traffic lights to permit the buses to turn into an open street without coming into conflict with oncoming traffic; that is to say, the actual length of the road at the area of the traffic lights which should be restricted by way of parking. This is a subject which I think one can only leave to the decision of the people with local experience. What I hope will happen is that the point made by the noble Lord will be studied by the Minister of Transport to see whether this 80-yard ban on either side of the traffic lights is larger than is actually necessary.
I have not the advantage of the noble Lord in knowing this town, but looking at the map it seems to me that the church (which is clearly marked on the map in my possession) is a substantial way from the actual crossroads—I should say, looking at it, that it is something like 50 to 60 yards. In any case, in my opinion it would not be as close to the crossroads as would cause hazard to the buses turn
278
ing on occasions when weddings take place. Nevertheless, this is something on which I cannot pontificate. I can only bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend and see whether this particular length of road which is now controlled can be shrunk to a certain degree.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Before he sits down, may I ask whether he could also ask his right honourable friend whether she would consider diverting the buses right away from the High Street, out of the railway station through a different route, so that the whole problem of turning into the High Street would not arise at all?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, certainly I will do that. I will also bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the fact, pointed out by the noble Lord, that the frequency of this bus system may fall away because of lack of demand. This is obviously an important element in this calculation. That, I am afraid, is the only comfort I can offer to the noble Lord. I will see that his views are conveyed to the proper quarter.

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes past eight o'clock.