Sitting of 22 March 1967

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

  POST OFFICE
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [15th March]:
  That the Postmaster General be authorised, as provided for in section 5 of the Post Office Act 1961, to make payments out of the Post Office Fund in the financial year ending with the 31st March, 1968.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
  Question again proposed.
  10.5 a.m.
  Miss J. M. Quennell: The weekly stories which I read as a child inevitably concluded at the most exciting point with the phrase in italics "to be continued next week", but I cannot pretend that my speech was amputated at its most exciting point. I would refresh the Assistant Postmaster-General's memory on the main points which I was putting.
  First, I reminded the House that the Report was nearly a year out of date and pointed out our difficulty in that, although we could consider Post Office affairs, where they impinged on and were affected by British Railways, we could not summon the Chairman of the Railways Board to explain why the trains on which the Post Office relied were late.
  Secondly, I talked of the training of Post Office staff, which is very important. In the coming few years the Post Office service, no matter what shape the Post Office takes, will be competing with an electronically developing industry for men of the desired qualifications. Thirdly, I tried to draw attention to the Post Office's difficulty in assessing in advance movements of population. I reminded the hon. Gentleman that there had been in existence some rudimentary form of liaison between planning authorities and the Post Office, which was clearly not working satisfactorily.
  1626
  It might be worth while considering establishing this on some other basis. The Post Office might consider the feasibility study prepared by Professor Buchanan for development on the Solent, which envisages an increase in population of about 500,000 people in a greatly enlarged town. Although the demand for telephones in that area of Southampton may be of the order of hundreds at the moment, it will be hundreds of thousands if this develops. This exercise could be useful as a pilot study in assessing movements of population.
  I also asked whether the Post Office or the Ministry of Defence would be responsible for the additional demand on telecommunications with the repatriation to this country of large numbers of troops under the Defence White Paper. Finally, I was cut off in mid-breath while talking of postwomen.
  So much for the items which are detectable in the Report. Since this Report was published, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has published its Report, in which some of the queries which I have raised are mentioned. It may be that we shall be debating that Report, and I do not want to be out of order by anticipating that debate, but there are references to postwomen in that Report which are very serious and require a great deal of consideration. In the same way, there are references to British Railways. They, too, are very serious and require consideration by the Post Office.
  On the subject of training, in the appropriate paragraph there is a reference to about 600 places being available to the Post Office in its own training establishment. There is no indication of the nature of those places. It does not say, for example, whether people are given sandwich courses, initial training or retraining.
  Again, I do not anticipate any future debate, but I should like to comment on Chapter V, which is concerned with the Post Office Users' Council. This is the germ of an excellent idea. It is referred to in the White Paper on the Reorganisation of the Post Office, published only yesterday, which envisages its development. No doubt we shall be debating that at a later stage, but the Post Office Users' Council is something which, in the coming years, should be encouraged

  1627
  and developed to the maximum extent. Below the national level, I should have thought that local Post Office advisory committees should also be encouraged in the coming years. The success of the Users' Council is a measure of the chances of eventual success in establishing a really effective body of users' consultative organisations when the Post Office is reorganised.
  The importance of the Post Office lies in the fact that it is one of the rare Departments which every man and woman and practically every child comes to use in a way in which no other Government Department is used. Everyone has views about its efficiency or inefficiency, how it could be improved and how its services could be more useful to the public. There is a great public interest in the Post Office, and basically it has to be remembered that it has a much more human association than practically any other Government Department. At one stage, it is reaching for the stars. At another, it is coming into contact with people all over the country daily, and it always will.
  10.14 a.m.
  Sir John Gilmour: When the debate opened, a week ago, the Postmaster-General referred particularly to the fact that in rural areas postal charges hardly cover costs. In reply, I would say that, in rural districts, we get only about a quarter of the service which so many other parts of the country receive. I walked down Sloane Street this morning and, in a fairly short distance, I passed three or four pillar boxes which are emptied ten times a day. In the rural areas, there is one delivery a day. Having received a letter, if one wishes to reply, one has to wait until the next day before there is any opportunity to post a letter.
  It was an unfortunate remark for the Postmaster-General to have made. The demands which rural services make on the Post Office are less than the high-cost operations in residential districts of London of emptying pillar boxes ten times a day.
  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some cases it costs 1s. 6d. to deliver a letter to a rural area, whereas it costs less than 4d. in an urban area?
  Sir J. Gilmour: One can easily find examples. In Banffshire, for example, there are cases where a postman may travel 10 miles up a road to make one postal delivery. In such a case, costs must be very high. On the other hand, when one considers the facilities provided for the towns, the service provided to rural areas is poor.
  In my part of Scotland, a postman delivers the mail and, half an hour later, he returns to collect letters from the local pillar box, to which one may have to go two or three miles. Someone like a farmer who is out during the day has no opportunities to post a reply to any letter which he receives until the next day. That is something which should be borne in mind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) mentioned last week the running of the railways and its effect on the Post Office. When one travels from Scotland and sees mail being unloaded at King's Cross station, it is apparent that it is still being handled in the same way as it was 50, 60 or 70 years ago. Increased postal charges are imposed when we have a worse service and see no efforts being made to mechanise the handling of mail in a big centre like King's Cross station. One feels that the reason why costs are rising is because the fundamental problem of mechanising the handling of mail in the big centres is not being tackled as energetically as it should be.
  Yesterday, I had the experience of getting on a bus which goes from Dundee to Turnhouse to connect with the plane to London. A 32-seater bus was provided for two passengers. Is any attempt made by the Post Office to use this service 'to get mail from Dundee on to a plane and so deliver it to London in a shorter time?
  During the past few weeks, I have had a good deal of correspondence with the Postmaster-General about decreased service all over the country, caused particularly by the closing of post offices in the lunch hour. From many burghs in my part of Scotland, I receive complaints that services are not available to people in the middle of the day when they have time off.
  Recently, I wrote to the Postmaster-General explaining that many people

  1629
  leave home before their local post offices are open. If they are unable to get to a post office during the lunch break, by the time they return home their local offices are closed again. In the case of single people living on their own who have no one to do errands for them, that can be a real hardship.
  The Postmaster-General is always courteous in his replies, and in this case he said:
  "Most of these people work in the larger towns where post offices do not close at lunchtime and they should, therefore, have no difficulty.…"
  He can have no knowledge of conditions in my part of Scotland, where people from small villages travel 15 to 20 miles to work in the county town, where the post office closes in the middle of the day. By the time they get home again at night, their local offices are closed. Fortunately, those sub-postmasters who run post offices in connection with their own businesses do not think highly of the Postmaster-General's order to close in the middle of the day. Many of them remain open and provide a service.
  What many of my constituents complain about is that postal charges have gone up when the service which they receive has gone down. There is a proposal in my part of the world to close down the Crown office in Leven and substitute it with a sub-post office. At the same time, when I write to the Postmaster-General to ask for sub-post offices to be kept open and for others to be reopened, the reply I receive is that this is too expensive and, therefore, people must travel to the main centres to get postal facilities. As a result, the public have a real grouse about postal services.
  I have not yet had time to study fully the White Paper published yesterday, but I had noticed the large headline in page 6:
  "Safeguards for The Users."
  It states:
  "The Bill will require the Corporation to consult the Council about ail major proposals affecting its main services, in so far as these affect users."
  I very much hope that the Post Office's present actions can be examined.
  While postal services from country districts to centres of population are fairly good, the inter-rural services are far from effective. I had a very good illustration of this the other day. On
  1630
  Sunday, 12th February, I posted a Valentine card, hoping that it would be delivered to my wife on St. Valentine's Day. The card did not arrive until the day after St. Valentine's Day, which meant that it took from Sunday to Wednesday to go 18 miles, and I was deprived of the pleasure of the card being delivered on the correct day. Such an instance shows that a great deal can still be done to improve the postal services.
  I have always found head postmasters and postmen in my constituency work very hard on our behalf, and we are extremely grateful to them. In winter, they sometimes have to plough through snowdrifts to deliver the mail. It is not the hard work of those who deliver the mails of which we have cause to complain. The complaint is that there is not enough drive and direction in reorganising the Post Office to bring it up to modern standards.
  10.22 a.m.
  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: I was interested to hear the St. Valentine's Day dilemma of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour). It conjured up pictures of how he tackled the problem and to whom he wrote about the delay, but in any case his wife probably does not know from whom the card came. Much of what he said about charges having gone up and services having gone down is probably very representative of general opinion. If he closely reads the Report on the Post Office made by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, he will probably agree that note should be taken of one or two references to causes. Let us hope that the new Corporation will also take note of them.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Peters-field (Miss Quennell) quite rightly said that the Post Office is close to the public. It is estimated that over half a million people are employed, and when we add to that figure the families of those workers we have a very large section of the public closely associated with postal work.
  I was a little bothered by what the Postmaster-General said last week about the interim set-up on the managerial side. I realise that he was talking about the highest posts—the Director-General, Deputy Director-General and Engineer-in-Chief posts, as they now are—but I

  1631
  should like more information about what is to happen at the regional level, which poses a different problem. As I understand, my right hon. Friend may well be getting to the point of having two regional directors instead of one, or at least having one on the postal side and one dealing with telecommunications. That might be good from one point of view, but might be difficult from the organisational point of view.
  Under what authority will those in what is called the common services departments—people like safety officers and public relations officers—work? It is not easy to split up their work too strictly, and decide under which part of the hierarchy they will operate. If the Postmaster-General carries these ideas too far, he may be in some difficulty. Will he, therefore, give us some more information on this aspect, and also bear in mind the obvious organisational difficulties that will crop up if he follows the McKinsey recommendations too far?
  I hope that the new Corporation's regional boundaries will conform to those of the economic development councils. There are now 16 public Corporations, all with varying areas, and this makes it extremely difficult for the economic development councils to work in with them. If we feel that public investment has some bearing on regional economics, the Corporation's regional set-up will provide an opportunity to make sure that at least the Post Office boundaries line up to some extent with those other regional boundaries we hope to have in the future.
  Last week, the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) said:
  "I dare say there are many lazy people doing full-time work, but there are very few lazy people doing part-time work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 445]
  That may be a truism, but it is far too generalised to be of any use. I put it quite seriously to the hon. Gentleman—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—that in the Post Office there is a very large area of expertise. For the very intricate second-level sorting or delivery work, we must, if we are to have part-time staff, have experienced part-time staff, but I am sure that it is accepted by the Post Office that, in the main, for such work one is probably better off
  1632
  with full-time staff, all of whom have the necessary background and the expert knowledge of the way in which mails are handled.
  The power to engage part-time staff already exists. Under present agreements, part-time staff can be employed without any consultation with the unions concerned when the vacancy figure in London goes above 5 per cent. No such figure exists for the provinces. A large number of regular part-time staff work on the telephone side, but they are regular part-timers, trained to do the job for certain periods of the day when pressure builds up. That is where the difference lies. The Post Office has a very good record in this respect, and if there are one or two lazy people employed, I am sure they are very few in number, because the organisation soon weeds them out.
  The Select Committee's Report brings out very clearly the fact that if we do not get our tariffs right in relation to total costs we are in trouble. It also brings out very clearly that there have been many instances over the years when the political situation has meant that the Postmaster-General of the day has not been able to persuade this House or the Cabinet to increase charges when the need has been there. I hope that we will now see a much firmer line taken in that respect, because it will make a great deal of difference and meet the point, made also by some hon. Members opposite, that capital investment is vitally needed on the postal side but has been deliberately cut down because there has been no opportunity to vote the money necessary for capitalisation there, although it has been available much more readily on the telephone side.
  It is interesting to read in the Select Committee's Report the suggestion that we can have a much different type of contract, in terms of return on capital, on the postal and on the telephone sides. Most of us would be agreeable to that, because it is realistic. I cannot see it in 50 years' time, even when we can so mechanise the postal side so that we can get the capital return that we need in exactly the same way as on the telephone side.
  There is a different problem on costs, which I thought might be mentioned in

  1633
  the White Paper on Post Office Prospects and it is what might happen if we adopt decimal currency. One of the problems for the Post Office would be the translation of the present money rates into new money rates, which would mean an increase in postal costs. This is the effect of a change in the system which, while it might be wholly acceptable, should be realised now.
  Perhaps I can give two examples. The one new penny will be worth a halfpenny which means, in future 1·2 of a penny. Immediately there is a price increase for every penny spent before. if it is translated to 4d., the new 4d. stamp becomes 4·8 per cent. of a penny, very nearly 5d. If one does the same thing on the telephone serice there will be figures showing nearly 7d. for a telephone call instead of the previous 6d., although one would presumably be putting in a 6d. piece to get the same call.
  It will also cause difficulty in dealing with change at Post Office counters. Millions of pounds cross the counters—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not anticipate this afternoon's debate.
  Mr. Dobson: I will endeavour to stick more closely to the prospects of the Post Office. I was trying to show that some of the things which I thought might be in the White Paper had not been included. I appreciate why this is and why we ought not to talk too much about it now.
  The White Paper dealing with the reorganisation of the Post Office, which came out yesterday, mentioned two things. One was the conditions of service, laid out in a loose form in paragraph 50 on page 11. This indicates that negotiations can begin soon on conditions of service, as soon as the Corporation is set up. I think that is what it means but I wonder whether it means that, as soon as the Corporation is in being, whether or not it is set up, we should allow negotiations to go on about conditions of service.
  This is a very important point, because there are many conditions of service wholly to do with civil service conditions. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) is in his seat, because I know that he agrees with me in this. It is
  1634
  important that the conditions of service should be clear. There is also the position about superannuation. It is necessary to make this matter very clear. I accept that the change-over to Corporation would probably mean that no public servant could be worse off. I hope that at the same time we will have some transferability between the Corporation and perhaps other Corporations.
  Those who have the privilege to serve the Post Office do so quite willingly, knowing that in that public service, from time to time, they get a lot of complaints, for which they are not personally responsible. This goes for all people, from those handling the mail and telephone calls to the managerial side of the Post Office. I hope that we shall see further improvement in Post Office conditions in the light of the very detailed examinations which have recently taken place.
  10.35 a.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: One aspect of Post Office accounting which has caused profound irritation to a number of my constituents is the provision, introduced in the measures of 20th July last, for the charging of one year's rental in advance for telephones for new subscribers. What has caused the irritation is that this has been interpreted by the Post Office in dealing with new subscribers to mean an old subscriber who has changed his address, even within the same telephone exchange area.
  People who have been subscribers for five, 10 or 15 years, find themselves being charged a year's rental in advance when they have moved house. I have written to the Postmaster-General on a number of occasions and I have asked questions in the House about this. I have been told that there is some extra cost to the Post Office when a subscriber changes his address.
  Plainly, the extra charge falling on the Post Office is not nearly as much as the charge for installing a completely new telephone. I cannot believe that it is right to interpret the measures of 20th July so widely that they hurt and irritate this small group of people who have been valuable subscribers for many years, and who are placing no real additional burden upon the Post Office.
  10.36 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I trust that the Assistant Postmaster-General has taken note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) has said about the Post Office putting a quite unjustifiable interpretation on the word "new" and that he will agree that these old subscribers should not be charged in that way. One advantage of the Government making important statements last week, and of this debate dragging on over a week, is that there has been time to consider the Postmaster-General's speech of last week.
  It was a good deal better than the White Paper. The Postmaster-General showed zeal for commercial principles which he does not always show in other matters. At one moment, he was so carried away that he referred to his hon. Friend as his deputy chairman. This is an encouraging sign for the future of Post Office management.
  The Post Office White Paper did not sound a very hopeful note. It exudes the feeling, "Thank heavens for the squeeze. This gives us a breathing space. Now we can catch up. The Post Office will really come into its own because we have a nice squeeze and this is all very good for us." That is all very well, but it is not a very encouraging prospect when the economy deflates, because the Post Office will not necessarily be in such a good position.
  Paragraph 11 of the White Paper says:
  "The waiting list has been more or less steady since the measures of July, 1966."
  That is true, but the waiting list is over 120,000, which is twice as much as it was last year, and nearly three times as much as it was two years ago.
  We all hope that there will be an improvement in postal services, particularly in rural areas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) said. Presumably, the Postmaster-General has received expert advice that a slogan like "Quality and Reliability Year" will be helpful in improving services. I hope that he is right. This type of slogan is rather reminiscent of Chinese wall papers and poster slogans. It reads slightly like one of those earlier and more attractive thoughts of "Chairman Short". I hope that it will be of some use. It does not seem to be a very sophisticated
  1636
  technique in bring about an improvement in services.
  Paragraph 34 of the White Paper says this:
  "Buildings. It is hoped to start 40 new post offices and 20 new sorting offices during the year."
  This slightly reminiscent note struck a bell in my ear. Paragraph 30 of last year's White Paper says this:
  "It is hoped to start building about 40 new post offices and 20 new sorting offices during the year."
  The caution evident in the inclusion of the word "about" in last year's White Paper was reasonable. After the debate on 20th January the Assistant Postmaster-General wrote to me, in response to a query I had raised in the debate, saying that he hoped that 42 postal buildings would be started during this year, of which there would be 33 post offices and 9 sorting offices.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether paragraph 34 in this year's White Paper bears any relation to paragraph 30 in last year's White Paper and whether it is proposed to catch up on what was not done last year, or whether, as I imagine, it is separate and the Post Office is starting again.
  The first sentence in the final paragraph of the White Paper is disturbing:
  "The fall in return on capital now in prospect for 1967–68 is disturbing".
  The next sentence is almost more disturbing:
  "The Post Office is confident that despite the temporary downturn in growth rate, the telecommunications business is an expanding industry with a bright future."
  This is an extraordinary way of putting things. It reads rather like the Rural Industries Association making an interim report about basket work manufacturers. No one would gather from this sentence that telecommunications is the world's biggest growth industry. To treat it as if it were a type of cottage industry slightly suffering from a downturn, or from a blight in a rural area, is out of scale with events.
  The speech of the Postmaster-General was slightly less discouraging than the White Paper, because the right hon. Gentleman showed some grasp of the opportunities and of the need of a longer and deeper vision. I hope that the Post Office realises the vast potentialities of

  1637
  this industry and appreciates that it is vitally important for the whole future of the country.
  10.43 a.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) has referred to the postal building programme. Ever since I came to the Post Office, two and a half years ago, this has been one of the aspects of the Post Office about which I have been disturbed, because of the lack of capital investment for the development of new buildings. Some of our buildings are antiquated. We have been going ahead as fast as possible trying to replace them. This will be our attitude in regard to building development. The hon. Gentleman said that telecommunications is an expanding industry. He is right, and we are as far in front as any other country.
  I want to convey my right hon. Friend's apologies to the House for not being present this morning. He would very much have liked to have heard the rest of the debate, but, unfortunately, urgent Government business has detained him.
  We have had a very interesting debate and I am grateful for the criticisms and suggestions which have been made by hon. Members on both sides. In particular, I much enjoyed the wise counsel of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). The whole House, and especially my right hon. Friend and myself, are indebted to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on the Post Office. It is an invaluable Report, which the Government are studying with the greatest of care.
  In the White Paper which was published yesterday, and which has been referred to, in passing, by hon. Members, the Government have, after considering the Select Committee's Report, set out their proposals for the reorganisation of the Post Office. I am sure that the House will not expect me to deal today with the more technical recommendations in the Report. We are studying them very closely and perhaps we might return to the matter on a future occasion.
  1638
  Last Wednesday, the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) asked whether there would be a debate on the White Paper and the Report of the Select Committee. My right hon. Friend has brought the suggestion to the notice of the Leader of the House. If any debate on the reorganisation White Paper is to be joined with a discussion of the Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, I imagine that it would be for the convenience of the House not only to have a reasonable interval in which to consider the White Paper, but also to be able to refer to the evidence given before the Select Committee, which has not yet been published.
  The hon. Member for Howden also referred to uncertainty which must affect everybody at this time when the conditions of service in the Corporation have still to be settled. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman drew our attention to this. We shall be continuing our discussions with the staff, but this will take time, and some points may have to await the setting up of the Corporation. We have covered this point in the assurances to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which are recorded in the White Paper published yesterday.
  I will not weary the House by repeating them, but they cover four major issues: first, the position up to vesting day, in which it is made clear that during this period the staff, being civil servants, will have access to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal in certain cases; secondly, the position if revised conditions of service have not been negotiated by vesting day; thirdly, security of tenure; and, fourthly, superannuation.
  On this last one, I would like to emphasise that we have made it quite clear that existing civil servants will be entitled to choose to have the benefits they would have enjoyed under the Civil Service superannuation scheme if they had not been transferred to the Corporation.
  These assurances were the subject of lengthy discussions with the negotiating committee set up by the two departmental Whitley Councils and agreed with them. The other staff associations were also consulted. I am certain that these assurances to which the Government are committed should have allayed any worries the staff may have felt.

  1639
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the timetable. This will depend upon the passage of the Bill through Parliament, but my right hon. Friend hopes that the Second Reading will take place before the end of 1967 and that, with favourable winds, the Royal Assent should be before the Summer Recess of 1968. If we achieve this timetable, vesting day is likely to be 1st April, 1969.
  The hon. Member for Howden raised a number of detailed points other than those arising from the Select Committee's Report, and I hope that he will accept that I should not attempt to deal with them today. He asked whether we had any report to confirm British Railways' hope that electrification and rerouteing would produce improved punctuality by March, 1967. I know how hon. Members feel about the delay of mail. On the evidence of the first fortnight, there has been a decided improvement. That is the information I have, though it is too early to come to a definite conclusion.
  The hon. Member also made some play about "Quality and Reliability Year", which started last October. At that time about 92 per cent. of fully-paid letters were being delivered on the first working day after posting. My right hon. Friend recently told the House that that figure has now improved to 93 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the mechanisation experiment at Norwich. The trials of the new coding desks and automatic letter sorting machines there have not yet been completed because of delay in manufacturing some of the equipment. It would be premature to issue a report on those trials while they are still under way, but I shall bear it in mind. If the Norwich scheme is a success, we shall embark on the programme to which my right hon. Friend referred in his opening speech.
  As a Yorkshire Member, the hon. Gentleman also mentioned Leeds City station. We are planning, a new head post office for Leeds, and the idea of putting a sorting office over Leeds City station is only one of a number of possibilities we are examining.
  The hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) made an interesting speech. I was interested in the research she had undertaken. I may not have time to deal with all the points she raised. First, I
  1640
  can assure her that all the computers we are ordering are of British manufacture. I can also assure her that the Post Office accepts full responsibility for the training—and retraining where necessary—of its staff. We have nearly 100 training establishments in various parts of the country.
  The hon. Lady referred to telephones for Servicemen and their families coming back to this country. My Department has consulted the Ministry of Defence about this, and I am glad to say that we do not think that this will prove to be a very great extra demand on our resources.
  The hon. Lady also mentioned post-women. We do have an agreement with the unions for employing postwomen on a temporary basis in places where there is a shortage of postmen. We employ about 1,000 women full-time and 6,400 part-time. My right hon. Friend is examining proposals for the admission of women to established posts on the same basis as men, but I cannot say more about that today.
  The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) referred to lunch hour closing of post offices. I think that I remember seeing him during the recent Adjournment debate on the subject of post office closing hours raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter). Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman was unable to get into the debate, in which I tried to set out the reasons why we have had to reduce the hours of service.
  I do not want to go over all the points I made then. But we close at lunch time only where we have found that there is little demand and where there will be little inconvenience. In general, we only match the practice of local shops which also close at lunch time, and the service we give is still better than that of the banks and certain public authorities. The revised hours enable us to improve the working day of our counter clerks, which should enable us to recruit more successfully.
  On another point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East, he should be aware that over the country as a whole service in the rural areas is subsidised by that in the urban areas. My right hon. Friend has said more than once that he is giving special attention to mechanisation of the postal services, and

  1641
  he has put in hand a considerable programme under which £45 million will be invested over the next 10 years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) spoke of the effect of changes in management in the regions. As my right hon. Friend said last week, the present all-purpose regional organisation will be split in most cases. This is largely a matter of growth; many of the present regions are becoming very large units to manage, and the precise details of how the split will be made will take a little while to work out. We are aware of the problems, such as that of safety officers, which my hon. Friend mentioned.
  The matter of costs was also raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East. My right hon. Friend has made it abundantly clear that it is imperative that the gross imbalance in Post Office charges be put right if the finance of the two great services are to be developed on a sound footing. I emphasise that my right hon. Friend has also said that before he looked at the question of tariffs he wished to put the expenditure side of the balance sheet right by making every effort to improve the efficiency of the services, and he has put in hand a productivity improvement programme to that end. I hope that that will help to reassure the House that my right hon. Friend intends that the Post Office should continue to give the best possible service at the cheapest prices consistent with sound financial policy.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) reminded the House of the correspondence he has had with my right hon. Friend and the Questions he has asked about the one year's rental now paid in advance on ordering a telephone, instead of one quarter's. He suggested that that should apply to those taking the telephone for the first time, and not to existing customers moving to new premises, particularly if a telephone is already there. Naturally, I have some sympathy with that point of view, but we must face the fact that such orders consume resources and, therefore, for the present the new rental arrangements must apply generally. They entail the payment of nine months' extra rental in advance and when the initial payment has been made—absorbing purchasing power—no further payments fall due for a
  1642
  year, when quarterly payments again apply.
  Finally, I thank hon. Members again for their reception of the Motion. The coming year will be a challenging one in the Post Office. My right hon. Friend announced when opening the debate a change in the organisation of the management and structure which will help the transition from a Government Department to a public corporation. The coming year will see that process well on its way. I am confident that the staff of the Post Office will prove equal to the challenge that confronts them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Postmaster General be authorised, as provided for in section 5 of the Post Office Act 1961. to make payments out of the Post Office Fund in the financial year ending with the 31st March 1968.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SOLENT FORTS)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [8th March].
  That the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order 1967, dated 9th February, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
  10.59 a.m.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Mark Woodnutt: When we adjourned the debate, a fortnight ago, I was in the middle of making a purely academic point. I was saying that Article 2 of the Order purports to set out the Order's purpose. In fact, it deals with the register of electors, lists of jurors, local government elections, valuation lists and expenditure by local authorities. But the main purpose of the Order, which is to bring St. Helen's Fort and No Man's Land Fort within the boundaries of the County of the Isle of Wight, and Spitbank Fort and Horse Sand Fort within the boundary of the City of Portsmouth is not mentioned as the main purpose.
  It is true that that intention is set out in the preamble to the Order. But even so it is stated that the Order arises from a request of the Isle of Wight County Council and the Portsmouth City Council, when we all know that the request originates from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

  1643
  The local authorities concerned have given much thought to the proposals before agreeing to them. The Isle of Wight County Council referred them back to the appropriate committee because it was not happy about the responsibilities it might suddenly find itself with when these forts were brought within its boundaries. Neither the county council nor the Ryde Borough Council particularly want the forts within their boundaries and I hope that the Minister will be able to give an assurance that they will not become a burden on the Island's ratepayers and that, if the Ministry of Defence does not dispose of them, they will be eventually dismantled.
  Having said that, I support the Order as a tidying-up operation, which is wise, and would merely make the point that I wish that, in such orders, the main purposes were not obscured by consequential matters. It should also be made clear from which source such Orders emanate. This is a sensible piece of legislation. At the moment, these forts, which were built over 100 years ago when the Government of the day feared invasion by Napoleon III, are in a sort of local authority no man's land. They do not come within the boundary of any local authority but neither are they outside territorial waters. I can see one of them from my bedroom window.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Gentleman is lucky.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I agree.
  The Defence Ministry is intending to dispose of the forts and clearly planning control and the various other matters arising from private ownership must come within the jurisdiction of some local authority. For this reason, I support the Order.
  But there is another reason for my support. My constituents, the lusty Vectensians, who are thankful now that their name of Vectus is not to be given to a fort, are natural democrats and view with considerable alarm the totalitarian tendencies of the Government. They are considering seriously a unilateral declaration of independence for the Isle of Wight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot make a unilateral declaration of independence on this Order.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I was not actually intending to make the declaration now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are thinking of doing that some time later in the year when these forts are in our possession.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If that unhappy day should come, the County of Rutland would be glad to join with the Isle of Wight. Then these two small "countries" could join the Common Market and sit in the United Nations.
  Mr. Woodnutt: Rutland would be a welcome ally. May I add how much I admire my hon. Friend's voice in this matter. I am coming back to the Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is interesting to note that the construction of these forts was originally demanded for the defence of Portsmouth against an invasion by Napoleon III 100 years ago. Their construction was recommended in the Report of a Royal Commission set up by Lord Palmerston and published as a White Paper in 1860. It made various recommendations of how best to secure the fortifications of the chief military and naval ports in Britain. Forts on the shoals had been proposed two or three years before, but it was as a result of the Royal Commission's recommendations that these forts and others were built. The cost of the new fortifications to the whole nation—including the four contained in this Order—was £11·8 million.
  Lord Palmerston, then an old man, had repeatedly announced that his two remaining objectives in life were the repression of the last remnants of the trade in negro slaves and to leave Britain in a proper state of defence. He was determined that this £11·8 million should be spent, such was his fear of Napolean III. But Mr. Gladstone, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was, as most Chancellors of the Exchequer would be, dead against the project. Many times Mr. Gladstone threatened to resign over the question and, finally, Lord Palmerston wrote to Queen Victoria:
  "It is better to lose Mr. Gladstone than to lose Portsmouth."

  1645
  The forts were built. They have never been any use then or since and that must give some encouragement to those hon. Members on the back benches opposite who violently opposed the "master of foxhounds" a few weeks ago on the size of defence expenditure.
  I have one minor criticism of the Order to make. It is about the local authority areas into which these forts are being put. St. Helens Fort is nearer Bembridge than St. Helens and Spitbank Fort is nearer Gosport than to Portsmouth. Possibly, the Minister has been misled by the name "St. Helens Fort". It would have been tidier to have incorporated it in the Isle of Wight Rural District Council rather than in the Borough of Ryde and to have had Spitbank Fort in Gosport rather than in the City of Portsmouth. But I will not quarrel with that. The main point for the Isle of Wight is that it will now have two bastions of defence if they are not developed as casinos or as top security prisons. They may fulfil their original purpose yet.
  11.9 a.m.
  Mr. David Webster: I would not want to interfere in what might well be a demarcation dispute between my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), who addressed us a fortnight ago on the subject and whose son, apparently, was bold enough to try and buy these forts for what I thought a modest but not unreasonable price. But apparently he has had no answer on the point.
  Not living closely to the area, I would not go contrary to what my hon. Friends have said regarding the delineation of Spitbank Fort to Portsmouth rather than Gosport, particularly as it seems to be connected by a ridge and is, therefore, closer and more contiguous, to Gosport. I wonder whether these proposals alter the planning situation. I have been very concerned at an attempt to build across an estuary in my part of the country a jetty, for the loading of iron ore, right across from the South Wales border to very near the edge of my constituency, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). We operated together on this and were anxious about the protection of the local
  1646
  authorities if any marine objects were built across the estuary.
  It appears that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight might have similar anxieties. I do not suggest that a jetty would be built, but there is the possibility of harnessing water or power supply. There was a second attempt in The Times a few days ago to raise public interest in a complete Severn barrage to harness the tidal waters. The waters are very different in the Solent, but this is relevant. Also relevant is the Morecambe Bay Barrage project, which is connected with the possible building of a nuclear power station and desalination plants at Heysham.
  My hon. Friend and I both represent beautiful parts of the country and large centres of population. If there were a water harnessing or desalination project in this area, these forts might be used as centres for the start of the work and one would wish to be assured that the local authorities there are protected with consultation and right of appeal against any such authoritarian attempt to spoil the amenities.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General's presence earlier this morning made me wonder whether there might be a connection between him and the forts. What would happen if a pirate radio station were set up on one of the forts? Would this be affected by the Order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is a long way from the Order. He must deal only with the matter in the Order.
  Mr. Webster: I was inquiring, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether there is anything in the Order to alter the existing local situation should anything like this arise. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, will conscientiously look into this and be able to answer the points which have, I hope, been wisely and sensibly put.
  11.13 a.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I have some questions about the Order and a few objections. One Article in the Order is without precedent. Article 2 says that the Order comes into operation
  "on the day following the day on which it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament and for all other purposes on the appointed day immediately after the scheme set out in the Hampshire Police

  1647
  (Amalgamation) Order, 1967 … has become fully operative."
  I am querying the latter part of that.
  In Article 3, we find that the appointed day is 1st April, 1967, as it is under the Hampshire Police (Amalgamation) Order. What then is meant by "has become fully operative"? Does it mean that this Order comes into operation at a particular time of day on 1st April? If so, how is one to know at what time the police scheme becomes fully operative, whether it is 9.30 a.m., 12 noon, or 4 o'clock in the afternoon? It is significant that the day is 1st April.
  The Order is made under Section 140 of the Local Government Act, 1933. This immediately makes one wonder why the Government have gone back to that Act. That Section has quite a history. It disappeared from the Statute Book when the caretaker Government of 1945 set up the Local Government Boundary Commission under the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Act, 1945. When the succeeding Labour Government found that the Commission was not working to their party political advantage they dissolve it, by the Local Government Boundary Commission (Dissolution) Act of 1949. Section 140 of the 1933 Act returned amended to the State Book.
  As the Section then stood, before an Order was made, the Minister was obliged to hold a public inquiry
  "unless, for special reasons, he thinks that the proposals ought not to be entertained."
  But that was altered by the Local Government Act of 1958, under Schedule 8 of which the requirement as to public inquiry was no longer to apply
  "if the Minister is satisfied in any particular case that an inquiry is unnecessary."
  There was no inquiry before this Order was made, which gives rise to two points. That fact and the reason for the Minister being satisfied should have appeared in the Preamble to the Order so as to make it clear that no previous public inquiry has been held in respect of the Order. Normally, when local government Orders come before us, we can be satisfied that there have been inquiries in the area concerned about their content.
  The second point which arises from the absence of an inquiry is that the Minister ought not, in the circumstances
  1648
  of this case, to have been satisfied that none was necessary. It is not a case of one local authority taking over an area from another, when good publicity could be expected by the interchanges between opposing or even agreeing local authorities. Notice would be served by one authority upon the other. But this is a peculiar situation, because there is no local authority there at all. The local authority in this case is the Ministry of Defence. In the absence of opposing local councils, how are the public to know that this is happening before the Order comes before us?
  I am worried by the precedent of the procedure under which the Order has been brought forward. It is a procedure by Order without public inquiry which by-passes the Private Bill procedure. The Order is an alternative to a Private Bill. If it had been done by such a Bill, there could have been petitions by those members of the public affected. We have no process for Private Order procedure in the same way, although the other place does. I have no doubt that, when the Order is considered there, it will be referred to the appropriate Committee under their Standing Orders—
  Mr. MacColl: It has been considered in another place.
  Mr. Page: We ought to know whether it has been referred to the Standing Orders Committee. Another place referred similar Orders to its Standing Orders Committee so that petitions could be made against them. If this were a private Bill, members of the public specifically affected would be entitled to petition against it. The Order raises the question, not only whether we should have similar procedure in this House, but whether, in the absence of such procedure, the Minister should dispense with a public inquiry. He ought not to have been satisfied to dispense with a public inquiry.
  It is a peculiar situation where the Minister of Defence up to this time has been the local authority. I do not know, and I do not think the House knows yet, what sort of justice was administered in these forts or what it is contemplated to do about justice there in future. Perhaps the Minister of Defence ought to have been here this morning to explain why he does not want the forts and why he is abandoning his powers as a local

  1649
  authority over them. He has declared them surplus to requirements, but what is to happen to them now? Is the Ministry of Defence to sell them before the Order becomes effective, or afterwards?
  This affects the Order from the point of view of rateable value being handed over. If they were sold to Butlin's or to a radio station, there would be a handsome credit against the cost of defence, which might please back benchers opposite. It might have a very substantial effect on rateable value being handed over to local authorities.
  If they are to be used for any such valuable purpose, what is meant by Article 15? It deals with industrial development certificates, and says:
  "Any industrial development certificate under section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 issued in respect of any land in the existing city or borough shall continue at and after the appointed time to have effect as if this order had not been made."
  Industrial development certificates are normally issued, not for a particular piece of land, but for a particular area. Sometimes they are specifically allocated to a piece of land. Suppose that someone is issued with an industrial development certificate to develop an area in the City of Portsmouth. I do not know whether the words at the end of this article:
  "as if this Order had not been made"
  would enable that person to carry out his industrial development at one of these forts. The effect of the Article seems completely ambiguous.
  Perhaps the forts might not be used for industrial purposes but as a top security prison. If they are retained by the Ministry of Defence, or handed over to the Home Office for a prison, will the Crown pay rates? The provisions in the Order relating to rates seem to have been taken out of previous Orders and are particularly inapplicable to these forts. Article 25 ties up with what I said about the question of the Crown paying rates. It says:
  "Any direction for the rating of owners or the allowance of a discount in respect of rates in force immediately before the appointed time in the city or the borough shall apply to the city or the borough as altered."
  This seems to be quite inappropriate unless the Crown is becoming a landlord and letting these forts.
  1650
  Article 24, which puts these forts into the appropriate valuation list, ends by saying:
  "and any Fort specified by article 4 of this order may be treated in a valuation list as a parish."
  Are we to have four little parishes stuck in the middle of the Solent? Article 27 says:
  "Nothing in this order shall affect—
  (b) any ecclesiastical parish or district;"
  We go back to Article 20 and find that these forts are given parish council powers. I am completely confused as to the effect of the Order in connection with a parish and the powers of a parish.
  Article 26 seems very important. It is in common form. It is the Article which provides that:
  "any person who suffers loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to the provisions of this order …"
  shall be compensated. Is anyone going to lose employment through the fact that these forts become part of two local authorities? I cannot envisage anyone who would have any right under such an Article. Therefore, the Article seems most inappropriate.
  We are not assisted in these problems by the reports from the two local authorities, the City of Portsmouth and the County of the Isle of Wight. The reports are peculiarly unhelpful in solving the problems or assisting us to judge whether this Order is appropriate or not. It is very significant that the two reports are couched in exactly the same words. This rather confirms what my hon. Friend said about the Order probably having been written by the Ministry and these reports having been written by the Ministry, also.
  I shall quote a sentence or two from the report by the City of Portsmouth. It says:
  "The forts are controlled by the Ministry of Defence who have declared them surplus to their requirements. The Ministry have decided to dispose of both forts, which are unoccupied."
  We are not told to whom or when the Ministry intends to dispose of the forts. The report goes on:
  "Hitherto the Minister of Defence and its predecessors have been the responsible public authority for the forts and, therefore, there has been no need for any local authority to have jurisdiction over them. It is not known for what purpose either of the forts may be acquired."

  1651
  It is not known what sort of services the local authority will require to provide there. On whether the House should agree to the Ministry of Defence abandoning the forts, and the Minister abandoning his local authority duties in regard to them, and whether the House should agree to saddle the local authorities concerned with responsibility for the provision of services when we have no clue as to what the services may be, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) said on 8th March:
  "I should like to place on the record that I want to know that in return for the rates which will be levied there suitable services will be provided, such as lighting and police and refuse disposal and other things. These will no doubt need further explanation in the course of the debate. But I should like, particularly, to ask the Minister who is in charge of this Order to consider this carefully again with a view to allowing a changed Order to be brought out allocating each fort to one of the four adjacent local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 1479–80.]
  I do not think that the House has sufficient information to approve this Order. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to fill in the blanks. In particular, the inapplicability of many Articles in the Order and the inability fully to examine it, as it could have been examined by public inquiry, makes me wonder whether the procedure by order is correct. It seems to me a quite inappropriate procedure to use in these circumstances.
  11.30 a.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I must express my warm appreciation to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) for his questions about the appointed day. I spent the hour before coming into the Chamber in the privacy of my room rehearsing this matter. Those whose painful duty it is to advise me said, "Minister, this is above your intelligence. Would it not be better to leave it to us?". I said, "No. The hon. Member for Crosby may turn up in the Chamber and I may need to use it".
  The appointed day, for normal purposes, is the first moment of that day. But it so happens that the police Order
  1652
  comes into operation on the same day, and if it were held that the Solent Forts Order came into operation before the police Order then the outgoing police authority would have to cope with their problems and then a few moments later the incoming police authorities might have to deal with the matter. Therefore, the purpose of the phrase "appointed time" is to make it clear that the time of day in question is after the coming into operation of the new police Order and, therefore, it is the new police authorities which will have to exercise the police responsibilities.
  The hon. Member raised a number of other points with which I should like to deal. He asked whether it was wise to use the procedure of making an Order under Section 140 and whether we should not have had an inquiry. He had the impression—and this may be partly due to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt)—that this was a case of a power-drunk and totalitarian Government forcing this property on the local authorities, giving them no opportunity to consider the merits of the matter and behaving in such an outrageous way that it might well lead to the secession of the Isle of Wight from the Commonwealth, followed by the County of Rutland. That is not what happened.
  These forts have been owned by the Ministry of Defence and its predecessors in title for a century, in a no-man's land, in no local authority area, and as nobody was on them and the Ministry looked after them no problems arose. The difficulties were caused when suggestions were made that the Ministry of Defence would like to get rid of them. There was the likelihood, therefore, that they would get into the possession of a private person. It was the local authorities which raised with the Ministry of Defence the question of how best to get over the difficulty that some private exploiter might get hold of the property and develop it in such a way that it was under nobody's control.
  That was the problem which, not this Government, but the previous Government had to consider. The advice which they were given was that if the property were put in a local authority's area it would get over the difficulties because the authority would then become the planning authority for the area.

  1653
  Two of the forts were advertised in the London Gazette and the Portsmouth Evening News and the other two were advertised in the Isle of Wight County Press. What is being done is with the agreement and approval of the local authorities concerned. The allocation to the borough as opposed to the rural district authority was suggested by the county.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I am sorry to contradict the hon. Gentleman. I am a member of the Isle of Wight County Council and I assure him that this suggestion was not made by the County Council. It was made by the Government. I do not quarrel with it—I agree with what is being done—but I should like to have the facts straight.
  Mr. MacColl: I agree that there is no point in quarrelling about this matter. The hon. Gentleman believes that what is being done is right. I have no direct evidence on the matter, and I do not wish to argue with him. However, my advice is that these proposals were made by the county, which normally is responsible for allocation. I imagine that if for some reason it thought that it was wrong it could alter the decision later by agreement in the county review under the Local Government Act. But, as the hon. Gentleman says, this is probably the best arrangement.
  I do not wish to get involved in some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) and the complications about whether if we followed the channels of navigation we might find ourselves in a different area of the county than we would if we went as the crow flies. This would get me into deep water.
  Mr. Graham Page: This is closely connected with what I said about notices. The hon. Gentleman said that notices were given to each of the local authorities concerned. But were not they notices to the Press in the Isle of Wight saying that the Isle of Wight forts were to be taken over by the Isle of Wight and to the Press in Portsmouth saying that the forts in Portsmouth were to be taken over by Portsmouth? Portsmouth people might not know that there were four forts, all of which could be taken over, and vice versa.
  Mr. MacColl: I imagine that it was done in that way. If we had not done it in that way, we should have been pilloried for extravagance in advertising in the wrong place. The residents of the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth know their coast and know what is their channel. Presumably they can make the appropriate comments. Certainly the local authorities knew the problem. They raised it originally.
  Everybody has behaved sensibly in this case. There was a problem. People got together to decide how best to solve it, and they have reached this conclusion by agreement. The sensible thing to do is to accept these arrangements, which can only be for the general public good.
  We have been rebuked for putting too much in the Order. It has been said that a lot of the Order is inappropriate. I have not yet got into trouble for putting too much in an order, but I have got into trouble for putting too little in an order. I could imagine the situation which would arise if we went through all the procedure of making this Order and then some indignant old gentleman saying, "What happens to me? I have a claim to compensation". We should then have to start making other orders to deal with the situation. It is important to tie up points like this in these common form Articles.
  We have ben asked about the administration of justice and who would deal with the matter now. The Ministry of Defence did not have some sort of almost Gothic powers of life and death on this lonely fort. It was not the local authority in any legal sense. It owned it, and nobody else had any say in it. I presume that military law applied to the people on it, but it had no other responsibilities. The trouble is that if the property gets into normal civilian occupation these problems could arise, and it is important that we should deal with them.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight complained about Article 2. Article 4 is the Article which sets out the purposes of the Order and makes it clear. The hon. Gentleman told us about what Mr. Gladstone said in 1860, about the great debate which there was, about the threats of resignation by the Chancellor, and about the final triumph of the spending Department. He went on to

  1655
  say that the forts had never been of any earthly use. What the hon. Gentleman said just showed that there is more to be said for the Treasury than those in spending Departments sometimes like to admit.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that we had been misled by the name of St. Helens. I assure the hon. Gentleman that St. Helens has a very different meaning to me, and, I think, to the hon. Member for Crosby, as a contiguous constituency to mine with an extremely good football team which frequently comes to Wembley. St. Helens has nothing to do with the South. I myself should not have been misled.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) asked what would happen in the way of control when the Order was passed, what real powers the planning authority would have and what general powers the local authorities would have. They will have exactly the same powers, duties and responsibilities in respect of this area, as much or as little as over any other parts of their area. If at any time one of the forts was to be developed as a casino or for some other type of entertainment, the local authority would no doubt be able to put a rateable value on it and collect rates. If the local authority cares to pass a resolution now under the Local Government Act to rate the property for the whole of the Borough of Ryde, following such other progressive authorities as Bournemouth and Eastbourne, they would then be able to rate it immediately and the whole machinery would come into operation.
  I was asked what could be done about it if the Secretary of State for Defence ran a casino. I think I am right in saying that, if the Crown ran a casino on Crown property the Circular 100 procedure would apply. There would be consultations with the local planning authorities, although the planning law does not apply to Crown property.
  The difficult point is what would happen if the Ministry was successful in selling these forts and there was then no means of applying ordinary planning controls.
  Strenuous efforts have been made to see this rather mild and largely agreed Order as a great new revolution in local
  1656
  government policy and procedure. We are a progressive and vigorous Government who are always pressing ahead with new ideas, but we would not claim this as being one of them. We regard this as a modest, humble and rather conventional operation which might well get the support of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order, 1967, dated 9th February, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

  EDUCATION (AWARDS)
  11.44 a.m.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the University and Other Awards Amending Regulations 1967 (S.I., 1967. No. 209), dated 20th February 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th February, be annulled.
  It is important to make it clear to those who watch our proceedings that it is necessary for an Opposition to pray against an Order in order to draw attention to the matter. Subject to the explanation which the Minister of State will be kind enough to give us, I want to make it quite clear that the object of the Prayer is to probe the matter rather than necessarily to speak against it in the strict sense of the word.
  This is a very elaborate matter. I hope that the Minister of State will be kind enough to stop me at once if I go wrong on a matter of fact. These are elaborate Regulations through which to thread one's way and I would not want inadvertently to mislead anyone inside the House or outside it by giving a fact wrong. I will, first, explain briefly what I understand the effect of the Regulations to be.
  These Regulations stem from the University and Other Awards Regulations, 1965, which are for this purpose the parent Regulations. These Regulations refer, in particular, to Schedule 2 of the parent Regulations and to the method by which the income of a parent is computed for purposes of a university or other award. In particular, reference is made to how that income is computed

  1657
  when the parent's income includes interest from a building society. That I understand to be what we are considering.
  As the Regulations stand, unamended by this Statutory Instrument, the provision in question being paragraph 2(a) of Part I of Schedule 2 to the 1965 Regulations, the parent's gross income is for this purpose assessed as his total income
  "from all sources, computed as for income tax purposes where United Kingdom Income Tax is payable."
  Those last words were added by amending Regulations in 1966.
  So a parent with a son or a daughter who is a candidate for an award has to prove his income to the authorities, computed as for Income Tax purposes. For example, if his income includes interest or dividends from which tax is deducted at source, what he does is exactly the same thing as with his Income Tax return. He states the gross income that he receives from such dividends. He may show what tax has been deducted, but the important point is that he shows his gross income.
  When it comes to building society interest, on the other hand, he presumably at the moment shows his income as it actually is received.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts)indicated assent.
  Mr. van Straubenne: I am much obliged to the Minister for indicating his assent, because this is clearly the point from which we start.
  The new position, as a result of this Statutory Instrument, will be that a parent will show his income from investment, or from any other source, gross, in precisely the same way as he has up to now. However, in relation to interest he receives from his building society account he will no longer return just the actual amount he receives. He will, as the technical phrase goes, gross it up. He will gross up his building society interest at the building society's rate of tax, at the special rate of tax appropriate to a building society. This is the change, as I understand it, which is brought about by this Statutory Instrument.
  I will explain briefly what this special rate of tax for a building society is. Every building society which has entered
  1658
  into an agreement with the Revenue under the relevant Section of the 1952 Act—
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I wonder whether I ought to intervene at this point to say that there will be no change under the amended Regulations in the way in which a parent will put down his building society item. That is to say, there is no change from the way he did it before, namely, to put down the net received by him. If I interrupted the hon. Gentleman unnecessarily, I am sure that he will forgive me.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I am most obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I shall be very grateful if he will explain this later. This is one of the reasons for having this Prayer. The Minister will understand that this has raised some doubts in the minds of parents and others. It will be helpful if we can have this carefully explained.
  To justify the anxiety which is felt as a result of this Statutory Instrument, there is a special system for building societies by which they are subjected to what I will loosely call a "spot check" every year by the Revenue, and it is upon that "spot check" that their rate of tax is computed.
  The intervention of the Minister is very helpful, but I have to remind the House that the actual terms of the Statutory Instrument require the income, in so far as it stems from building society interest, to have been deemed to have been received after deduction of Income Tax at the reduced rate to which I am referring. I should have thought that the effect of this is that there must be added to the return which the parent makes, the gross-up, at the building society rate, of the interest which he receives on his account.
  Clearly, there is some change, or we would not have had this Statutory Instrument. The effect, as I see it—and again, we will be much helped by the Minister—is that the gross income of the parent, for the purposes of award, will be larger than it would otherwise have been.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts indicated dissent.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: The Minister is shaking his head in a contrary sense. He will understand just how difficult it is to

  1659
  thread one's way through these highly complicated matters. As he has made the point quite clear, I can contract a number of the questions I have, because it is clear that the change is not so substantial as was previously thought.
  The Minister will understand that at the moment there is no mention in the Regulations of building society interest, and that is why this matter has been brought in. Plainly, somebody, to use the jargon, will be grossing-up somewhere, otherwise there would be no point in having this Statutory Instrument.
  The Minister said, by way of intervention, that the parent will not do so. As I understood him, the parent will still put down, in the return which he makes to the L.E.A., the actual sum which the parent receives from the building society. That will instantly set a large number of parents' minds at rest, because one of the problems that I would otherwise have raised with the hon. Gentleman is how the individual parent was expected to lay his hands upon the rate of tax to which the building society is subjected in the grossed-up income he receives from the building society. If ever I can again say a phrase like that, on a technical matter of this kind, I will congratulate myself.
  We now have the position that the L.E.A. must take into account, for tax purposes, the gross income arising from the building society. It follows that in precisely the same way as the parent's net income from, for example, investments, is grossed-up, quite fairly and properly, for Income Tax purposes—which it has to be, because it has to be computed. In other words, he has to indicate the gross income and not net—so it must be that the local education authority, who are the people who take account of the tax which has been suffered, will, in effect, be awarding to the parent a higher income than he would otherwise have had. The result of that, as the Minister will realise, is that the award granted to the son or daughter is likely to be proportionately a little bit less.
  There may not be a very great deal in this, but there are some snags. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, in the inquiries which he will have made from the Treasury, knows of any other circumstances in which building society
  1660
  tax rates are taken into account. I wonder whether his inquiries with the Treasury can give any other precedent for this happening. I may be wrong, but I do not myself know of any other case where income in the hands of the taxpayer, albeit that he himself is not responsible for the process, is grossed-up at the building society's rate of tax. If there are other examples of precedents for this, I am sure that the Minister will be kind enough to give them.
  There are a number of examples where holders of accounts in building societies have to gross them up for tax purposes. The most obvious example would be the Surtax payer. The Surtax payer who receives interest from a building society has to gross up that interest for the purpose of computing his Surtax liability. That is well understood. The significant difference is that the Surtax payer grosses it up at the standard rate of Income Tax, but here we are talking about a grossing-up process at the building society's rate of tax. As far as I know, there is no other example, and it would be helpful if the Minister's inquiries show this. Perhaps we might be allowed to know if there are precedents for this particular process.
  The second point to which I should like to draw attention is that it contrasts fairly sharply with other broadly similar operations through which the ordinary citizen has to go. If, for example, somebody is applying to the Ministry of Social Security for a supplementary benefit, as it is now called, quite properly the income of the applicant is taken into account before any award is made. To that extent, the situation is broadly similar to the one we are now discussing.
  As far as I know—I stand to be corrected—the Ministry of Social Security, in operating its scheme, takes into account the money actually received by the applicant from the building society. So far as I know, the Ministry does not require any kind of calculation of tax. The practical reason for that, is, of course, that if one is likely to come within the ambit of supplementary benefit payments, one is equally likely not to be affected by any kind of Income Tax. But the principle is the same, and I draw it to the Minister's attention as an example of another operation through

  1661
  which the ordinary citizen goes, where, as far as I can see, no Government agency concerns itself with the tax which the income has suffered at the building society rate.
  At the other end of the scale, let us suppose that there is someone who pays Surtax. At the moment, he grosses up at the standard rate of Income Tax. Under these Regulations his income will be grossed up at the building society rate of tax. Paradoxically, therefore, the Regulations will be of substantial benefit to the Surtax payer. This may, of course, be the Minister's intention, and I am not necessarily against that. I have never believed in sharply criticising the Surtax payer.
  I think I heard one of my hon. Friends murmuring something about obtaining a grant. I ask my hon. Friend to consider the position of a person paying Surtax on unearned income if he has a comparatively large family. I shall not bore my hon. Friend with the details, but I have checked this, and I find that whereas, at the moment, for Surtax purposes he must gross up his interest from a building society at the standard rate of Income Tax, under the Regulations the local education authority will gross them up at the building society rate of tax. Proportionately, therefore, these Regulations will be of greater benefit to the Surtax payer than to other people. As I say, this may be what the Minister intends.
  These are very narrow and highly technical points. I do not propose to stray from the strictness or the narrowness of the matters raised by the Regulations, because we cannot debate the principle behind them. These Regulations stem from the University and Other Awards Regulations, which are based on the principle of a parental contribution. It is this contribution which we are discussing, and it is one detailed aspect of that parental contribution which we are now questioning.
  I think that it would be helpful, even in a short debate like this, if the Minister would make clear how much longer he expects a parental contribution will be required, and therefore how much longer this method of dealing with it from the point of view of building society interest will continue. The Minister will remember that as recently as 1963 his right
  1662
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State set his hand to a Report entitled, "The Years of Crisis", issued by the Labour Party Study Group on Higher Education. The Report said quite definitely and clearly that parental contributions should be abolished.
  In spite of the fact that we are dealing with the narrow point of building society interest, I think that it would be helpful if the Minister would say whether he expects these Regulations and their successors to continue, or whether he expects to come forward with other amending Regulations. I ask that because of the clear declaration to which I have just referred, that contributions would be abolished.
  If it is the Government's intention to abolish them, these Regulations become of comparatively little interest, because they will not be in force for very much longer. If, on the other hand, it is not the Government's intention to carry out the statement in that Report, we must look at these Regulations more closely as they relate to building society interest.
  I hope that it has been helpful for me to raise these matters, and we shall listen with interest to the Minister's detailed explanation of the issues involved.
  12.5 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is rather refreshing that for a change we are considering the obligation of parents from the point of view of education rather than considering a great deal of what has been said during the last week or two about students.
  Last night I appeared on B.B.C. television to take part in a discussion with some of the students from the London School of Economics. They were sitting on cushions, and we were to sit on chairs. They said that it was wrong that we should be sitting on chairs while they were sitting on cushions. I said that we were used to sitting on the Floor of the House of Commons anyway, and that the only person who sat on a Chair in the House was Mr. Speaker or his Deputy, or the Chairman of Ways and Means or his Deputy, and the Clerk, and we did not, therefore, mind sitting on cushions. Last night was the first time that I have taken part in a public debate Japanese fashion.
  These Regulations are very narrow indeed. Having listened to my hon. Friend

  1663
  the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), I am amazed at the authority with which he is able to disentangle them. I was unable to do so until I heard him. I am still not sure whether, when the Minister replies, he will say that these Regulations will be an advantage or a disadvantage to parents, which makes it rather difficult for me to put my argument.
  The Regulations concern either an upward movement in a parent's obligations, or a downward movement, I am not sure which. One cannot help but be impressed by the fact that the obligations of parents under the 1965 Regulations, which were amended last year, and which we are amending again now, are very real, and that the amount of free grant is given at a very low level of income indeed. Many a typist earns a good deal more than £700. It is above this level that a person starts to make a contribution. A person with an income of £1,400 contributes £64, and thereafter contributes £1 for every £10 on the balance of income. If, therefore, the Regulations provide a benefit, it is only a small one in relation to the obligation imposed on parents.
  I hope that all students will recognise that although the State assist with the cost of their education, some of us did not have the opportunities which they have and that parents have to pay a substantial part of the bill. I hope that students will recognise that these Regulations not only provide opportunities for the State to assist them, but impose obligations on them, and that the kind of nonsense about which we have been hearing during the last week or two must stop.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is getting very wide of the Regulations which are concerned only with the computation of income.
  Mr. Lewis: I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the computation of income and these Regulations relate to the obligations of parents. The other day I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he was prepared to withdraw grants from students who were not attending courses, for instance when there was a strike as there has been at the L.S.E.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are important matters, but the rules of order do not allow us to discuss them on these Regulations. The hon. Member must keep to the Regulations.
  Mr. Lewis: The Minister replied to my Question in an odd way, by saying that the Regulations already permitted this to be done. But he said "No" at the beginning of his answer, which meant that he expected local authorities to take action but was not prepared to do so himself.
  These Regulations make a change in respect of parents. Since the Minister is prepared to make a change in this respect he should be prepared to make a change by bringing in other Regulations to make it clear—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I wonder whether the hon. Member heard what I said. I am afraid that he is out of order. He cannot discuss matters other than the Regulations and what is in them. He has gone beyond them. He must come back to the Regulations.
  Mr. Lewis: I will come back to the Regulations, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They make a change in respect of parents. I should like to know from the Minister exactly what that change is. I hope that it is a change for the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham said that the Minister and his right hon. Friend had committed themselves eventually to do away with parental contributions to education. That being the case, the least the Minister can do is to make it easier for parents—but the Regulations do not do much in that respect. I would not say that they represent even a minimum step towards making it easier for parents with modest incomes—say, £24 a week and under. In those circumstances I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will bring in other Regulations, tied to these, which will go much further in assisting parents, and will make it clear that he hopes that student bodies will realise that they also have obligations.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that students who have not followed their courses effectively are already weeded out? The universities attend to such matters.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are getting wide of the matter in hand.
  12.13 p.m.
  Miss J. M. Quennell: I congratulate my hon. Friend upon threading his way through these rather incomprehensible Regulations with lucidity and skill. During the course of my hon. Friend's speech the Minister of State's expressions and inclinations of the head led me to hope that as a result of these Regulations parents will be no worse off than they were before. I do not want to curtail the time available to the Minister to reply, but I would have thought that the average parent, looking at the Regulations, would have been struck by the last part of the proviso in paragraph 2 and would have assumed immediately that it meant that he would be more severely hit by the change in the Regulations than apparently will be the case. I suggest that with Statutory Instruments of this nature the Explanatory Notes should be more comprehensive, so that people can understand what the contents of the Instruments mean.
  The debate has served a very useful purpose. I hope that the Minister can put on record what the darned Regulations mean. Perhaps he will bear in mind the fact that Explanatory Notes which contain appalling grammatical abortions, as in this case, make the Instruments almost incomprehensible. An Explanatory Note which made some sense would be a great contribution towards a better understanding of the Regulations.
  12.15 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): These Amending Regulations are not intended to introduce any change in practice. They are intended to resolve doubts about the legal interpretation. They provide specific cover for a practice which has been recommended to local education authorities ever since the University and Other Awards Regulations, 1962, were made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle)—the then Minister of Education—following on the Education Act, 1962, when the new arrangements for awards came into effect.
  When assessing the parental contribution towards the support of a student it
  1666
  is intended that income derived from capital should be taken into account. Income derived from capital is subject to Income Tax, and these Regulations deal with certain complications which arise in computing parental income for the purpose of assessing parental contributions when the parent has shares or deposits in a building society. Broadly speaking, wherever it is possible to do so the Inland Revenue arranges for Income Tax on income from capital—investment income—to be collected by deduction before it reaches the person to whom the investment income belongs.
  In the normal case of dividends from company shares the amount paid to the parent of a student is net of Income Tax. For every £ due to the parent of the student, gross, only 11s. 9d. is paid. The other 8s. 3d., representing the Income Tax on the dividend, is retained by the company, which is then responsible for accounting for it to the Inland Revenue. Nevertheless, the income of the parent would normally be regarded as the gross amount of dividend or interest and not the amount net of tax actually paid to him.
  When assessing parental contributions the practice has always been to take into account the gross amount in dividends or interest due to the parents and not the smaller amount, net of tax, which is actually paid to him.
  The position is somewhat different in the case of interest on investments in building societies. The Inland Revenue has special statutory arrangements with building societies whereby the societies do not deduct Income Tax from distributions to shareholders and depositors; instead, the societies account to the Inland Revenue for tax at a composite rate on the aggregate amount of the distribution. The rate to which the hon. Member referred is 6s. 3d. for 1966–67, and represents an average of the rates at which tax would be payable by the various investors.
  The law expressly provides that no assessments are to be made on the investors, so that no further Income Tax is paid by them. It has always been the intention that parental contributions should be assessed by reference to the gross amount of interest from building societies—that is, the net amount grossed

  1667
  up to take account of the special composite rate of Income Tax paid in respect of that interest by the building societies.
  The position under the old University and other Awards Regulations, 1962, was, beyond doubt, that those Regulations were intended to provide for this grossing up of building society interest in computing parental incomes. The Department of Education and Science, and the Ministry of Education previously, has always advised authorities to gross up building society interest in this way.
  Following a challenge of an authority's interpretation of the Awards Regulations on these lines, the matter was considered further with the conclusion that, as drafted, they left the matter open to doubt. To put it right, the Secretary of State decided to amend the definition of the gross income of the parents of an award holder receiving interest or dividends from a building society. The necessary Amendments have been made by the University and Other Awards (Amendment) Regulations, 1967, which are on the Table.
  I stress that the Amending Regulations are intended solely to resolve doubts about the interpretation of the original Awards Regulations and not to alter the existing practice in the assessment of parental contributions. The present practice of grossing up building society interest accounts for just over 10s. a year of the value of the average award. By putting the present practice beyond doubt, there will be no change in the amount which the average parent will need to pay in support of a son or daughter who is an award holder.
  The cost of ceasing to do this—not putting this beyond doubt—apart from the illogicality of such a procedure, would amount to over £150,000 a year, which would have to be met out of the total resources available for education. There is, thus, no new imposition on parents but an attempt in these Regulations to put beyond doubt what, the present practice, which has obtained under successive Governments and successive Ministers, has been since 1962.
  The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) raised a number of important questions, and although some were not strictly within this discussion, they were, nevertheless, justifiable. He
  1668
  mentioned precedents, on which I cannot give information at the moment, but I will consult my right hon. Friend at the Treasury about them. Second, he referred to the contrast with procedure for social benefit, and it would be useful to compare the two. There is justification for the variation. I thought that the hon. Gentleman understood that there were fundamental differences between the two spheres, but I take the point.
  Third, he mentioned Surtax payers. The right comment on that would be that he is probably right about grossing up at 6s. 3d. in the £ in that case. If we followed Surtax precedent and grossed up at the standard rate of 8s. 3d., the parental contribution would be increased and the award's value reduced. Thus, we are, I think, being fair to parents, especially at levels of income which mean that they are unlikely to be receiving very high grants or paying only small contributions towards a student's support.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) spoke about student discipline and university government. He will understand that I cannot follow him into those deep waters, especially in view of the Chair's alertness. I was glad, however, to hear one or two of his points about parental contributions. It is right that the country should understand that many parents still make substantial sacrifices to support their sons and daughters in further and higher education. Without contravening the bounds of order, perhaps I may add that the vast majority of students understand this and that only a very small minority give the appearance of being impervious to the fact that a great effort has been made at home to sustain them and enable them to qualify for a meaningful and rewarding career.
  I hope that my explanation will satisfy the House that there is no change in practice. Nobody gains or loses by this. On the question of what happens to the system of controlling awards in future, I do not wish to be drawn, but I would say that the foreword to the publication from which the hon. Gentleman quoted made it clear that it was not a Labour Party policy document. It has been made clear on more than one occasion that there are higher priorities in education than the abolition of parental contribution, however desirable that might be. It

  1669
  would cost about £30 million a year, and I think both sides will balance this with the priorities on the social services generally. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that these Regulations should go forward.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: We are obliged, as always, for the Minister of State's painstaking explanation. It is clear from his explanation that what has been happening may have been slightly improper legally and that the Regulations will put it right. What has happened is that some eager beaver, probably a lawyer, got on to this, and that is why the Undersecretary is here. I understand his embarrassment about my earlier question on the broad principle. We will not explore that now; we can come back to it.
  In warm echo of what the hon. Gentleman said, I would agree that the Regulations will affect a large number of people, the greater proportion of whom are conscientiously carrying through their courses of study. It is important with desirable Regulations like this not to be knocked off our perches by any recent or other events.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ANGLO-FRENCH VARIABLE GEOMETRY AIRCRAFT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]
  12.29 a.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the small hours of Tuesday morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) made an important speech, which started at about 3.40, on the future of the British aircraft industry. That speech ought to be studied and read by all of us who are interested in these matters. I thank my hon. Friend, in view of the many problems which he has on his hands, for being here for this debate. It would also not be out of order, perhaps, to wish him well in all his present negotiations on the matter of the "airbus". We hope that these come to a satisfactory conclusion.
  1670
  I say that partly because, although we are dealing with the technical details of variable geometry aircraft, this affects the whole future of the British aircraft industry, and I should like to ask him if he is sure that the proposition which is often stated that the British aircraft industry depends on sophisticated military orders is the whole truth.
  Yesterday morning, thanks to the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), a number of my colleagues and I had the good fortune to visit the Comprehensive Designers' International at Southall. We saw a set-up there whereby a computer in Marietta, Georgia, can operate for the benefit of designers in Southall between one and 7.30 in the morning, American time. In that kind of situation, technological progress may overtake many of the discussions which we have been having about the future of the British aircraft industry, and these are matters which should be taken into account.
  Before I come to particulars, there is one other question which is rather confusing, and that is the matter of the German visit in relation to the AFVG aircraft. I would refer my hon. Friend to a Question which I put to the Secretary of State for Defence on 1st March, when I said:
  "Can the Minister say anything about the visit of General Steinhoff and his German colleagues to negotiate about this?"
  Back came the reply:
  "I am not aware of any such visit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 479.]
  Last Monday, The Times carried the following:
  "General Johannes Steinhoff, chief of the West German Air Force, will be in Britain for three days from tomorrow. Anglo-American competition for re-equipping the German Air Force makes his visit of special interest. General Steinhoff will visit aviation concerns, including Rolls-Royce and Bristol-Siddeley, and will be shown the variable geometry (swing-wing) aircraft. It is hoped here that the British Jaguar, which is a tactical aircraft and advanced trainer for the early 1970s, could replace the German G 91. The swine-wing aircraft is a possible successor for the F104 G Starfighter."
  What worries many hon. Members is the question of the political control of the Ministry of Defence. I am willing to believe that there is some explanation for this, but it seems to some of us that

  1671
  the sale to the West Germans of extremely sophisticated nuclear strike aircraft, which is what they are, like several other current planes, is a matter of major consequence. In this debate, I am not passing judgment on whether such negotiations are right. I say merely that their importance can hardly be disputed.
  The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to discuss some of the technical aspects of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft. I do not propose, therefore, to repeat the concern about the wide issues of foreign affairs, defence, and strategic commitment in relation to the AFVG which I displayed during the Air Estimates debate on 14th March. Rather, my task this morning is to enlarge on some detailed points made in the debate, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) had neither the time nor, I suspect, the Departmental authority to reply. That is no reflection upon him.
  However, there is one general point which I wish to make, and it is that many hon. Members are conditioned by their own past experiences. I am conditioned by my own, having sat every Tuesday and Thursday for three years on the Public Accounts Committee. Any man who has had that experience is by nature sensitive to the dramatic escalation in aircraft and weapons costs. If I cannot bring myself to believe the Departmental estimates, it is partly because of memories of Seaslug, Thunderbird, Blue Steel, Blue Streak, Skybolt and the TSR2. Nor can more recent experience of Concord provide much comfort, since costs have rocketed by a factor of three from an original estimate of between £150 million and £170 million to over £450 million and probably more.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) can deploy the figures for the TSR2. In December, 1959, the cost of TSR2 was estimated to be between £80 million and £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 the extension of the time scale for introduction into service, by January, 1964, the costs had risen to between £240 million and £260 million. What is now known about forward cost-
  1672
  ing which was not known during the early sixties at the time of TSR2?
  However, there are reasons other than past experience for being sceptical about an estimate of £200 million for research and development on the AFVG. We are dealing with experiment and unknown factors where there may be a simple expense curve but where, equally, the expense curve can easily show a sharp incline due to the introduction of unexpected problems. For example, I understand that probably the AFVG will depend to a marked degree on the success of current titanium research. Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulty and, therefore, the expense in which Lockheed found itself involved in problems of titanium extrusion for its A11 high altitude aircraft? Will Britain profit by Lockheed's experience? If so, what do we pay for that experience? If not, what is the estimate of the costs of titanium research and the setting up of the necessary giant presses? In this field of activity, if it is to be good, research needs to go deep. One is continually finding new problems.
  Again, the Secretary of State has claimed that we are "streets ahead" of the Americans in variable geometry techniques. That is a statement that has not yet been substantiated, and I should be grateful for any evidence that that is so. I should like to be clear that the £200 million R & D costs include the extensive and expensive wind tunnel facilities used for demonstrating the feasibility of aircraft substantially lighter than the F111 using variable geometry techniques. Can my hon. Friend confirm or deny that?
  Then there is the whole question of the time-cost relationship. Perhaps the most impressive aspect of all American achievement in this field of activity is the remarkably short time that they have taken from concept to drawing board, to roll-off, to service use. If I understand it correctly, in the case of the F111 it is probably about 2½ years, as it is for the C5a, the great military transport aircraft. But, even if all goes to plan, the AFVG will not be ready until seven years from now. Perhaps five years, at any rate, is a comparable figure with the Americans' 2½ years.

  1673
  Yesterday, I asked my hon. Friend what estimate he has made of the number of months between the start of drawing board work on the AFVG aircraft and the coming of the first AFVG into Royal Air Force service. His answer was:
  "Until we have completed the project definition study it is not possible to estimate precisely how long development will take. But the present intention is that the aircraft should enter service with the R.A.F. in the mid-seventies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 226.]
  That answer, by implication, casts the gravest doubt on any cost estimate figure. How can an R & D cost estimate be given if the project definition study has not been completed? I repeat the question about how many prototypes are to be set up. Are we saying that we need less than the 15 models which the Americans needed to the test the F111?
  My hon. Friend assures me that extensive wind tunnel research is being done on weight problems. Are we quite certain that these weight problems have been overcome, and what importance does he attach to comparable American experience?
  May I give another example of one of the many problems? I understand that flying at from 200 ft. to 600 ft. at supersonic speeds—and even at high subsonic speeds—the bomb bays will heat up to the order of 250°F. That is the technical opinion I have. At this temperature, conventional explosives become unstable and melt, and if the plane jerks they may well explode. Are the Government working on research into an insulated bomb casing and, if so, at what cost? I give this as an example of one of the very many problems involved. Has it or has it not been taken into account?
  Outside the Government service nobody to whom I have talked on these matters can really bring themselves to believe that on a production of 300 we can get a unit cost of £1·5 million. What is being done to ensure a smooth production run?
  There is also the question of modifications if we are to export this aircraft. I understood in November that there was a datum design. We know from previous experience that modifications are extremely sophisticated and awkward, and therefore expensive. What is the result of negotiations with the Dutch and the Germans on this matter?
  1674
  What are the exact terms of the break clause, and what do the French Press mean when they talk about the financial barrier being "broken this November"? Any information my hon. Friend can give on the exact terms of the contract would be extremely welcome.
  I turn to the question of quantity, in the light of yesterday's news that we are to go ahead with the purchase of 40 extra F111s—a subject on which I shall not now comment; nor do I make any innuendo in saying that. Why, in terms of quantity, should we require both the AFVG and the F111 if one assumes that by the mid-'seventies we shall not be committed to a world rôle?
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South is extremely concerned about the welfare of the Royal Air Force, and I am concerned about the pilots of the aircraft—I really am. Flying this kind of aircraft involves a totally different order of risk from that involved in flying a Canberra or a V-bomber. The tragic crashes at Edwards Air Force base bear testimony to the hazards to test pilots, let alone trainees.
  In these circumstances, neither my hon. Friend nor I would wish to commit the men of the Royal Air Force to such aircraft without all the latest equipment. That is common ground between us. This may mean neither more nor less than research on and production of malfunction equipment and recording system equipment for light aircraft. Has any calculation been made of the costs involved? My information is that Lockheed and other firms have found this extremely expensive. I should also like to know about the cost of training pilots when using terrain-following equipment—again an extremely difficult matter. And could we be told anything about initial payments as between Britain and France?
  I should like to know what arrangements have been made for the future costing of our commitments. Yesterday, in a Parliamentary Question, I asked the Prime Minister:
  "… if he will instruct the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of Technology to set out in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the total liabilities which it is at present estimated will be incurred in 1968, 1969 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977, respectively, on the development and purchase of military aircraft at home and abroad."

  1675
  —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1967; Vol. 743, c. 240.]
  Whatever may be one's views on the matter, and they are very wide across the House, the Government should set out absolutely clearly what the present estimates are in relation to this highly expensive equipment.
  Time is running out, and I end by quoting the Prime Minister, quoting the Financial Times with approval, when he said that we should leave to others
  "… 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."
  If I seem to be persistent and obstinate on this issue, it is because I believe that in this matter, although technologically the Government have done many extremely good things—I am a great supporter of the Ministry of Technology—we are set on a course which is catastrophic for this party, catastrophic for this Government and for ensuing Governments of whatever party, and catastrophic for Great Britain.
  12.45 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Hastings: I have no wish to cut into the time available to the Minister for his reply, but only desire to put two questions to him. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on bringing up this important subject this morning, on his grasp of it, and on the detailed way in which he has put his questions.
  These are my questions. First, on the question of General Steinhoff's visit, which is a most important development, is he here to negotiate for the re-equipment of the German Air Force, or is it a question of participation in this project? Details would be very welcome to this side. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that this aircraft appears to be scheduled to come into service in the mid-'seventies. Will this be in time for it to compete if compete it has to, with the American AFX project? Is it not possible that the AFVG could be produced earlier if we were prepared to push on with that project a little faster than now appears to be envisaged?
  12.47 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): I
  1676
  am grateful, as I am sure the House is, to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for initiating this debate. It is an extremely important subject, not only because of the great amount of money at stake but because our defence requirements need us to have sophisticated aircraft of this type. It is better, if we can, to provide this from our resources rather than be dependent on supplies from the United States.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend did not develop his thoughts on the operational requirement aspect, as this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force. We must accept that when the Royal Air Force has this requirement, which must be met, we must do our best within the Ministry of Technology to meet that requirement from our own resources.
  We have acknowledged that we cannot develop advanced aircraft of this character merely to meet the requirements of the Royal Air Force. We have, therefore, entered into discussions with the French with a view to fulfilling their needs as well as ours from a joint development programme. We decided that we could not afford to go on with the development of an aircraft like the TSR2, so, in May, 1965, we signed the first Understanding with France. Since then, we have been engaged in extensive operational, technical and financial discussions with our French partners in furtherance of the project.
  It is not, of course, easy to engage in these advanced technological developments as between two powerful nations. Each has its own ideas, and these must be reconciled. In this particular case, the French, as is well known, want the aircraft as an interceptor, while we want it for strike. We also have to decide exactly how the work shall be shared out as between the chosen aircraft contractors, that is to say, the British Aircraft Corporation and Avions Marcel Dassault, and the engine manufacturers, Bristol Siddeley and S.N.E.C.M.A.
  On all these complicated matters we have made considerable progress. British and French officials, as well as the contractors, are working well together on the project. There are certainly important technical difficulties still to overcome.

  1677
  and the precise way in which we shall meet the different operational requirements of the two countries will be examined further at a meeting between us and the French at Ministerial level next month.
  We then hope to embark on the precise project definition study by 1st May. This should last for six months and at the end of this time we ought to have a precise specification of the aircraft, including engines and equipment, which is to be built and a full development cost plan against which technical and financial progress can be monitored. We ought then to be able to proceed to the building of prototypes at the beginning of 1968, so that the aircraft can enter into service with the R.A.F. in the mid-70s.
  My hon. Friend asked a number of questions about the estimated cost of developing and producing this aircraft. We and the manufacturers have, of course, already done a number of detailed studies on this aspect of the problem. Indeed, it is fair to say that the cost estimating which has already gone into this project has been more detailed than that devoted to any other British or Anglo/French at this stage of its life.
  My hon. Friend also raised a number of technical questions and asked for a breakdown into constituent parts. This we have done for the AFVG in great detail, we have a wide range of experience in this field, including developing and manufacturing supersonic military combat aircraft—notably the Lightning and the TSR2. In many areas of work such as the numbers of designers and technicians required and in manufacturing effort such as the man hours per aircraft weight and the rates of flying at which this development can be conducted, good relationships have been developed. We believe that much more reliance can be placed on the efforts required than previously in the construction of similar aircraft.
  On the production side, similar progress has been made. Similarly, on the engine costs, we have related the cost of the AFVG to high performance aircraft engine cost such as the Spey and Olympus. The cost takes account of different equipment such as that for reconnaissance and strike versions. If these techniques had been available at the time when plans for the TSR2 and Con-
  1678
  cord were made they might have resulted in estimates which were very much closer and more in line with an appreciation of the costs.
  We have improved our control of this sort of development, and we have a project director. He has a branch in which is centralised the technical and financial responsibility for estimating and control of the project. Moreover, the AFVG has been going through a prolonged feasibility study phase because of the need to reach detailed agreement with our French partners and different United Kingdom and French requirements. This feasibility study has been done in much more technical detail than would have been the case with a normal United Kingdom project.
  We know that it is not until a project is more closely defined that we can get a true estimation of other development or production costs, but we have the experience of the degradations in drag and weight growth which have usually occurred during earlier definition studies. When we have completed the definition study stage during this year we shall be able to give more precise figures as to the actual costs. We shall have up-to-date costs as to estimates and take into account the final specification of the aircraft including its engines and equipment.
  If the sort of aircraft we have defined cannot be bought within the target we have in mind, which is a realistic target meeting our requirements within a certain cost figure, we shall certainly have to review our decision. My hon. Friend and the House would generally agree that this is a sensible course to adopt but we have not yet reached that stage and we are doing a great deal of work to ensure that when we make a decision on the next stage we shall have all the available information to make a sensible decision.
  My hon. Friend asked about the export potential, especially in relation to the Germans. We are hoping slightly to "bend" the design of aircraft to meet the requirements of customers. We are taking all possible steps to inform prospective customers of our plans and what we can offer them. For example, an important presentation was made to the Dutch last month and the Germans were very interested indeed in our proposals.
  I am glad that General Steinhoff, the Chief of Air Staff of the German Air

  1679
  Force, is visiting B.A.C., Warton, and Rolls-Royce this week in connection not only with this project, but also with the Jaguar. The House may be assured that we shall continue with the French to press forward with the idea of aligning Germany with the project. The object of the visit is fact-finding. We are anxious to provide information to General Steinhoff and any proposals he can make will be considered. The time scale is very important if we are to have a chance of capitalising on the export potential. I hope very much that we shall be able to complete the aircraft on the time scale laid down. This gives a very good chance indeed to compete against other aircraft which may be produced in the United States.
  The next question that my hon. Friend asked was about the break clause—and allied with this the development by Marcel Dassault of the Mirage 3G. There is, of course, a break clause in all our agreements with the French on these aeronautical projects except the Concord. And I think that the House would have it so. In the case of the VG project, either side can withdraw without notice up to 1st June, 1967. Thereafter, withdrawal becomes effective after 14 months of the date of having given first notice of the intention to withdraw.
  The provisions are part of the understanding which was reached by my right hon. Friends with the French in May, 1965. Because, however, the VG project has been slower to get under way than we first anticipated we and the French are now discussing putting back the date
  1680
  of 1st June, 1967, up to which time, as I have explained, either side can withdraw without notice.
  The fact that Marcel Dassault are building a prototype VG aircraft—the Mirage 3G—seems to me to have nothing to do with these withdrawal provisions. The 3G is a single-engined VG aircraft—and because it is single engined it is not favoured by either the French or the British staff. It does, however, provide valuable experience and M. Messmer has already stated that this will be put freely at the disposal of both sides.
  My hon. Friend referred to various projects of development of a sophisticated aircraft of the character of the AFVG. I can assure him that there is immense experience both within B.A.C. itself and within the Ministry for the development of a swing-wing plane of this character. I am sure that it is well within the capability of the British aircraft industry and our engine firms to produce an aircraft to the specification that is required by the Royal Air Force.
  Mr. Dalyell: Do I understand that it is the hope of the Government that no firm decision will be arrived at until such time as the project definition study has been completed even though that may be later in the year?
  Mr. Stonehouse: We are proceeding to the projects definition study provided that we have the assurance I have described.
  The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock, pursuant to Order.
  Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Dairy Farmers
    Mr. Monroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to improve the financial return of dairy farmers.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The award for milk at the recent Farm Price Review is equivalent to 1½d. a gallon on the guaranteed price and will increase the financial return of dairy farmers by nearly £14 million. Dairy farmers will also benefit from the higher rates of calf subsidy.
    Mr. Monro: That is all very well, but does the Minister realise that, with the loss of the fertiliser subsidy and the ploughing grant, dairy farmers will be as badly off as ever?
    Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be so carping as to say, "That is all very well". This award has been welcomed by the producers. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more objective.

    Hill Farmers
    Mr. Monroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to improve the financial return of hill farmers.
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of impending bankruptcies among hill farmers, whether he will now take steps to alleviate their position; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peart: We have increased the rates of hill cow and hill sheep subsidy. The hill sheep subsidy is to be extended to flocks in the wider area eligible for hill cow subsidy and the date of payment is to be advanced. The calf subsidy and guaranteed prices of fat sheep and fat cattle are also increased. These measures will be of considerable benefit to hill farmers.
    Mr. Monro: Is the Minister aware that I do not think that he has given any thing like enough to the hill sheep industry after such a disastrous year as the past twelve months? Cannot he do more for the hill ewe subsidy?
    Mr. Peart: A careful study of what I have decided in the Review will show that this award, which has been welcomed by those in hill areas, will dispel the gloom which the hon. Gentleman seeks to spread.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the Minister aware that hill fanning is a much more long-term business than, say, crop production, and that confidence is essential? Is he further aware that confidence in these areas has been severely strained and that what is needed is a steady expansion programme rather than what he has been doing in the last two and a half years?
    Mr. Peart: I am aware that the problems of hill areas involve a long-term approach. That is why we have introduced a Bill partly to deal with the problems of hill and upland areas. This, above all, is why the award has been welcomed by those who know these areas well.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of the millions of pounds that we donated to the farming industry last year and in view of the continued dissatisfaction of the Tory Party, to help farmers further would my right hon. Friend consider going round the Tory Party with a hat?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The original Question is about hill farmers.

    Agricultural Profits (East Midlands)
    Mr. Godberasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why agricultural profits in the area of the East Midlands fell by 12½ per cent. last year.
    Mr. Peart: The dull wet summer and autumn of 1965 generally depressed crop output and increased the cost of the harvest. This reduced farm incomes in the East Midlands in 1965–66 below the record level reached in 1964, when farm incomes in this area had increased very substantially. Such fluctuations in net income, due to weather and other factors, are natural hazards of farming.
    Mr. Godber: We all recognise the natural hazards of fanning, but there are also some unnatural ones. Does the Minister consider that this year's Price Review will restore this cut, having in mind that the East Midlands area is largely arable and that the Price Review, whatever it has done on the livestock side, has done very little for the arable side?
    Mr. Peart: The results of the farm income survey in the East Midlands, together with other similar surveys, were fully taken into account in the 1967 Review. Although it is difficult to assess net income in the East Midlands in particular, I believe that they will benefit from the Review.

    Eggs
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he will take for the coordination of imports with domestic egg supplies.
    Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave the right hon. Members for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Rowland) on 15th February.
    Mr. Mills: Surely the Minister does not intend to allow this situation to drift on and on. It is his duty to give a lead, which he is not doing, on the control of imports. Does he realise that the industry is looking for this lead? Indeed, the Egg Marketing Board is looking to him to give this lead to the industry.
    Mr. Peart: It is contrary to international obligations to ban imports of eggs, or to impose restrictions on them. I do not see that any case has yet been made out for altering these arrangements. I have told the National Farmers' Union that if it can convince me that imports are the cause of the present low price, I am willing to review the situation. I think that this is reasonable.
    Sir H. Harrison: Will the Minister have another talk with the President of the Board of Trade, who has always taken a very rigid attitude about allowing what is relatively a small amount of imports of eggs to come in from foreign countries, because these imports affect the price of eggs in this country?
    Mr. Peart: This has been the traditional pattern of our trading relations. We have international obligations. If there is a case of dumping, the case must be made, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will consider it objectively.
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to implement the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Investigation for Great Britain into complaints by Western Egg Pasteurising Company Limited and a consortium of agricultural co-operatives.
    Mr. Peart: As I said in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on 7th March, my right hon. Friends and I have invited comments on the British Egg Marketing Board's draft proposals for new egg processing arrangements. [Vol. 742, c. 256.]
    Mr. Pardoe: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I remind him that 90 per cent. of the egg market will be carved up by the present monopolist-holders? Does he believe that this is in keeping with the recommendation of the Committee of Investigation, which recommended that the whole system should be based on open tender?
    Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Member, who thanked me for my reply, should await the discussions and examination of the comments on the proposals. This is sensible.
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied by the level of profitability of egg production; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. The Government consider that there continues to be a danger that production of eggs will increase faster than demand and accordingly decided to reduce the guaranteed price after this year's Annual Review.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that present controls are causing a steady decline in confidence in the industry, and that this is bound to be increased by the cut in the guarantee price? Would he not agree that there is very considerable danger that before long

    1685
    there might be a shortage of home supply?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot accept that there is a decline of confidence in the industry. There was a danger that output would outstrip demand. I cannot allow this. No Minister, of whatever political complexion, could afford to do so.
    Mr. Henry Clark: Will the Minister confirm that large grants are being paid by the Government to multi-million factory units in Scotland?
    Mr. Peart: I think that it is true that aid has been given in certain regions for certain concerns. I do not know whether the hon. Member is against this or for it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average age of eggs bearing the Lion mark when purchased by consumers.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): No precise information is available on this point.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has studied the letter on egg production from the Chairman of the Leighton Buzzard National Farmers' Union, sent to him by the hon. Member for South Bedfordshire; and what steps he is taking to stimulate home egg production.
    Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir, and I have written to the hon. Member. As last week's Annual Review White Paper makes clear, the Government consider that the underlying trend for production of eggs to rise faster than demand continues to be the danger.
    Mr. Roberts: Although it is very difficult to act because of the dangers of production exceeding demand, would my right hon. Friend consider taking action to increase consumer demand for eggs and thus maintain the viability of this side of agriculture?
    Mr. Peart: The question of publicity to encourage people to eat more eggs is something with which the Egg Board is concerned. We must leave it to the Board.

    Bacon
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the fall in home production of bacon in the three months October, November and December, 1966, compared with 1965; and what he is doing to arrest this trend.
    Mr. Peart: Home production of bacon was 10,800 tons lower in October/December, 1966, than in the same period of 1965. We have taken action at the Annual Review to stimulate pig production; and the temporary assistance to curers introduced last December has arrested the decline in bacon production. Discussions are proceeding on long-term arrangements to stabilise returns to the bacon industry, and I will make a further statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Mills: Surely the Minister must come clean. What are his intentions in the future for the bacon industry? What advice is he giving to the industry? Does he realise that the industry itself wants to put its own house in order as regards rationalisation and quality of bacon?
    Mr. Peart: When people talk about putting their own houses in order, it is for them to do it. I have helped. I am now having discussions with the bacon industry. I cannot make a decision until I have had all necessary consultations. I decided at the Annual Review—the supply of pigs is relevant to this—to give a stimulus. Producers will get 1s. 11d. a score. This should have the hon. Gentleman's approval.

    Cattle and Sheep
    Mr. Godberasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he will take for the coordination of imports with domestic beef supplies.
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the Government's import policy to prevent a repetition of over-supply of cattle and sheep which occurred in the markets last summer.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he intends to take to co-ordinate imports with domestic supplies of beef.
    Mr. Peart: Prospective supplies from all sources are regularly reviewed with our major suppliers in the Meat Study Group, and on present prospects imports in carcase form should be reasonably well matched to demand. As for fat cattle imports from the Irish Republic, I have had discussions with the Minister there and will be meeting him again. We are both anxious to avoid a repetition of last year's difficulties.
    Mr. Godber: Will not the Minister accept that something more needs to be done in this regard? In his Price Review White Paper, he admits the need to restore confidence. He has done something in regard to prices. He must do something more in regard to co-ordination of imports, because this was one of the major factors last year, as I am sure he realises. Something more must be done to co-ordinate.
    Mr. Peart: This is precisely what I have said. I am glad that it is accepted that I have done something as regards prices. The Opposition are coming on. The marketing side and phasing are important. It is not an easy problem. I am in touch with my counterpart in the Irish Government and have had discussions with him on this. The Irish fat position on our market has been an important factor.
    Mr. Loveys: Is not the Minister aware that his Answer indicates no real attempt to prevent a repetition of the over-supply of cattle and sheep, which depressed the market so seriously last summer? Whether or not we enter the E.E.C., does not he agree that a similar system to that operated in the Community is the only way of ensuring well balanced supplies in the future?
    Mr. Peart: We are not yet in the E.E.C. I recognise that the question of the levy system operated by the E.E.C. was a matter which affected our position, because of the closure of Community markets to Irish supplies and also to supplies from this country. This is something which we are discussing in the Kennedy Round, as the hon. Gentleman must know. I am anxious to have an agreement whereby we have this greater liberalisation; this could affect our position.
    Mr. Godber: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, are we to assume that he
    1688
    expects a solution to emerge from the Kennedy Round? If not, will he do something about definitely protecting the home producer from the effects of the Common Market levy?
    Mr. Peart: As I have always told the right hon. Gentleman, he should not indulge too much in hypothetics, and he should recognise that we are conducting serious negotiations at Geneva and inevitably meat supplies and trading in the meat industry are involved. I cannot tell hon Members the outcome. All that I have said is that I hope that we shall have a successful conclusion.

    Foot-and-Mouth Disease
    Mr. Stodartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of what persons he made inquiries, in order to elucidate the rights and wrongs of the allegations made about the suffering caused to animals during the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Northumberland, other than of those who had acted as his agents in one capacity or another.
    Mr. Peart: I undertook to inquire into certain allegations reported by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). In doing this I accepted that his statements correctly reflected the allegations made to him. I am willing to consider comments from any of those concerned if they wish to amplify their statements in the light of my report; and I am now examining further observations from one fanner which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed sent to me last week.
    Mr. Stodart: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this is a step in the right direction? Was it not his intention that the inquiry should get all the facts and allay the criticism and anxiety? Does he not agree that the absence of statements from shepherds and so on who are reported in the newspapers to have made allegations deprives the report of much valuable information?
    Mr. Peart: I am anxious to do what is right here. I am glad that the hon. Member accepted what I said in my reply. I took the statements at their face value and have given my detailed comments on them. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to interview constituents and

    1689
    other witnesses behind an hon. Member's back. I refuse to do that.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to use troops trained to meet this emergency to deal with outbreaks of foot and mouth disease.
    Mr. Peart: This is one of a number of suggestions made to me by the National Farmers' Unions which are being examined.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is the Minister aware that considerable advantages are to be gained from considering the suggestion, not least because it might have helped him to avoid some of his recent difficulties in this connection?
    Mr. Peart: This is a suggestion which we are considering very carefully.

    National Plan
    Mr. Stodartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what criteria he judges whether the increases asked for in the National Plan are being carried out.
    Mr. Peart: The Annual Review is the agreed machinery for assessing the progress made with the selective expansion programme. The recent White Paper (Cmnd. 3229) sets out the Government's review of the progress both overall and for individual commodities.
    Mr. Stodart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a few weeks ago the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, his hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie), is reported to have said that everything was going swimmingly with the National Plan, while he himself was seen and heard by millions on television not many days ago admitting that there had been stagnation in the past two years? Could we have some sort of orderly assessment of the situation by his Department?
    Mr. Peart: I cannot accept the hon. Member's wild statement. I have never said that there was stagnation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) can ask a question; he need not point at me. There has been no stagnation and no conflict with what my hon. Friend has said over a period of time since the publication of
    1690
    the plan. The plan is there. I have said that in certain sectors there was not the progress that we should have made, and I said that frankly in my own White Paper.
    Mr. Jopling: How does the right hon Gentleman explain the difference between his hon. Friend's statement that we were meeting our targets in the National Plan for everything and his statement in the White Paper that farm output was static?
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend said that we are generally meeting the target, which is true. In certain sections there have been increases and in certain sections there have been difficulties. I have been frank about this. That is why I have sought in the Price Review to stimulate the dairy herd, in particular, and also pig production.

    Wales (Lime Subsidy)
    Mr. Gwynfor Evansasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he takes rainfall into account in assessing the tonnage of lime per acre required by the soil of Wales.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): When advising on liming our staff always take into account leaching and local climatic conditions.
    Mr. Evans: Is the Minister aware that the great water resources of Wales, which are plundered and exploited by English industrial conurbations, exist because of the heavy weight of water which descends on our land in rainfall and washes the lime out of the land? Is he aware that in any case the tonnage of lime applied per acre in England over the past 10 years was 16 per cent. higher than in Wales, and will he allow that situation to be reflected in the lime subsidy paid in Wales?
    Mr. Mackie: I shall not delve into the early part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. It would be very difficult administratively to allow for the varying conditions all over the British Isles. I should not like to go into the technical details, but I am almost certain that even the low rainfall in Norfolk might on light land cause more leaching than occurs in some of the areas of which the hon. Member thinks in Wales. It

    1691
    would be too difficult to allow for climatic conditions in this variable island of ours in administering the lime subsidy—even for a Welsh Nationalist Government.

    Agricultural Workers
    Mr. Hawkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to slow down the decline in the numbers of agricultural workers to the rate suggested in the National Plan.
    Mr. John Mackie: The reduction suggested in the programme was 140,000 persons by 1970, but no precise annual rates were given. Although about 60,000 people have left since June, 1964, the rate of outflow fluctuates and is now declining. It is too early to say yet what the figure will be by 1970. This year's award gives further substantial resources for expansion in the industry, but it is up to the individual farmer to decide on his labour force.
    Mr. Hawkins: Whilst I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognised in his White Paper that output was static because of the labour force's declining, would the Minister tell the House how the Price Review has helped arable farmers and horticulturists, especially those producing root crops, to retain enough farm workers to maintain and increase production from these lands?
    Mr. Mackie: I cannot think that my right hon. Friend used the expression which the hon. Member used, that the output was declining because of the reduction in the labour force. We have only to go back over the past 15 years to see that a declining labour force has had almost the very opposite effect in agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
    Mr. Godber: Thirteen wasted years!
    Mr. Mackie: I do not suggest that that was because of the Government or any-once else. It was the farmers that did it. I am sorry, but because of the interruption of the hon. Member's hon. Friends I am not quite sure what the second point was.
    Mr. Hawkins: How does the Price Review help arable farmers to retain enough farm workers?
    Mr. Mackie: That point was put to me in the hon. Member's area on Monday, when I pointed out that it is amazing what has happened in the past in the mechanisation of dealing with root crops and so on. I do not think that the hon. Member or anyone else would like to predict what mechanisation there may be in the future, when we see raspberry pickers, cauliflower pickers, brussels sprouts pickers and everything else on the stocks at present. I think that the hon. Member is being slightly too pessimistic.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many Questions on the Order Paper and I hope that we can help each other by putting questions and answers briefly.
    Mr. Hazell: Would my hon. Friend agree that very largely the cause of the substantial movement from the land has been the low wages and earnings in the industry, that the farmers' representatives on the Agricultural Wages Board could have corrected that position and the increased costs involved could have been taken into account in the Price Review?
    Mr. Mackie: I agree that there is nothing to hinder farmers paying what wages they wish to agricultural workers.

    Wheat
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in increasing the proportion of home-grown wheat in flour.
    Mr. Hoy: The usage of home-grown wheat in flour production has increased over recent years, but the quantity used in any year varies considerably with the availability of regular supplies and particularly with the quality of the crop.
    Sir H. Harrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are some very interesting experiments going on with new types of machinery using a considerable additional percentage of English-grown wheat, and, so far as I understand it, the keeping quality of the flour is good. Will he watch the situation carefully?
    Mr. Hoy: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are looking carefully at the new developments which are taking place. I am sure that he will

    1693
    be pleased with the answer which I gave that the usage is increasing.
    Sir H. Harrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in growing Maris Widgeon wheat; and whether he will consider paying an increased guaranteed price for it.
    Mr. Hoy: I understand that the production of this comparatively new variety is increasing and that it may now represent 1 to 2 per cent. of the total winter wheat acreage. The answer to the second part of the question is, "No sir".
    Sir H. Harrison: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he watches this development carefully, particularly with the prospect of our entering the Common Market?
    Mr. Hoy: We are watching it very carefully, because this type could fulfil a very useful function.

    Expansion Programme
    Mr. Derek Pageasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the past two years in the agricultural expansion programme.
    Mr. Peart: This is set out in the Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees 1967 White Paper (Cmnd. 3229) published last week.
    Mr. Page: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if progress is to be stimulated farmers need assurance about their future incomes as far as possible, and there is concern about what their incomes will be if we go into the Common Market? Will he, therefore, take steps to inquire what farm incomes are in the Common Market countries, which is something that we do not know at present?
    Mr. Peart: The latter question is completely different from the Question on the Order Paper. I shall be delighted to answer my hon. Friend if he puts down another Question. I have answered the original Question. The White Paper is there. My Review determinations are designed to that effect.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Reverting to the original Question, can the right hon.
    1694
    Gentleman say how far short of his expectations production has fallen as a result of the stagnation to which he himself referred last Sunday on television?
    Mr. Peart: If the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper, he will see that I stated frankly there that in the dairy sector the herd has not expanded. I said also that because of the working of the flexible guarantee system over a period we have had a severe cut-back in pig production and, therefore, the Review was designed to stimulate it. I was frank with the House, and it is in the White Paper.
    Mr. Godber: If it is in the White Paper, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he did not refer his hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page) to paragraph 11, in which it can be seen clearly that the correct answer to the question was, "None, Sir"?
    Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to spread his usual woe and dismay. I am surprised at him.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his rational and enlightened approach to agricultural problems commends itself to hon. Members on this side of the House and to the vast majority of people in the country?
    Mr. Peart: I thank my hon. Friend, but I think that the House must be aware that hon. Members opposite are so politically prejudiced that they will not accept that this is a good Review.

    Horticulture
    Mr. Derek Pageasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the fact that horticulture is not included in the Annual Price Review products what assurances he has now given for continued security in the industry.
    Mr. Peart: Our policy is designed to help the industry by financial aid and by means of advice and research to make further advances in improving its equipment and practices both in production and marketing. We have extended the scope of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, are giving grants for new or improved wholesale markets and are

    1695
    introducing statutory grading schemes for certain important horticultural products. Developments within the industry are again being examined this year in consultation with the farmers' unions.
    Mr. Page: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while growers are most appreciative of the assistance which he has given them, naturally they are very anxious about their future should negotiations with the E.E.C. go ahead? Will he bear in mind that anxiety and the suspicion which many of us have that this is likely to be the hardest hit part of agriculture?
    Mr. Peart: As the House knows, I have never disputed that horticulture could be affected seriously by this country unconditionally entering E.E.C. I have certainly taken note of what my hon. Friend has said; one must bear it in mind.
    Mr. Stodart: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the one thing that he has not given the horticultural industry is continued security as a result of decreasing the fertiliser subsidy and allowing the prices of fertilisers to increase, all of which are thoroughly important to the industry?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the fertiliser subsidy could not go on at the high rate at which it had been running, and action had to be taken. This has been accepted by the industry. He knows, too, that I have already done the things which I mentioned in my reply. I am anxious to have a very competitive horticultural industry.

    Beef Production
    Mr. Loveysasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards increasing beef production to the maximum extent of technical possibilities.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution has been made by the dairy herd to the increase in beef production called for in the National Plan.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the increase in beef production asked for in the National Plan; and what was the
    1696
    production of beef in the calendar years 1964, 1965, and 1966, respectively.
    Mr. Peart: Under the selective expansion programme, we are looking for an increase in beef production to the full extent of the technical possibilities. The beef herd has continued to expand. More calves have been retained, although calf slaughterings have gone up recently. But the dairy herd has not expanded. Home-fed production of beef in the calendar years 1964, 1965 and 1966 was, respectively, 828, 767 and 809 thousand tons, excluding exports of live cattle and of carcase beef. After considering all these factors during the Annual Review I concluded that additional assistance to certain sectors was needed. This is why I made the award I did.
    Mr. Loveys: Is the Minister not aware that this sphere of agricultural production is falling far behind the forecast in the National Plan, as admitted in last week's White Paper? While realising that the greater part of our beef must come from dairy herds, there are far less technical difficulties in increasing production from beef herds, which have only been assisted marginally, particularly with regard to the end product, by the adjustments in the recent Price Review?
    Mr. Peart: We took all those factors into consideration in deciding on the award. Looking at it, I think that it is well balanced, and it has been accepted by the industry.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that the dairy herd actually declined last year? Can he say whether it is still his intention that the herd should increase by 420,000 by 1970, or is that just one more target in the National Plan which has been buried with the plan?
    Mr. Peart: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that, if he is really serious about the industry, when we have made an award of 1½d. per gallon to producers and when a considerable amount of money is being pumped into the industry. I wish hon. Members would be more objective.
    Mr. Turton: Is not the position about beef more serious than the Minister makes out? His figures now and the figures in the Appendix to the White Paper show that in the three years during which he

    1697
    has been Minister beef production has been at a lower level than it was in the previous two years when Mr. Christopher Soames was Minister of Agriculture?
    Mr. Peart: I have given the figures which were asked for. I am anxious to have production expanding again, and that is why we have made the award which we did. We have increased the guaranteed price. We have increased the calf subsidy by £1. We have increased the beef cow subsidy by £1. We have increased the hill cow subsidy by £1 5s. We have made a milk award of 1½d. per gallon. What more do hon. Members want?

    Animal Feedingstuffs (Northern Ireland)
    Mr. Henry Clarkasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce the current high cost of animal feeding-stuffs in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hoy: The cost of animal feeding-stuffs in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain, is determined largely by the level of world market prices for the main raw materials. The prices of imported raw materials are outside the control of the Government and of the feedingstuffs industry. As the hon. Member is aware, however, the guaranteed prices for pigs and eggs are adjusted upwards and downwards in accordance with a formula based on feedingstuffs prices.
    Mr. Clark: While accepting what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he look seriously at the formula to see whether a better weighting cannot be given to producers in Northern Ireland, who get only one-seventh of the say in the formula but who produce considerably more than that when it comes to pig production?
    Mr. Hoy: All these things are done in consultation. It is true that farmers in Northern Ireland are in a different position from those in this country. We make certain other allowances to try to meet the needs of Northern Ireland.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the hon. Gentleman give any estimate of the effect on the cost of feedingstuffs if the United Kingdom enters the Common Market?
    1698
    If he has made that estimate, can he tell the House what it is?
    Mr. Hoy: I could not give that figure. The question was dealing with Northern Ireland, and I prefer to deal with that one more than the other.

    Pigs
    Mr. Henry Clarkasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live pigs have been exported to Southern Ireland in the six months up to 1st March, 1967.
    Mr. Hoy: 14,809 in the six months ending 31st January. I do not yet have figures for February.
    Mr. Clark: Is not the Minister aware that estimates have been published in many newspapers saying that some 200,000 pigs have been slipped across the border? Is he honestly content that the awards made in the Price Review are adequate to stop that flow, when only recently merchants have been offering 10s. to 15s. a pig more in Northern Ireland towns for smuggling into the South?
    Mr. Hoy: If the hon. Gentleman has proof of smuggling, perhaps he can supply it, but I am bound to tell him that any breach of regulations on pig marketing in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government.
    Mr. McNamara: Can my hon. Friend say what proportion of the subsidies for pigs and cattle in Northern Ireland is met by the British rather than the Northern Ireland taxpayer?
    Mr. Hoy: We have not divided it up in that way. We make the payments in the same manner both here and in Northern Ireland.

    Covent Garden Market
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the additional cost of the transfer of Covent Garden Market to Nine Elms resulting from the Land Commission levy.
    Mr. Hoy: Any levy payable by the Covent Garden Market Authority on the disposal of its existing properties will depend on the price obtained for them, which I am not prepared to estimate. The Authority is unlikely to be liable for

    1699
    levy at Nine Elms unless there is a long delay between land acquisition and the start of building operations. The new market is justifiable on its own merits irrespective of any sums that may be available to the Authority from the disposal of its Covent Garden properties.
    Mr. Allason: Was the Minister consulted about the wording of the agriculture exemptions from the Land Commission levy, which seem to be extremely complex and not to allow for cases such as the Nine Elms site which, although necessary for agriculture, is not agricultural land?
    Mr. Hoy: Of course, we were consulted about these decisions. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to equate this with facilities provided by local authorities, the two are not parallel.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Joplingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to increase the net income of the fanning community.
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to increase the net income of farmers.
    Mr. Peart: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement I made on 15th March announcing the Annual Review determinations, which have been welcomed by the National Farmers' Union.
    Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his record over the last three Price Reviews has been a classic example of stop-go? Will he repair his somewhat wobbly image by saying that he will not go back to his bad old ways, but in future will build up output and confidence in the industry as he should?
    Mr. Peart: Two of the last three Price Reviews were agreed. If the hon. Gentleman carefully examines the awards of those Reviews he will find that they were much better than those given by the Tory Government. This is the best award since 1948.
    Mr. W. Baxter: Am I to understand that the Price Review has not been issued to Her Majesty's Opposition? Hon.
    1700
    Members opposite do not seem to have understood the contents and appear to be the only people in the country who do not recognise that this is a very good Price Review which is accepted by the public as well as by the farmers.
    Mr. Peart: I thank my hon. Friend, I get the impression that hon. Members opposite have not read the Review White Paper.
    Mr. Godber: If things are as good as the right hon. Gentleman has said, especially with the other agreed Price Review which he mentioned, why has not the income of farmers gone up as it should?
    Mr. Peart: With this award there has been an effort to provide farmers with capital to invest in the industry, which is a good thing. We emerge much better from a comparison of the last three reviews with the disagreed reviews of hon. Members opposite. The Tories produce a good review only during an election year.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to provide increased home production to offset any payment under the levy payable if the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Peart: In the Review decisions announced last week I have given the industry the means to achieve the selective expansion programme. The programme was designed to meet our present situation, but, whether we join the European Economic Community or not, selective import saving based on increasing productivity is a sound agricultural policy for this country.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: In the first 15 paragraphs of the White Paper dealing with the Review which the right hon. Gentleman announced last week there are 15 different examples of decline. Does not that prove that this Review was very much overdue?
    Mr. Peart: If the hon. Gentleman says that the Review was overdue, I assume that he welcomes it. I am glad that he is more objective than his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Urwinasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an estimate of the effects upon the agricultural industry in the Northern Region, consequent upon British entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has now made of the possible effects upon Welsh agriculture of Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Peart: While some broad assessment can be made of the likely effect on particular types of farming of entry into the Community, it is not possible to give estimates of the effects on a regional basis. This is because there are wide variations in the types of farming practised even within a single county.
    Mr. Urwin: Does not my right hon. Friend's answer heavily emphasise the necessity for intensive research in depth into all aspects of our entering the Common Market before an official application is made?
    Mr. Peart: I assure my hon. Friend that the Department would assess very carefully what could happen if we had to take this step.
    Mr. Morgan: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give this matter his urgent and detailed attention as any association of the conditions of Welsh agriculture on a common par with those of England would give a very misleading picture and probably cause great injustice to Welsh agriculture?
    Mr. Peart: I accept that there are considerable differences—for example, the concentration on milk production—between farming in Wales and the type of farming carried on in the eastern parts of the country. We bear these differences in mind.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates will be the effect of accession to the European Common Market on British growers of lettuce and tomatoes.
    Mr. Peart: Assuming no change in present E.E.C. arrangements, our tariffs on imports of lettuce and tomatoes from the rest of the enlarged Community would in due course be abolished; our imports
    1702
    from non-members would bear the common external tariff; and our domestic production would be subject to the Community's regulations providing for common standards of quality, for aid in setting up growers' co-operatives, and—in the case of tomatoes—for support buying. Increased competition following the abolition of tariffs could be expected to result in some reduction in profitability.
    Mr. Blaker: Would the Minister give an assurance that in any negotiations, whether before or after entry into the Common Market, he will do his utmost to ensure the livelihood of such growers—for example, by transitional arrangements?
    Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the problems, unlike many of his right hon. Friends.
    Hon. Members: Answer.

    Earnings
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the incomes of farmers and farm workers compared with their industrial equivalents in October, 1964; and how they compare today.
    Mr. John Mackie: Average weekly total earnings of all hired adult male regular whole-time workers in agriculture in England and Wales in July-December, 1964, were about 71 per cent. of earnings for adult male manual workers in industry in the United Kingdom in October, 1964; and about 73 per cent. in the corresponding periods of 1966. A similar comparison of the average incomes of farmers and other self-employed persons is not available.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman had a look at the objective set out in the Labour Party policy for agriculture in which it was said that the industry was to move rapidly towards the industrial equivalent of income?
    Mr. Mackie: I think that we are doing that. At least, we have decreased the gap by 2 per cent., which is a higher rate than was the case in the last 13 years about which we have heard so much lately.
    Mr. John Hall: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the percentage return

    1703
    to farmers on the total capital employed in the industry?
    Mr. Mackie: Not without notice.
    Mr. Hazell: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the gap would be considerably narrowed if fanners on the Agricultural Wages Board were more generous about wages?
    Mr. Mackie: As my hon. Friend knows, the Wages Board is an autonomous body, and I would hate to start to give it advice.

    Fish (Price Scheme)
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made with the introduction of a minimum price scheme for fish; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in studying unresolved objections to the White Fish Authority's draft minimum pricing scheme.
    Mr. Hoy: I understand that the Authority is considering the objections it has received before deciding whether to submit its scheme to Ministers.
    Mr. McNamara: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. As it is generally accepted—with the exception of a few hon. Members opposite—that such a scheme would benefit housewives and the industry generally, can he give some indication of when we can hope for its publication?
    Mr. Hoy: We have to await the submission of the scheme by the White Fish Authority, and we can then decide what action should be taken.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will not impose a statutory scheme on the industry in face of the strong objections from certain sectors of it unless a substantial Treasury contribution is involved?
    Mr. Hoy: We will not impose the scheme on the industry, but perhaps hon. Members opposite will make up their minds about whether they are for or against the scheme. They have been
    1704
    swinging backwards and forwards for a long time.
    Mr. Baker: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that one of the many drawbacks to the scheme is that the Treasury and his Ministry are taking no part in it? If his Ministry took an interest and could persuade the Treasury to take some part, some of the fishing industry's objections would be overcome.
    Mr. Hoy: I do not think so. It was the present Government who for the first time agreed to the scheme in principle, and said that when the scheme was put up we would consider whether the Government should give financial assistance. We went further than that, because the statutory procedure provides for safeguarding all interests. There would have to be an affirmative Resolution before the scheme could be approved or otherwise.
    Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend promise to look very carefully at the problem of Treasury support for this scheme, because such a move would disarm the residual criticism of, or opposition to, the scheme and the amount of money likely to be involved in Treasury support could easily be found in the savings in operating subsidies to the fleet?
    Mr. Hoy: We would have to consider that when the scheme came before us. We have also to consider the recommendations from the Estimates Committee.

    Dairy Products
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he will take to co-ordinate the importation of dairy products with home production.
    Mr. Peart: Butter imports are regulated by quota. Broadly speaking, other milk products are freely admitted. The Government have at present no proposals for altering these arrangements.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that increasing quantities of dairy products are being dumped in this country from Europe, and that skimmed milk from Austria is being subsidised at the rate of £100 a ton? Is he also aware that butter regulations are being dodged by milk products being

    1705
    presented in a different way, such as in butter oil?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Member, if he makes charges like that, must prove whether dumping has occurred. I have no evidence. If it can be shown that dumping harms our home industry, then we will look at it.
    Mr. Brewis: Is it not very disappointing that the forecast of home butter production is down about 15 per cent. this year? Why should this be so?
    Mr. Pearl: The hon. Member knows how we concentrate here on the liquid milk market. I am anxious to make certain that reasonable quantities are produced, but we have international obligations in this matter. We have a butter quota arrangement, endorsed by my predecessors, and carried on by me.

    Land, Milton Keynes
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reply he has given to the representations made to him by the National Farmers' Union about loss of agricultural land resulting from the development of the new Milton Keynes town in Buckinghamshire at the low overall density of 11·4 persons per acre; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Pearl: I have not received any representations from the National Farmers' Union on this matter, though I am, of course, aware of the strong feelings expressed on behalf of farmers on the loss of agricultural land at Milton Keynes. As to the overall density of the new town, there is nothing that I can usefully add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 7th February by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.—[Vol. 740, cc. 263–4.]
    Mr. Hall: In view of the estimated growth in population over the next 30 years or so, and the need to reduce to the minimum the loss of productive agricultural land, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that he ought to look again at the planned density for Milton Keynes, and other new towns? Will it not be necessary to increase the density considerably if we are not to lose a great deal more production land?
    Mr. Peart: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. I agree that we must be very careful about development in respect of good agricultural land. Our aim is to see that development takes place on land which is not so good. I will look at this.
    Mr. Stodart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that when cases of this kind arise, his views are always sought and that he makes those views known with considerable vigour?
    Mr. Peart: I can certainly give that assurance.

    Cows (Docking)
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to control the new practice of docking cows' tails in those cases where it is not required by any injury to, or disease of, the tail.
    Mr. John Mackie: My right hon. Friend is considering this matter in connection with his proposals for legislation on farm animal welfare.
    Mr. Body: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that this is the kind of practice which may be bringing dairy farming into disrepute? Is he aware that many dairy farmers would welcome legislation to deal with this immediately?
    Mr. Mackie: As a farmer who likes to look at his cattle, as well as accept the profits from them, I could not agree more. I would not like to dock cows and I am quite certain that a lot of dairy farmers feel the same way. We are looking at this under the animal welfare legislation which is coming forward.

    Strychnine
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the licensing system for strychnine poison for the destruction of moles adequately controls the use of this poison; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Awdryasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to alter the regulations relating to the use of strychnine.
    Mr. John Mackie: The retail sale of strychnine for controlling moles is restricted by the Poisons Rules to persons who produce a permit signed by an authorised officer of one of the Agricultural Departments. Permits are issued only to applicants who show that they need strychnine for mole control, and know how to use it. These arrangements are kept under review by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the Poisons Rules, and my right hon. Friend, and we are satisfied that no change is necessary.
    Mr. Morrison: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any consideration has been given to restricting the granting of licences to rabbit clearance societies only? Bearing in mind that strychnine is an extremely dangerous poison, can he say whether there has been any research into alternatives for controlling moles?
    Mr. Mackie: There has been a considerable amount of research into the control of moles. Meantime strychnine, unfortunately, is the best method. We cannot find a substitute. We are reviewing the rabbit clearance society situation, and will take into consideration what the hon. Member has said. We know the difficulty with strychnine if it is not properly used.

    Skin Diving (Shellfish)
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation to ban skin diving for shellfish.
    Mr. Hoy: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no evidence that such legislation would be justified.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that Britain is one of the very few remaining countries in the world which does not have this kind of regulation? Is he aware that there is a real danger of the extinction of shellfish, particularly in the south-western part of the country? Will he now instruct the marine laboratories, working for the Minister, to carry out a full study of the effects on shellfish life of operations in the vicinity of the "Torrey Canyon"?
    Mr. Hoy: I cannot answer for other countries, but I can say, on the available
    1708
    scientific evidence that we have, that skin diving does not present a threat to the shellfish industry. I can assure the hon. Member that scientific investigations are continuing, and we are keeping in very close touch with these. May I also acknowledge the co-operation that we are receiving from the organisation representing skin divers who are about to introduce a new code of good practice, which I hope will have a beneficial effect.
    Mr. Bessell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is really taking this matter seriously? Is he aware that many fishermen who are dependent for their livelihood upon shellfish are suffering grievously as a result of skin diving off the coast of Cornwall? Will he be good enough to look at this matter again, more seriously?
    Mr. Hoy: I have looked at this, and I do take it very seriously indeed. That is why I have called upon evidence from so many sources. What I have given to the House is the result of these inquiries. As I have said, I have asked the scientific workers to continue with their researches in this respect and to submit a report.

    Farm Accidents (Safety Measures)
    Dr. John Dunwoodyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to introduce further safety measures to protect farmers, farm workers and their families, in view of the increased number of people killed accidentally on farms in England and Wales in 1966.
    Mr. Hoy: Draft regulations requiring the use on agricultural tractors of safety frames or cabs designed to protect the driver when his tractor overturns will be laid before the House as soon as possible.
    Dr. Dunwoody: I enthusiastically welcome this announcement, but may I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that the time we have to wait for the regulation is as short as possible because frightening numbers of people are being killed quite needlessly in these sorts of accident?
    Mr. Hoy: I assure my hon. Friend that the time will be as short as possible—I hope not later than May.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I have

    1709
    raised this subject constantly in the House and that since Christmas there have been two further deaths in my constituency? Therefore, the matter is very, very urgent.
    Mr. Hoy: It is true that the hon. Gentleman and others have raised this matter over a long period of years. We are taking action and we hope that it will not be long before it is effective.
    Mr. Hazellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents in agriculture for the year ended 31st December, 1966; and information on the proportion caused by animals, machinery, or some other cause.
    Mr. Hoy: There were 113 fatal accidents and 9,352 non-fatal accidents in agriculture in England and Wales in the year ended 31st December, 1966. Three per cent. of the fatal accidents and 10 per cent. of the non-fatal accidents were caused by animals; 63 per cent. and 21 per cent. by machinery, including electricity; and 34 per cent. and 69 per cent. by other causes.
    Mr. Hazell: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. In view of the increased number of fatal accidents and the high level of accidents generally and the declining manpower, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will do everything possible to stimulate educational work throughout the farming industry and assist in the formation of safety committees under the umbrella of the county agricultural executive committees?
    Mr. Hoy: We are considering my hon. Friend's second point, but obviously safety on the farm must receive great priority. I assure him that we do everything we can—by leaflets, advertising, television, and so on—to try to bring home to people on the farms how important it is that safety measures not only are adopted but operate.
    Mr. Hazellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider the appointment of additional full-time Farm Safety Officers instead of the present practice of using Field Officers spending less than 25 per cent. of their time on farm safety work.
    Mr. Hoy: I think that the present arrangement whereby 42 full-time safety specialists have the part-time assistance of some 450 Field Officers throughout England and Wales gives the most effective coverage of farm safety work that is compatible with the efficient use of resources.
    Mr. Hazell: I regret to say to my hon. Friend that the workers in the industry are not at all happy with the present situation. Will he therefore keep an open mind on this subject when receiving representations?
    Mr. Hoy: We will keep an open mind. At present, this appears to be the best way of dealing with the matter, but we are prepared to consider any other recommendations made to us.

    Food Imports
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to encourage each person to buy 2s. 6d. worth more of home-grown food and 2s. 6d. worth less of imported food as a means of saving £200 million on food imports.
    Mr. John Mackie: The Government's general policy on "buying British" was given in an Answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 25th October last.
    So far as foodstuffs are concerned, we naturally hope that consumers will buy home-grown food wherever it is comparable in price and quality with food from overseas. The Annual Review determinations we announced last week were, of course, designed to encourage British farmers to supply more of the food we want, on competitive terms.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Would the hon. Gentleman give further consideration to the possibility of a publicity campaign because this is one sphere in which a policy of exhortation would probably be effective?
    Mr. Mackie: The publicity campaign which the hon. Gentleman envisages would, I think, be the concern of the various marketing boards and other bodies. We can take the example of how the Danish bacon importers do it. The

    1711
    general policy is that which the Prime Minister put forward recently
    Mr. Godber: Since the hon. Gentleman talks of example, will he ask the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee to ensure that the Catering Department buys English eggs and not Danish eggs as it has been doing recently?
    Mr. Mackie: I will draw my hon. Friend's attention to that remark.

    Farm Output
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the target for the expansion of home farm output set out in the National Plan still represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir. The Government have made this clear in the Annual Review White Paper published on 15th March.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the negligible progress made in achieving this target, would the Minister consider moving more towards a system of levy control of imports to enable the farmer to get an adequate return from the market which he has not been able to get owing to the Government's failure to provide adequate control?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman, who asks me to put on levies, is not addressing himself to the Question. He has asked me about the target for the expansion programme. If he reads my White Paper and looks at the award, he will see that we stand by the selective expansion programme.

    Land Drainage
    Mr Brewisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the increase in costs of tile draining an acre of agricultural land in the last five years; and what extra assistance has been made available to farmers carrying out land drainage.
    Mr. John Mackie: In England and Wales the average cost per acre has risen from £35 in 1961–62 to £42 in 1965–66. I am informed that in Scotland the corresponding figures are £44 and £55. Field drainage grants cover half the cost of approved schemes and the Exchequer has, therefore, borne half the increase.
    1712
    In addition, the Agriculture Bill which was recently before the House proposes a supplement of 10 per cent. for the drainage of hill land.
    Mr. Brewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the keeping of land in good heart is very important, but that in the Review his right hon. Friend has found it necessary to cut the fertiliser subsidy and the ploughing grant? Will he consider whether more assistance towards drainage would be a good thing in a future Review?
    Mr. Mackie: I agree with the hon. Member that one of the best things to do in farming is to keep the land in good order by drainage and using fertilisers. An average of 50 per cent. in drainage grant is, however, very good, and in hill areas the figure can be a little more with the 10 per cent. supplement, which, I am sure, will help the areas of which the hon. Member is thinking.

PRICES AND INCOMES (WHITE PAPER)
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stewart. Statement.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. As the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Policy has not been available until this very minute, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is possible for the sitting of the House to be suspended for a short period to allow hon. Members to get the White Paper and to read it before we hear the statement by the Minister?
May I also ask whether, in future, the Government will make White Papers available to hon. Members at least an hour before statements on them are to be made?
Mr. Ogden: Further to that point of order. I understand that the White Paper is not available in the Vote Office.
Hon. Members: Yes, it is.
Mr. Speaker: The question of availability of papers before statements on them are given is a matter which the hon. Member must take up with the Government, and not with Mr. Speaker.
The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With permission, I wish to make a statement.

1713
The Government have been considering in consultation with representatives of management and trade unions the lines on which the prices and incomes policy should develop after the end of June. I am laying before the House this afternoon a White Paper summarising our views on this question. But the House will wish to have a brief indication of the main points in it.
The essence of prices and incomes policy is that growth of money incomes should be related to growth of real wealth, and that movements of prices should give adequate return to producers while ensuring that consumers and workers share in the benefits resulting from improved methods of production. The value of such a policy is that it can give everyone in all walks of life and every place of work a clear interest in increased efficiency; and that it can so safeguard our balance of payments as to make possible sustained economic growth and a high level of employment.
During the last six months of last year the policy took the form of standstill; at present, it takes the form of severe restraint. These forms are a temporary product of necessity. As growth proceeds, prices and incomes policy can become less restrictive till it reaches its full stature as one of the instruments for ensuring that wealth is more efficiently produced and more justly shared. We have yet to reach that stage; but after the middle of this year it will be right to have more flexible arrangements than those now in force.
On the prices side, the Government attach great importance to continued efforts to restrain price increases and to encourage price reductions. The criteria which should govern price behaviour will be those laid down in the White Paper of April, 1965 (Command 2639), which were agreed between Government, management and unions. A necessary part of prices policy is that the voluntary arrangements for early warning of proposed increases should continue to apply and where appropriate we will be discussing development of the arrangements with the Confederation of British Industry and interested trade associations.
On the incomes side it would be inappropriate in our present economic circumstances to reintroduce a positive norm on the lines of the annual norm of
1714
3 to 3½ per cent. which prevailed up to July, 1966. During the 12 months beginning on 1st July next we do not think any group of workers ought to expect to receive an increase in pay simply and solely as a result of the passages of time. Any proposed increase ought to be justified against specific criteria. As in the case of prices, these will be the less restrictive criteria which were laid down in the White Paper of April, 1965. The White Paper which I am presenting to the House this afternoon also draws attention to certain additional considerations which need to be taken into account.
The continuation and development of the voluntary early warning arrangements for pay are of great importance. We welcome the decision of the T.U.C. to strengthen its own arrangements for securing notification and vetting of pay claims. A successful prices and incomes policy depends on a wide measure of agreement between Government, management and unions. It is our intention to encourage the voluntary operation of the policy, and in this context we attach great importance to the rôle of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.
As the House is aware, Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act will expire on 11th August, 1967. The Government's objective is to achieve a return to full reliance on a voluntary operation of the policy as quickly as possible. On the matter of reserve powers the Government are consulting further with the C.B.I. and T.U.C. and I shall make a further statement after Easter.
I do not underestimate the problems of achieving an effective policy for productivity, prices and incomes, but I believe that the whole nation now recognises the need for such a policy and will not be content to return to a so-called "free-for-all" which is, in fact, injurious to all, and which strikes its hardest blows at those who are least able to defend themselves.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Is the First Secretary of State aware that that statement is about as clear as mud to the House? Would he agree that it is less than half a statement, because what we are anxious to know are the Government's plans for legislation? In considering that and the consultations that the right hon. Gentleman will be having, will he take into

1715
account the view, which is strongly held not only on one side of the House, that the time has come for the Government to abandon the attempt to enforce a wage policy by statutory means?
Beyond that, may I ask the First Secretary two questions? First, on the sentence which begins, "As growth proceeds"—which is slightly comic, perhaps, in present circumstances—when the right hon. Gentleman suggests that we should return for criteria to the White Paper of April, 1965, how does he reconcile the criteria of that Paper which were in the light of a norm of 3 to 3½ per cent. with the criteria which he is suggesting today and in his new White Paper, which I have not had time to study, for a period of nil growth and nil norm?
The most notable omission from the First Secretary's statement seems to be any reference to the lower-paid worker. Is this to be found in the White Paper, or is it a change of policy? Has the right hon. Gentleman accepted the view, which I put to him last time we discussed these matters, that it is not possible to deal with the problems, many of which arise through family circumstances, of the lower-paid worker through the wage structure, but that if he wishes to move in this sector he should rely upon the social security system?
Mr. Stewart: As I made quite clear, this is not a statement on the subject of powers. It is a statement—and it was necessary to make a statement—on the questions of norm and criteria because that is needed for the guidance of those who will be engaged in wage negotiations. The other statement will follow later.
This is not a period, as the right hon. Gentleman described it, of nil growth. We certainly hope and expect to see a period of faster growth than we now have. [Laughter.] This is not a period of nil growth. If the right hon. Gentleman studies both this White Paper and the earlier one, he will find that this is clearer to those who study it than he supposed. He will find that there is no difficulty about reconciling what I have said about the criteria with the decision that we have had to take about the norm.
We are proceeding first from standstill, where there were no increases except in
1716
a few very restricted cases, to severe restraint, where increases are allowed if they are in conformity with strictly drawn criteria, and next to a period where increases can be permitted in accordance with more generous criteria. I believe that in the next stage after that one can also think of more generous criteria and of a positive norm, but this is something on which we must proceed by stages.
As to powers, the right hon. Gentleman asked me to take into account the views held about the methods by which the policy can be carried out. I wonder whether he agrees with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that policy in these matters ought to be carried out simply by restricting demand?
Mr. Iain Macleod: What about the lower-paid workers?
Mr. Stewart: That, again, will be familiar to those who have read the White Paper. The criteria in the earlier White Paper contained a reference to the lower-paid worker, and it is, therefore, also in this one.
Mr. Iain Macleod: I shall confine myself to a last point made by the right hon. Gentleman, as there are a number of other Members who wish to ask questions. I am familiar with the previous White Paper, and the criteria laid down in paragraph 15 thereof, but the right hon. Gentleman must agree that this begs the question. What is a reasonable standard of living, and who are lower-paid workers? Unless he defines these matters, the criteria he is putting forward now in relation to the lower-paid workers are meaningless.
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman could have been so familiar with the last White Paper, or he would not have had to ask whether there was any reference to the lower-paid workers in this one. That is what he asked, and it showed that he could not have remembered what was in the previous White Paper.
I accept the difficulties of defining the lower-paid workers, but I believe that with the experience we gather, both from negotiation and from the working of the Prices and Incomes Board, we shall be able to have a workable definition. Meanwhile, even during the period of severe

1717
restraint we have been able to make some progress in this field.
Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said that the T.U.C.'s decision on prices and incomes was an historic one, and as the T.U.C. policy stated quite clearly that it did not wish either a continuation of Part IV, or the activation of Part II of the Act, why is it that in the White Paper, which I have only just seen, the Government are proposing to activate Part II, which must, inevitably, lead to a clash with the T.U.C. and a very difficult position for the Labour movement?
Mr. Stewart: I agree that the decision of the T.U.C. about the development of its own powers in this field was an historic one, and a very important element in the development of prices and incomes policy as a whole. I have said that the powers will be the subject of consultation, but I do not believe, whatever views may be held on that, that this detracts from the value of what the trade union movement as a whole has been doing and will continue to do.
My hon. Friend complains that he has only just had the White Paper. This is due simply to the fact that it has been our practice in the House in the past, when a White Paper is laid, for a statement to be made at the same time. This does not preclude the House on a future appropriate occasion from having more detailed discussions.
Mr. Higgins: Will an increase be justified on the right hon. Gentleman's criteria if productivity in an industry goes up by 10 per cent. and the demand for the product being made goes down by 50 per cent.?
Mr. Stewart: If there is a situation in which labour costs are reduced, there will, prima facie, be a case for an increase, yes.
Mr. Maxwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the success of the prices and incomes policy has been most beneficial to our export drive, and to saving the £? I would like to ask him, on behalf of my constituents, in particular the railwaymen and the railway workshop men, whether these criteria will permit them an urgently needed wage increase which they deserve, and for which they have asked.
Mr. Stewart: I am certainly not at this stage going to begin applying the criteria all round to particular cases, as my hon. Friend must very well realise. But I agree with the first part of his question, that we have witnessed a very substantial improvement in the balance of payments, in our exports, and in the strength of sterling. I should draw the atttention of the House to the fact that by virtue, in the main, of commitments already entered into there is likely, between the middle of 1966 and the end of 1967, to be an increase in wages of about 6 per cent. over those 18 months. I think that this illustrates the need, on the one hand, for us to give continuing attention to improving productive efficiency, and, on the other, for having an effective prices and incomes policy.
Mr. Barnett: While one must accept that a free-for-all would be harmful, would not my right hon. Friend agree that no incomes and prices policy can be anything more than marginally effective? Would he therefore agree that what we need now is co-operation rather than compulsion if we are to get the growth that we vitally need?
Mr. Stewart: We certainly must have co-operation. It is true that the prices and incomes policy cannot, as a single instrument, deal with our problems. It must be part of the whole range of economic policy, but I believe, particularly in the light of the figure which I mentioned to the House just now, that it is at present an extremely important part of policy.
Sir J. Rogers: In his statement the right hon. Gentleman said that no increases should be granted because of the passing of time. Can he say what plans the Government have for dealing with the decrease in purchasing power of the £ as a result of the inflationary tendency in the economy, which grievously affects lower-paid workers?
Mr. Stewart: If it is a question of arguing the case of the lower-paid workers, it is argued on that criterion, and not merely on the passage of time. What I wanted to make clear was that at the present time, as distinct, I hope, from subsequent periods, we must stick to the point that claims must be justified in the light of specific criteria.
Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread and

1719
continuing distrust and opposition to any policy which seeks to convert the C.B.I. or the T.U.C. into a sub-contractor of Government policy? The right hon. Gentleman referred—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have speeches. Brief questions.
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the T.U.C. vetting wage increases. Who will vet the wage increases of those who are not unionised? Does he hope that the C.B.I. will vet price increases?
Mr. Stewart: There is no policy for making either of these bodies a subcontractor to the Government. The point is that the policy works most effectively where there is a wide degree of voluntary co-operation. The T.U.C. has offered and is practising that degree of co-operation. I agree that we would not get a parallel to that everywhere else, but in its own field it is valuable and should be encouraged,
Mr. Varley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to suggest activating Part and strengthening it even before Part IV has expired may prejudice and undermine the T.U.C's own voluntary policy? Would not it be better to wait and see whether the voluntary policy works before suggesting activating Part II?
Mr. Stewart: I have said that this is under consultation. It was necessary, I think, to begin that process of consultation at the present time, but we have still to see what results come from it. I do not, in any case, believe that it will undermine what the T.U.C. itself is doing, and I think that this was made clear at the recent conference of executives.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: In view of the supremely important rôle which the Government now propose to give to the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., especially in regard to the activation of Part II, will the First Secretary tell the House as precisely as possible his intentions with regard to the large number of important managements which either do not belong to the C.B.I., or, if they belong, recognise no particular loyalty to it? Likewise, are there not numerous employees who are not effectively associated with the T.U.C.? How are these to be brought within the ambit of a voluntary policy?
Mr. Stewart: It is not only with those two bodies that the Government have consultations—and not only with those two bodies that the Government are in touch on the actual operation of the policy. During the period of standstill and severe restraint we have made the contacts that have been necessary, and they have achieved the success of the policy during that period. We will continue in that way.
Mr. Bob Brown: I concede the success of the Government's policy in containing the increase in the cost of living, but does not the First Secretary agree that one of the greatest causes of irritation to housewives has been the excuse of S.E.T. and other Government taxation for increasing profits, especially in the distribution of food?
Mr. Stewart: I know that there have been some well-founded complaints on that score, but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, if we look at the general result, as reflected in the very limited increase in the index of retail prices—that increase including factors due to S.E.T.—we can say that the amount of abuse of this kind has been very limited.
Sir E. Boyle: What are the implications of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the White Paper for negotiations on teachers' pay? Can he say categorically that the Government will not now try to hold up negotiations on teachers' pay? Secondly, does the White Paper mean that the Government representatives on the teachers' pay negotiating machinery are to be rigidly bound by the criteria set out in paragraph 22?
Mr. Stewart: The criteria must be taken as applying to all increases in incomes, but it is not intended to hold up negotiations.
Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind the connection between large families and poverty, can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the Government are still considering dealing with the question of the lower-paid worker rather by an adjustment in family allowances than by an increase in wages?
Mr. Stewart: Any adequate policy to deal with this problem must contain in it some element of wages policy and some element of social services policy. The Government are aware of that.
Mr. Emery: If, in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, there is not an implication of nil growth, it is certainly only a case of a movement from the snail to the tortoise. What does he forecast as the suggested growth for the coming year? Is it anywhere near what is suggested in the National Plan, or has that been torn up, too?
Mr. Stewart: The rate of growth will not be that forecast in the National Plan, as I have said on a number of occasions. I have also informed the House of steps to be taken to produce a further version of the National Plan. But the point is that the rate of growth, if compared with the figure that I gave the House as to what was expected of wages, exphasises the need for great care in the administration of the prices and incomes policy.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an impression in Scotland that Scottish workers are not treated as fairly as are workers in England? In view of the handling of the N.A.L.G.O. dispute, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that these blunders will not be repeated in Scotland?
Mr. Stewart: I do not accept that they were blunders, or that, in general, it could be maintained that workers in Scotland were not well treated, or fairly treated, in comparison with others, for this reason: owing to differences in dates of settlements some Scottish workers fared less well than English workers while other groups were more fortunate, during the operation of the standstill. The White Paper states that one of the considerations that ought to be taken into account in the coming period is how people fared under the standstill.
Mr. Nott: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), if demand increases by 50 per cent. and productivity falls by 10 per cent., will the workers in the industry concerned be eligible for a wage increase?
Mr. Stewart: When the hon. Gentleman brings me details of an industry in which that has happened. I will give him an answer.
Mr. Murray: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that many people outside the House think that the Gov-
1722
ernment have been too easy on price increases? The letters that I have had have shown this. Will he take action to prevent unjustified price increases?
Mr. Stewart: I do not believe that this impression is borne out by the facts. If my hon. Friend is urging that we should have more stringent control over prices, that would be something to be taken into account in any discussion of future reserve powers.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the considerable injustice which has been done in the past to salary earners in industry? Does his new statement of policy allow industry to revert to its practice of regular salary increases? Since salary earners are on a ladder, would not this equate them with civil servants, who have been entitled to salary increases all the way through?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that we should talk of the process of regular increases, because the whole point of this argument is that these were not necessarily regular increases but increases given at discretion, and intended to be in return for the growing value of an employee to his firm. It was for the very reason that they were not regular and assured that they were treated differently during the standstill from those who have assured annual increments.
I agree that that differentiation bore harshly on some people, and it is for that reason removed in the coming period. But this puts an obligation on employers to consider their salary structures and make sure that they really are liable to promote efficiency.
Mr. Park: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is aware that the T.U.C. has stated quite explicitly its opposition to the implementation of Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act? Is he further aware that that opposition would be much stronger if the Government made any attempt to strengthen Part II? Is it not clear that the only practicable approach to an incomes policy is a voluntary one, and not one based on punitive restrictions and legal measures?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that one can draw the absolute distinction that my hon. Friend draws between a voluntary policy and one with restrictive measures.

1723
Any policy has to have behind it a large measure of voluntary acceptance. The point still under consideration is whether any kind of reserve or long-stop powers are necessary as well, in the interests of the great majority of people who want to make the voluntary policy a success. We must remember that in this argument there are very many parties—not only the T.U.C., but managements, the Government and the whole body of citizens.
Mr. Robert Carr: Since such meaning as the statement has hinges on the phrase "as growth proceeds", will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the projected growth for this year and for next year?
Mr. Stewart: No, I am not going to give a figure at this stage. [An HON. MEMBER: "None."] That is not so. There are good reasons for believing that there will be growth and that the rate of growth will increase, but I am not prepared at this stage to put a figure to it.
The point made in the statement is that the need for an incomes policy in general is, I believe, now generally accepted, with the exception of some hon. Members opposite, who prefer, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, to deal with economic difficulties by damping down. But while the need for an incomes policy is generally accepted, the extent to which that policy is to be severe or relaxed depends on the rate of growth. That is the point made in the Paper.
Mr. Roy Hughes: But does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the proposals to activate Part II may have a serious detrimental effect on the T.U.C.'s voluntary policy, because many trade unions supported that policy believing that the Government would give up their legislative power of veto and control of wage claims?
Mr. Stewart: I believe that the general view held in the trade union movement is that it is vital that the T.U.C.'s own part in this matter should be played, whatever its disagreement with the Government on other aspects of policy may be.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Why will the right hon. Gentleman not give an estimated figure for the rate of growth this year and next year? Does what he has just been saying mean that the
1724
Government's refusal to allow the pay increase to civilian employees of the R.A.F. at Aldergrove will stop in June?
Mr. Stewart: I am not giving a figure now because we are engaging with the National Economic Development Council on the studies which will lead to a fresh version of the National Plan. It would be better not to make pronouncements or prophecies in advance of those studies.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Would my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of hon. Members on the degree of co-operation which he has achieved by his patient and careful consultations with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.? Would he give the House a clear undertaking that he will work for the same high degree of co-operation with Members of the House by consulting us before he issues any proposals for strengthening legislation?
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I have endeavoured at every stage to make this the subject of the fullest possible consultation. I have been conscious during that time that very many particular interests represented in the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. and in other bodies have their claims and their worries about this, but these must all be studied in perspective with the general interest of the community that we shall be able to prevent runaway inflation, that we shall not throw away the advantages which we have gained in our balance of payments and our general economy and that we shall not be driven back again to a situation in which some people may have to suffer from unemployment because others, perhaps better paid, have not been prepared to exercise restraint over wages.
Mr. Hall-Davis: In view of the fact that many people have suffered a fall in their real standard of living of 5 per cent. since 1965, does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it quite inequitable that the passage of time should be disregarded as grounds for any increase for a further 15 months from now?
Mr. Stewart: I believe this to be a necessary step at present. It is no good trying to get out of difficulties like this by the provision simply of larger money incomes, which, in the end, do not leave any of us better off.
Mr. Ashley: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will

1725
be no weakening of the Government's resolve to supervise the orderly transfer from conditions of severe restraint to those of freer bargaining? Is he aware that the Government's determination to maintain reserve powers until a voluntary system can be guaranteed to work will be welcomed on this side of the House and throughout the country?
Mr. Stewart: It seems that I am already engaged in consulting hon. Members on this question. I think, however, that I should only repeat at this stage that this is still under consultation. What the Government must be sure is that, on the one hand, they do not unnecessarily irritate opinion by demanding more powers than may be necessary and, on the other, they do not let the situation run away with itself, so that we come back again to inflation and stop-go.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tendency to give somewhat donnish lectures to the nation on these subjects ties up very ill with the Government's shameless increase in their own expenditure and the taking on of 24,000 more civil servants in one year? May we now have an assurance that, during the coming year, the Post Office, for example, will not be allowed to put up its prices completely regardless of the Government's general policy?
Mr. Stewart: These questions go outside the scope of this statement. The hon. Member will have opportunities to make his complaints on these matters and receive answers.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to make any specific reference to how profits and dividends will be treated after the period of severe restraint? Also, would he say how rents will be treated?
Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend will find these in the Paper. Perhaps I should not go over the whole of it now, but he will find that the whole field of incomes is covered there. I have considered further the question whether there is any unfairness to the House in making a statement when hon. Members have only seen the Paper. That could be avoided, of course, by not making a statement at all, but hon. Members have generally found it convenient, I think, to have an intro-
1726
ductory statement which does not, of course, in the least prejudice subsequent discussion after the Paper is read.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us unequivocally whether he intends to take legislative powers to enforce his norms and, if so, what? Does he agree with the Prime Minister's declaration, reported in The Times, that he did not intend to retreat to fall in with trade union demands for a wholly voluntary system?
Mr. Stewart: I have explained many times that this matter is still under consultation; I will not, therefore, give a definite answer now. The general line of the Government's thinking at the moment has been made known to the parties concerned and it is publicly known, but this is still a matter to be discussed further, before I make a final statement to the House.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy programme. Mr. Stonehouse. Statement.

BRISTOL SIDDELEY ENGINES LTD.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. John Stonehouse): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The House will wish to know that Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd. has repaid to the Ministry of Technology a sum of £3,960,000. The effect of this repayment has been to reduce the profits which the firm made on sales at fixed prices, totalling approximately £16½ million, under a number of contracts for the overhaul of certain types of aero-engines in the years 1959 to 1963. The repayment also includes an adjustment for the fact that, by mistake, double payment was made for certain work carried out on some of these contracts.
The Department's staff had called in 1964 for information about past costs before agreeing further prices. The attention of the senior management of the company was then drawn by its staff to the high profits and it very properly brought this matter to the attention of the Department.

1727
The cause of the excessive profits was that, in each year, the firm submitted very high quotations which the Department's cost-estimating staff did not detect as being above a fair and reasonable figure. I have been assured that the board of the company which, of course, carries the ultimate responsibility for this repeated over-quoting, has given it particular attention. The Department itself might have been expected to notice this over-quoting; I am satisfied, however, that to some degree this lapse can be attributed to pressure of work and staff shortages at the time.
This case emphasises how necessary it is that Departments should obtain the right to equality of information with, contractors when prices are being negotiated. This is an issue on which the Government have been in negotiation with industry for some time and on which, clearly, an early decision should be taken.
Mr. R. Carr: Is it not clear that the company concerned here has behaved in a completely responsible manner, with proper concern for the public interest? Is it not also true that the errors which arose are as much due to faults within the Department as within the industry? May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this does not emphasise the tremendous importance of coming to a decision on implementing the Lang Report, which has been in the hands of the Government for several years?
Mr. Stonehouse: These unfortunate events occurred when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were in office. It was their responsibility entirely that the Ministry's staff was inadequate to deal with the problem. This is a case of very serious proportions, where the junior staff in a company failed to co-operate in the right way with the Ministry in submitting quotations for repair work.
I am satisfied that the senior directors of the firm have behaved correctly, particularly during the last few weeks in helping to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. This is a much better situation than the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends had when they made a mess over the Ferranti case.
Mr. Carr: Is the Minister's implication about the last few weeks in relation to the directors' behaviour suggesting that
1728
prior to that they did not behave responsibly? Will the hon. Gentleman answer my earlier question about the Lang Report, which has been in the Government's hands for two years?
Mr. Stonehouse: The senior directors of the firm behaved correctly throughout and did their best to advise the Ministry of the way in which the matter was mishandled in their own firm. I pay tribute to the way in which they have brought it to a satisfactory conclusion. However, it has been dragging on for a long time, and the negotiations between my Ministry and the firm have been protracted. It is only in recent weeks that we have been able to reach a satisfactory conclusion. It has been helped by the fact that, unlike the Ferranti case, there has been top security, and we have not had the leaks in the Press which were suffered during the Ferranti affair.
The Lang Report is a matter for current negotiation between my right hon. Friends and the C.B.I. Discussions are still going on and we hope very much that the C.B.I. will respond quickly to the proposals which we have made to it.
Mr. Thorpe: Does this not show, on the Minister's own statement, that the Technical Cost Department is scandalously under-staffed and at the moment is not competent to do a proper job on quotations and costings? In view of the opposition of the Labour Party, quite rightly, to the Ferranti scandal, and of the recommendations of Lang's second Report, is it not time that something was done and that the House should not merely be told that we are waiting for decisions in the future?
Mr. Stonehouse: We have dealt very effectively with increasing the strength of the Ministry staff to deal with these very important questions. The complement strength of the engineers in the Technical Cost Department has been increased by 78 per cent., and the actual strength has been increased by 77 per cent. The technical grades in the Technical Cost Department have actually increased by 23 per cent. We can claim that we have improved the position considerably, I think.
Mr. Dalyell: The Government's handling of this matter contrasts favourably with the previous Conservative Administration's handling of the Ferranti

1729
affair, not least because there have been no leaks to the Press. Although the Bristol Siddeley board has behaved honourably in this matter, is my hon. Friend also aware that some of us connected with Bloodhound on the Public Accounts Committee are alarmed that the problem of equality of information with contractors has not yet been solved? We look forward to his doing something about it.
Mr. Stonehouse: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks on the first point. We have been glad that this matter has been dealt with in the strictest confidence between the firm and ourselves. That has helped this satisfactory conclusion to be reached.
I agree that it is vitally important that the Government should obtain equality of information and post-costing with these firms.
Mr. Ellis: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us represent men and women who depend for their livelihood on work with this firm? Can he comment on what the Government's relationships are now with Bristol Siddeley? Can they look forward to having the whole matter cleared up and to a bright future for the firm in association with the Government?
Mr. Stonehouse: Relations are extremely good. Of course, the firm has now merged with Rolls-Royce. On the general relationship, I can give the assurance which has been asked for.
Mr. Onslow: Is the Minister telling the House that Recommendations 37 to 41 of the second Lang Report have been implemented to the full and there is no danger of a situation like this occurring again, or does he wish to qualify that?
Mr. Stonehouse: There is little likelihood, now that the number of technical staff in the Department has been increased, of such a case occurring again. The Government will be helped tremendously if the C.B.I. will respond to the request which we have made to it to come to agreement on the proposals.
Mr. Rose: Accepting that the senior directors have acted honourably, would
1730
the Minister say how they can be absolved from ultimate responsibility for the actions of their junior staff?
Mr. Stonehouse: I am satisfied that, ultimately, they are responsible. But we are pleased that the senior staff have behaved correctly in reporting the matter to us as soon as it came to their attention.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Regional Government
  Mr. Whitaker: On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), I beg to give notice that on Friday, 7th April, he will draw attention to the need for regional government, and move a Resolution.
  Technological Achievements (Overseas Publicity)
  Mr. Rankin: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 7th April, I shall call attention to the need for more publicity overseas for Britain's achievements in technology, and move a Resolution.
  Selective Employment Tax
  Mr. John Hall: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 7th April, I shall call attention to the nonsense and anomalies of the S.E.T., and move a Resolution.
BILL PRESENTED
  COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND)
  Bill to make provision for the better enjoyment of the Scottish countryside, for the establishment of a Countryside Commission for Scotland and for the improvement of recreational and other facilities; to extend the powers of local planning authorities as respects land in their districts; to make financial provision with respect to the matters aforesaid; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. William Ross; supported by Dr. J. Dickson Mabon, and Mr. Niall MacDermot; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 221.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DECIMAL CURRENCY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the Second Reading of the Bill, may I announce that I have selected the Amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and some of his hon. and right hon. Friends, but that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) nor that in the name of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) and his hon. Friends.
  4.20 p.m.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This historic proposal that I now submit to the House has been under study and consideration in this country for nearly 150 years. During that period, a number of investigations have been made into the question of "going decimal", but the crucial work for our purpose was undertaken by Committee of Inquiry on Decimal Currency, which was appointed in December, 1961, under the chairmanship of the Earl of Halsbury.
  The Committee's terms of reference were:
  "… to advise on the most convenient and practical form which a decimal currency might take, including the major and minor units to be adopted;
  to advise on the timing and phasing of the change-over best calculated to minimise the cost;
  to estimate the probable amount and incidence of the cost to the economy …"
  of its proposals.
  The Committee's Report came out in September, 1963, and I take this opportunity of paying tribute, on behalf of the House, to the thoroughness with which the members of the Committee undertook their task. The Report is a model. Except on choice of system, on which the members of the Committee themselves were not unanimous, their conclusions command almost universal support. There is no question relevant to the subject of currency decimalisation in this
  1732
  country which is not dealt with and illuminated by them, and I thank them for it.
  As far as I am aware, the previous Government came to no conclusions on the recommendations of the Halsbury Committee in the period of rather more than a year which elapsed between the presentation of the Report and the General Election—maybe there were other preoccupations. It therefore fell to the present Government to consider and decide on this matter, and on 1st March last year I had the distinction of announcing the Government's decision that the country should change over to a decimal currency in February, 1971, and that the system should be based on the present £ divided into 100 minor units. That is to say, the Government accepted the recommendations of the majority on the Halsbury Committee.
  Nine months later, after a great deal of preliminary work and planning, the Government published a White Paper setting out their reasons in greater detail, and the work that had been undertaken. The White Paper dealt with the benefits of decimalisation, the choice of system, the new decimal coinage and the arrangements for the changeover, including the appointment of a Decimal Currency Board. Before I proceed with the Bill, let me say a word about the benefits.
  We all count from our earliest days in tens in ordinary arithmetic. In pound, shillings and pence, we count in twelves and twenties. So one of the largest benefits of decimalisation is that it will harmonise money and non-money calculations. There will be fewer chances of making mistakes. It will be easier and quicker. The shopper and the shop assistant will both benefit. So will the schools, where the teaching by the teachers and the learning by the pupils will be easier. Some calculations have been made that show that a very considerable amount of learning time will be saved. In offices, commercial houses and banks, calculations on the decimal system will be greatly simplified. The benefits will be felt quickly by all the nation.
  Where conversion has taken place already there is evidence coming in of the advantages that are being felt, and they will rapidly outweigh the actual cost of converting to the new system, which is itself substantial. The Government had

  1733
  to weigh those two elements against each other, and I think that there is little doubt—I believe that this is not in dispute anywhere—that the benefits are of such a substantial character, increasing year after year, that it is a proper decision to decimalise.
  When I made my original announcement in March last year, I stated that there was a period of five years to prepare for the changes. Some hon. Members opposite thought that period ludicrously long, but it is clear as time goes on, and as the Halsbury Committee had foreseen, that the Government were right to decide on a preparatory period of this length because, within reason, the longer the preparatory period the shorter the transition period of dual currency needs to be, and the Government intend to make it as short as possible. Four years of the preparatory period now remain. It is not practical politics to continue to argue about the merits and demerits of various rival systems—they have been argued for a century and a half. The time now really has come to bring the matter to a conclusion. The Government and others need to enter into firm commitments, and must be secure in the knowledge that the new decimal currency and coinage have been given the force of law by Parliament. This particularly affects arrangements for minting the new decimal coinage, and this Bill will give the Government the requisite authority for that work.
  The Bill deals with the basic policy issues, but it does not cover all the matters in respect of which legislation will be required before the changeover can take place. In due course, a second Bill will be required to deal particularly with arrangements for the transition period of dual currency, and with such questions as legal tender during the transition, conversion of amounts, contracts, and the amendment of existing Statutes which, of course, refer to the words "pounds shillings and pence". I cannot at this stage be more precise about the nature and scope of the second Bill, since these are matters on which the Decimal Currency Board will be consulting the various interests concerned, and will then make recommendations to the Government. It will be in the light of those consultations which the Decimal Currency Board will undertake that the
  1734
  provisions of the second Bill will be framed.
  I now come to the provisions of the Bill itself. Clause 1(1) deals with the central issues of policy—the choice of system. I dare say from all I have read and heard—indeed, it is hardly possible to get one's voice heard above the din—that this topic will occupy a number of hon. Members, so for that reason I will first deal briefly with the remainder of the Bill and then return to the question of the system.
  Clauses 2 and 3 deal with new coinage. There are to be three bronze coins—the new halfpenny, the new penny and the new two penny piece. These are precisely as recommended by the Halsbury Committee. There have been many complaints about the weight and size of the existing penny, and although I confess to an affection for it, I fear that I must agree that the complaints are justified. The new bronze coins will be smaller and less heavy than the present coins, and there will be a further advantage, namely, that the bronze coins will be in weight-value relationship with each other, so that the new two penny piece will weigh twice as much as the new penny, and the new penny will weigh twice as much as the new halfpenny.
  This will bring the new bronze coinage into line with the present cupro-nickel coinage, which is already in weight-value relationship. It will obviously be an added convenience to all those firms and businesses which handle coins in bulk—bronze, as well as the present cupro-nickel coins—because it will be possible to assess the value of a mixed bag of bronze coins simply by weighing, as is now done with the cupro-nickel coinage. The denominations of cupro-nickel coins will be five new pence and ten new pence. These coins will be exact translations of the present shilling and florin both in value and in other respects—save, of course, the design. They will therefore be readily recognised during the changeover period.
  In the Halsbury's Committee's view, two considerations govern the choice of coin denominations. They should be in a simple relationship with one another, so that payments may be made and change given easily for any amount, and they should also be chosen to enable transactions to be conducted with the

  1735
  smallest practicable total number of coins in circulation. This choice of coins fulfils those conditions. The Halsbury Committee, however, also recommended the provision of a coin of 20 new pence equivalent in value to four of our present shillings. The Government are not so far entirely convinced of the need for such a coin, although if demand for it should grow there is provision for it to be minted later. Partly in order to leave this possibility open, Clause 2 etxends the powers under Section 11 of the Coinage Act, 1870, to introduce new coins by proclamation.
  There is one entirely new coin which the Government propose to introduce, the 50 new penny piece. The reasons for this are economic. The present 10s. note has a very short life—now only about five months—and the costs of issuing replacement notes and withdrawing old ones are considerable and are growing. A coin, of course, is much more expensive to produce than a note, but it has a life of at least 50 years and, taken over that period, the coin is much cheaper. Careful thought is being given to the detailed specification of such a coin and this is still in progress. This is why details of the coin are not included in the Bill but it will be brought in by proclamation in due course if the House agrees.
  The only other point I make about the coinage provisions of the Bill relates to the Royal Mint. The manufacture of new decimal coinage is a tremendous operation. Nearly 9,000 million coins will be needed. It is hoped to complete the operation in bronze coins by changeover day. This will help the changeover to be smooth and the transition to be short. It is the Government's plan that with the new decimal coinage factory which is under consideration the Royal Mint will be able to undertake the whole operation but the Mint has other important tasks, including most valuable and remunerative export work which must be continued. Therefore, as an insurance we are allowing for the possibility that some of the new coinage might be manufactured elsewhere than at the Mint. Clause 3 has been introduced to permit this to be done, provided of course that it is done with the authority of the Mint. This is an insurance provision. The aim will be for the Mint to do this operation if possible.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the numbers of new 1- and 2-unit coins to be minted before change-over day correspond with the estimates in the Halsbury Committee's Report, or has he any reason to change those figures?
  Mr. Callaghan: I think they are the same, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury can deal with that point in winding up the debate.
  Mr. David Ginsburg: Could my right hon. Friend say something about the life of the new halfpenny under the new system? How long does he envisage it going on? Secondly, although this may anticipate something that he is to say later, could he comment on whether his mind is absolutely closed to having a yet smaller unit than the new halfpenny?
  Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend will find that I shall comment on both points later.
  Clauses 4, 5 and 6 and Schedule 3 deal with the constitution and functions of the Decimal Currency Board. The Board is already in existence and has begun work. I was able to set it up in advance of legislation because at present its functions are purely advisory but it will shortly have to assume a more markedly executive and co-ordinating role, and for this legislation is necessary.
  Clause 5 gives a very clear idea of the functions of the Board and indicates the vital part which it will play in this operation. We have been fortunate in securing the services of very able and public-spirited people to serve on the Board. They were asked to serve in their individual capacities but between them their experience covers the main interests affected by decimilisation.
  I come to the choice of system. The course recommended by the majority of the members of the Halsbury Committee and now adopted by the Government is extremely simple. Our present £ should be retained and divided into 100 minor units and a coin equal in value to half the minor unit should be provided for as long as necessary. That is the system and that is what all the argument is about. Before they came to this conclusion, which they did not reach lightly, the members of the Halsbury Committee

  1737
  considered an enormous mass of evidence. They heard all the arguments for and against a number of possible systems—25 at least. They held 57 meetings, studied 400 memoranda, examined and questioned 150 machine companies and saw 120 witnesses. They commissioned research on practical problems concerned with coin handling and giving change in respect both of the £ system and the so-called 10s. noble system. In this research they had the practical help of Post Office workers, housewives, naval ratings—I do not know why the senior Service was selected, but that always was a good thing to do.
  Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend shares my view. The Committee extended its research to bus conductors. In the light of all this evidence the Committee produced a detailed Report after 18 months' consideration recommending by a majority the system which the Government have adopted and which they announced a year ago.
  Since we announced our decision, and particularly since the White Paper was published, controversy, perhaps not unnaturally, has mounted, but fundamentally not one of the arguments put forward now is new in this long drawn out controvery—not one. Every one of the arguments that is advanced now was advanced to the Halsbury Committee and considered by the Committee at length. In the Government's view, after we had taken our time to consider it, as in the view of the Halsbury Committee—
  Mr. Lubbock: The majority.
  Mr. Callaghan: I keep saying the majority. I am at least as entitled to rely on the majority as the hon. Member is entitled to rely on the minority, although he is in a permanent minority.
  Mr. Lubbock: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me—
  Mr. Callaghan: Not for a moment. I am sure that the hon. Member will try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Then he can flay me to his heart's content. In the Government's view, as in the view of the majority of the Halsbury Committee, these old arguments put forward,
  1738
  chewed over, regurtitated, digested, regurtitated again, do not constitute a strong enough case for abandoning the £ as the major unit and substituting a system in which the values of both the major and minor units would be unfamiliar.
  Naturally the argument put forward by those who advocate other systems dwell on what their advocates consider to be their own particular interests, although I am not sure that they are alone in doing that. Paragraph 96 of the Report of the Committee said:
  "Organisations looked at decimalisation, as indeed we wanted them to do, purely from the point of view of the problems posed for themselves. We could not, and did not, expect that to give a balanced assessment of all the factors needing to be taken into account before selecting the best system in the general interest. That was our task."
  This is also the task of the Government. Our duty as a Government is to analyse the validity of the arguments and then to assess the weight to be given to them I stress this point. There is an important difference between agreeing that an argument is valid and in deciding how much weight to give to it in reaching a final decision.
  I should like to give my conclusions before I proceed to the detailed arguments. My conclusion about this controversy—on which I started, I must say, with a very open mind—is that some of the arguments of those who advocate the 10s. noble are valid. Most of their arguments, even where they are valid, are grossly exaggerated in importance. In addition, most of their arguments where valid are true only for a short period of time. Finally, whatever advantage they might claim to possess, they do not outweigh the long-term advantage of keeping the £ which is known and familiar here and throughout the world.
  The Halsbury Committee soon decided that the final choice must lie between the £-cent-½ and the 10s.-cent. or noble systems. I think that this view was correct and for this reason I discuss these systems only. I recognise that others have other choices. The Confederation of British Industry, for example, has put forward, after discussion with me, another system based on the £-mil. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) and some of my other hon. Friends have put forward a system

  1739
  based on the £5-mil. There is no limit to the number of systems which can be put forward. I repeat that the Halsbury Committee examined at least 25. There is something to be said for every one of them. We must make up our minds about one, and make them up now and get on with the job.
  I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon will forgive me if I do not pursue his case, which was not regarded as fighting out the final round in the same way that the 10s.-noble unit was regarded as fighting out the final round with the £. The C.B.I. has assured me in its last letter, as I think will be true of everybody else, that, whatever system is chosen, it will cooperate to make a success of it, because of the importance of decimalisation. I believe that we all approach the matter in this spirit.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to say nothing about the £-mil system, because support comes for it from very powerful bodies indeed?
  Mr. Callaghan: I do not intend to say any more than I have said so far. We could go on talking about this for hours. [Interruption.] I do not think that the House will bear with me for hours. I am now talking about the two major systems which have afflicted hon. Members, the two which really stand the test. After all, Halsbury did not rate the £-mil system nearly as high as the 10s.-cent. The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has illustrated my point that we could go on discussing all sorts of systems. This is why the Government have made a recommendation to the House. Somebody has to choose between all these conflicting elements and systems. It would be a gross dereliction if the Government said, "We do not care. Adopt what system you like. Choose anything you like". All that would happen would be that there would be a majority against any particular proposal at any one time. The Government had to come forward with their own proposal.
  The House will recognise from what I have said that I do not claim that the system recommended by the Halsbury Committee is entirely perfect or that
  1740
  there is nothing to be said in favour of any other system. Indeed, there is no perfect system. In this we differ from our main critics, whose case is suspect because of the intemperate and selective way in which it is argued.
  As I understand it, two main arguments are put forward in favour of the 10s. noble—first, that it is easy to associate the new coins with the old pounds, shillings and pence values; and, secondly, that there is an absence of a fraction. These are the two points I should like to meet. It is claimed that, because the familiar shillings are repeated in the new system, this is useful because a high percentage of day-to-day transactions are based on shillings and pence. It is claimed, next, that the 10s. noble has no fractional coin, whereas the £ system has a fraction which, it is said, will wake calculations more difficult. It is also claimed that, if ignored in practice or dropped in a short time, the new halfpenny will lead to excessive price increases.
  Let us agree that there are advantages. That is more than any opponent of the £ system has ever conceded to the £ system, but let us agree that there are some advantages of the 10s. system. How much weight do we give to them? That is the next question. Then we must ask: has the system any countervailing disadvantages? Let me draw attention to the selective Mature of the noble lobby. I am not here referring to another place. Those who choose to stress the inconvenience of the new halfpenny in the £ system reinforce their complaint by saying that it will be with us for a very long time and it is impure, as though there were such a thing as arithmetical immorality. However, when they want to stress the dangers of inflation, they say that the new halfpenny is so inconvenient that it will be ignored in practice, thus leading to excessive price increases.
  Even the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) cannot have it both ways to quite that extent in defending the system he proposes. [Interruption.] I am only explaining matters. It is the hon. Member for Orpington who is such an ardent advocate of it. The main argument put forward by the advocates of the noble is that it smooths the change-over period. This is really what they say, that it is easy. This is known—I apologise for using

  1741
  this dreadful word—as the "associability" argument. That is the word which has been foisted on us all. If I say "smooth changeover", perhaps the House will understand what I am talking about. What underlies this is that with the system using the noble we should retain more familiar coins and that prices would be more easily recognised. This is the root of the case for the adoption of the "noble".
  In case anyone thinks that I am being unfair, let me quote from the literature put out about this by the very powerful committee which is co-ordinating the campaign in favour of the 10s-noble. The Committee has been courteous enough to send me a copy of its propaganda. It says that one of the difficulties that it will find is that the familiarity of the public with the £ will go against the 10s.-noble. This is an argument in my favour. For the Committee this is a disadvantage. It goes on to say this:
  "The Committee decided that the most telling argument and the one which can be put across most easily in visual terms was the 'ease of associability'"—
  recognition.
  "This is not to deny that other arguments have equal force and should, of course, be deployed, but the main emphasis should be on associability."
  I take that up now. The Committee relies in its propaganda on the ease and smoothness of the changeover. So the first thing to be made clear from the nature of the Committee's own argument is that it is a temporary argument. The Halsbury Committee considered it. It devoted a whole chapter to what it called the smoothness of the changeover. In paragraph 179, which is entitled, "Associability: a transitional problem" the Committee says
  "The transitional differences between systems … should probably be measured"—
  in years? No. In months? No—
  "in weeks rather than months."
  Let us look at the way the Committee examined this. That is exactly what it said. [Interruption.] If I am challenged, let us look again at paragraph 179:
  "Associability problems are inescapable … the transitional differences between systems on this account"—
  the Committee was talking of the 10s. system and the £ system—
  "should probably be measured in weeks rather than months."
  1742
  Let us look at the way the Committee examined this and reached its conclusion. It was not a conclusion which was based on just asking a few people. The Committee conducted tests over a period with the co-operation of two groups of housewives, one using the new £ system and the other the new noble system. The Committee endeavoured to set up realistic shopping conditions, with students acting as shopkeepers and housewives acting as housewives. The Committee entered a number of reservations. Those who conduct scientific tests very properly always do this. The Committee said, "This was not like real life. Allowance must be made for the fact that a great deal of coaching was given".
  Its broad conclusion was this. The first group of housewives using the 10s. system was able to reach a standard of competence in five days equal to their standard in using the present £ s. d. Another group of housewives using the new £-cent.-½ system was able to reach the same standard of competence in eight days. This is what we are talking about. The advantage in the practice sessions turned out to be three days of half an hour's instruction in favour of the 10s. unit with an average group of housewives.
  Mr. Ginsburg rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I am in the middle of a very powerful argument and I shall not be turned from it. I have had to put up with a' lot of nonsense over the past few weeks.
  No hon. Member can be surprised that in the face of that evidence the majority of the Committee concluded that the smoothness of change-over argument was a matter of no more than a few weeks. But that is the major argument on which those who favour the 10s. noble continue to rely. Experience shows—all of us in the House have had it—that people soon become accustomed to thinking in terms of a new currency. Not every one of our citizens goes abroad, but an increasing number do, and they deal in an unfamiliar language with a currency in which all the units are strange. They rapidly learn to think in terms of the foreign currency for smaller purchases.
  It is a fundamental misconception to imagine that, during the period of dual currency working, people will forever be

  1743
  doing complicated mental arithmetic. That is just not true; it will not be necessary. Change giving is usually a matter of counting, not arithmetic. The situation in this country will be much easier than that for a tourist abroad because the major unit will remain the same if the Government secure the vote tonight. All existing coins of 6d. and above will have exact equivalents in decimal values, and the present shilling and florin will have exactly the same size, shape and value as before, becoming the new five and 10 penny pieces respectively.
  Furthermore, it is part of the responsibilities of the Decimal Currency Board to organise, as has been done elsewhere, a big campaign to familiarise the public with the new coinage long before D-day. It plans to use the full facilities of television, radio, films and newspapers. Some time ago the teaching profession offered its assistance, and I recently received from an enterprising schoolmaster an original copy of a text book he hopes to get published, teaching the new system. I was amazed at how quickly I could pick it up, and I think that it will be very easy.
  Shop assistants, bus conductors and everyone else who deals with the public in money transactions will be specially trained to help. Many aids can be given to the housewife, such as a small postcard-sized table which she can carry in her handbag or shopping basket, showing the dual prices. Labels in the shops will carry dual prices. Every price will have to be shown in the new and the old currency. Tables will be posted up in the shop so that the housewife can compare the old and new prices immediately. The Decimal Currency Board has already learned a lot from the experience of Australia. I do not think that that is a matter of difference between us. The same process would be needed for the 10s.-noble as for the £.
  I do not wish to make too much of the point, but in my view there is a considerable prospect of confusion in the noble system. Some of the values are so close that in terms of price changes the unwary housewife could be more easily deceived under the 10s. system, though that could happen either way, and a great process of education is needed. But there is no
  1744
  particular advantage in showing that the 10s. system would be so close to the present system that it would be easily recognised, because that could easily go against the housewife on many occasions.
  Mr. Wilkins: I should like to go back to my right hon. Friend's reference to people travelling abroad, when he suggested that they easily became accustomed to the different money. I happened to be in France quite a lot when the new franc was introduced, and I remember that almost every time one made a purchase one received one's change in both old and new francs. It was simple to fool the majority of people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it was, because there was a vast difference in the two values of the franc. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not underestimate the amount of confusion that will be caused.
  Mr. Callaghan: The House should understand, and I hope that my hon. Friend will understand, that that problem arises whichever system is adopted. It can be the result of going decimal, and that is why it is necessary to have a big educational campaign in advance, which the Decimal Currency Board must see is carried out properly. It is not an argument in favour of the 10s.-noble and against the £ but in favour of a substantial process of education in the meantime.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: I must get on. I assume that the Bill will have a Committee stage.
  Mr. Noel-Baker: My right hon. Friend referred to me. I am grateful to him for giving way. I understand that he does not want to discuss the "fiver", which I hope to raise later, and on which I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to reply. I think that my right hon. Friend would concede that that system would deal with the difficulties which he has just mentioned. The shilling would remain and all prices could continue to be quoted in shillings and other coins which would remain as they are.
  Mr. Callaghan: That system would have certain advantages but, it has disadvantages. The whole of my case is that every system has certain disadvantages and that the Government must make

  1745
  a choice between the various systems. One can say that a particular system gets over a particular difficulty, but one does not get over all the difficulties by adopting one system. I am afraid that that is the conclusion that anybody who studies the matter must come to.
  That leaves us with the question of fractions. It is true that calculations with fractions are inconvenient. But only one fraction is involved under the proposed new system—the half, and even that will not enter into all calculations. We are all used to calculations involving halfpennies, and we used to cope with farthings as well. How many of us felt that the farthings and half pennies were a crucial flaw in the pounds, shillings and pence system?
  The argument that the new halfpenny might be ignored in practice disregards the force of price competition. I emphasise, because I am anxious that this should not be misunderstood, that in choosing the 10s.-noble there would be no advantage, because in both systems the minor unit will be worth 1·2 pence. The advocates of the 10s. system agree that with it there will be the same difficulty about prices, or lack of difficulty, as with the £ system.
  The Government and the Decimal Currency Board must pay serious attention to the question of price changes under the new system. We shall need to consider what steps are necessary to prevent the changeover being used as an excuse for rounding up prices in the old currency to the nearest decimal equivalent. It will also be for the Board to look into the question of rounding down prices and make recommendations to us in due course.
  Let me turn to the longer-term question and the effect on prices of the value of the lowest coin. The Halsbury Committee considered with great care the need for the present halfpenny and the effect of decimalisation on prices. After investigation, it concluded that the use of the halfpenny was declining at a rate which, if continued, would result in its complete disappearance from use in the early 1970s. So, irrespective of decimalisation, the present halfpenny would be going out of use in a few years anyway, though the effect of decimalisation may be to speed up its disappearance. The Committee then considered the effect
  1746
  on prices after decimalisation of not providing for a halfpenny, and of introducing a system in which the lowest value coin was worth 1·2 of our present pence—the same under the system the Government propose or under the 10s. system.
  It concluded that if the halfpenny were withdrawn before decimalisation, and if all prices were rounded up to the nearest value in the new currency, price rises equivalent to about 1½ points in the Retail Price Index would take place over a period. That would be the maximum increase; all the assumptions made were unfavourable. But in practice many factors would work the other way. The Committee's judgment, which I see no reason to question, was that the likely result in terms of price rises on decimalisation, as distinct from the maximum result, would be about 2d. in the £—two of our present pence. It would be the duty of the Board and the Government to minimise those adverse changes.
  My conclusion is that with the 10s system some weight must be attached to the smoothness of change-over argument and some weight to the fraction argument, but very little to the effect on prices—and, to be fair, the 10s. advocates do not claim much for themselves in that respect.
  I therefore do not see how any reasonable man can give those considerations so much weight as to dictate the final choice of systems. Furthermore, the 10s. system has its disadvantages, notably all those that would flow from changing the value of the major unit. Those are not to be airily dismissed.
  Now let me deal with the advantages of the system the Government have chosen. Different people give them different weight. For many, retaining a familiar major unit is paramount; for others the main advantage lies in retaining a much more durable system. There is also great advantage in retaining the £ as a major unit of trade and so avoiding any break in our sense of values in money transactions larger than the transactions in day-to-day shopping for food, bus journeys, and so on. It is important internally. But there is also an international argument for retaining the £. I do not believe, and have never claimed—indeed, I am claiming the contrary—that international arguments are conclusive, but they cannot be dismissed out

  1747
  of hand. I concede that foreign bankers can count. I concede that they can multiply by two. But that is not the point. What cannot be dismissed is that a great volume of world trade today is done in sterling, although that trade and the transactions concerned never touch this country. Frequently, it is done in not very sophisticated circles.
  This trade is of value to our balance of payments and we should not therefore risk changing the basic unit which traders in those parts of the world have come to know and to rely upon, and to risk losing some part of this trade, unless there are powerful other reasons for doing so—and I have shown so far that there are no powerful other reasons for doing so. In all the years of controversy these reasons have never emerged.
  Secondly, the importance of a currency unit changes as the standard of living rises, and this is nothing to do with inflation; it is a separate argument. There need to be powerful reasons to justify a switch to a major unit of only half the value of the present system. That is why the majority Report of the Halsbury Committee said that to halve the value of the major unit by adopting a 10s. system
  "seems to go against the economic logic of history".
  A high value unit has a real advantage which should not be ignored. In a highly developed and industrial trading economy like ours, where many of the money transactions are large ones, wholly or mainly in major units, the lower the value of the major unit the greater the proliferation of large numbers in national and company accounts; and the higher the value of the units in a currency system—subject to adequate provision for small purchases—the more efficient the system is.
  Finally, there are many currency and machine advantages in retaining the £. During the changeover and afterwards, the cost of converting accounts in industry and commence will be substantially lower, and so will the cost of converting most cash registers and adding and accounting machines. On the other hand, under a 10s.-cent system, it would be cheaper to convert coin-operated machines, but I do not accept—as some of the more extreme advocates have claimed—that the total overall cost of
  1748
  converting all machines will be cheaper under the 10s. system. It will be more expensive than under the £ system.
  Sir John Rodgers: On the question of conversion, I would have thought from the knowledge that I have gained that there is little in it. I am not devoted passionately either to the £ system or the 10s. system, but I would have thought that the 10s. system had an advantage in that it allowed many more calculations to be made on existing machines, and was therefore much more flexible.
  Mr. Callaghan: That is a technical argument. I, having studied both sides, do not accept that conclusion, any more than did the Halsbury Committee, and more recent developments have shown that it is not borne out in practice. One of the reasons for the long change-over is that with it the obsolescence of existing machines naturally will be greater and therefore there will be more chance of changing them in the natural course of events. I have no doubt that this issue will be raised again.
  I have spoken for a long time, but on the other hand, the opponents of the £ system have had a jolly good run for their money for months. I hope that I have made it clear by the detailed and close argument that I have produced that the Government are not just being obstinate. There are excellent reasons for not changing our major unit. Once decimalisation has been decided upon a choice has to be made, and the time has come to make the choice. We cannot postpone it without endangering the programme of decimalisation. At present we have adequate time, but we do not have too much time to complete the preparations that have begun.
  No system will please everybody. Different systems affect different sections of the community in different ways. Whatever system is chosen there will be some whose interests would have been better served by choosing the other system, and if we had settled for the minority report we should not have escaped violent controversy in precisely the opposite way. There would just have been different protagonists.
  Mr. Lubbock: No.
  Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member for Orpington says "No", but he has been

  1749
  taking a lot of advice from the Consumer Council. He has been in the forefront of this argument the whole time, and he reached his own independent, wrongheaded decision a long time ago. The Consumer Council Opinion Survey was very interesting on this point. It showed that both the £ system and the 10s.-noble system commanded general popular support, although the margin among the public in favour of the 10s. system was 61 per cent. as against 51 per cent. for the £ system, but that either system would command general support.
  It is for the Government to judge the arguments, to put them forward to the House, and then to ask the House to reach a conclusion, but in the Government's view—I say this without heat, although, goodness knows, there has been a lot of heat in this argument—it is my profound conviction, having examined all the arguments and received all the deputations, that the transient advantages that are claimed for the 10s.-noble are so temporary that no decision should be taken on that basis, and therefore that the balance of argument is clearly in favour of the £ new halfpenny system.
  I therefore now ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  5.8 p.m.
  Mr. lain Macleod: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "this House, while accepting that a decimal currency should be introduced in 1971, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which provides that the basis of the new currency should be the pound—new penny—new halfpenny system."
  The Amendment stands in my name and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) who appointed the Halsbury Committee. I join straight away in the tributes which the Chancellor of the Exchequer paid to that Committee. I shall have much to say that is critical of the majority Report, but it is in no sense personal. It is an exercise of judgment. The Amendment accepts the principle of decimalisation and the date, but disagrees about the unit. I am an unrepentent ten-bobber, and always have been, and I will speak mainly on that basis. But that is not the universal opinion held on these benches.
  1750
  I have only one political point to make and, with the indulgence of the House, I propose to make it straight away and then to come to my main argument. We know, of course, that there is to be a drilled Whip on one side of the House tonight and a free vote on the other, which always means a large majority for those who put the Whips on.
  I think that it is unfortunate—and I use as quiet a word as I can—that this matter should have become involved with whatever temporary difficulties the Labour Party may be having. There is no question but that this has been made a shibboleth by the Prime Minister, and I quote from his famous speech as reported in The Times of 3rd March:
  "In another unsparingly ruthless burst Mr. Wilson said there would he no abandonment by the Government of their position on a decimalised pound. there would be no preliminary debate, there would be no free vote."
  I think that everyone would at least agree that if we are legislating for a thousand years, it is a thousand pities that this issue should have become involved with a matter which concerns the other side of the House. And there I leave it.
  In order to try to make my speech of tolerable length in a short debate—we have had a long statement and I understand that there is to be a Royal Commission and the debate ends at 9.30—I shall spend little time following the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what I might call the small change of the argument. I mention briefly the question of coinage. The advantage clearly must be with the 10s. unit which retains the well-known half-crown and, above all, the 6d. whereas the coins of the system which the Government propose are the new halfpenny, which is more or less relevant to the present 1d., but not the present ½d., the new penny, which is about 2½d., and the curious coin to be called the new twopenny piece, which appears to be 4·8 pence. There can be little doubt that the balance of advantage swings there, and heavily, to the 10s. system.
  There may well be very little in the argument where machines are concerned, but at least the 10s. system would have the longer-term advantage that it would be standard with other countries. We are told that under the Government's system the banks will ignore the fraction

  1751
  as an accounting unit. That is all very well for the banks, but it is not so good for the rest of us, because it is only in a pure system, like the 10s. system, that the banking system and commercial accounts will be able to agree, and this seems to be extremely important.
  There are many other matters—the question of coin handling and the difficulty of the name, and some tell for one system, and some tell for another. I am content to sum up what I call the small change of the argument with words from paragraph 372 of the Halsbury Report:
  "After surveying all the main areas … we concluded that, for most but no means all organisations, the 10s.-cent system would be cheaper than the £-cent-½ system for both measurable and non measurable costs but that the difference was unlikely to be large enough to assume more than marginal significance in making our choice of system."
  I accept that. I think that the minor advantages are with the 10s.-cent system, but I wish to come to a much more important argument which I should like to put in more detail.
  I believe that the real problem is much more profound and that an analysis of it is absolutely destructive of the Government's case. Let us for a moment look around us, and the best illustration is not in the Halsbury Report, but in the Australian 1960 Report which, of course, I have studied. If we leave out of consideration countries like Italy, which have very small units, we find that the world groups itself into three ranges of currency.
  There is, first, that where the major unit is between 1s. and 2s., Scandinavia, the German mark, the French franc, Switzerland and the Netherlands, what I might call, with others, basically the European group. These systems are all pure two-decimal systems, that is to say, there is a major unit which is divided by 100 into minor units. For convenience I am calling this the European group.
  The second group is that range where the major unit is worth between 7s. and 10s., a group which of course is dominated by the United States dollar, but which also includes the Canadian dollar and which will include the new converts from the £ about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer said surprisingly little today—the Australian dollar, the New Zealand dollar, the South African rand and others.
  1752
  Those who advocate a heavy unit should note that if we had a 10s. unit, it would still be the heaviest unit of all the major countries. I call this second group, the American or Canadian, or Australia group, the middle group.
  In the third group the highest currency unit is the English £ and there are a few similar units. Egypt, Cyprus, Iraq, Libya and so on have decimal systems in which the major unit is somewhere near equivalent to the £ sterling. But in each case it is a three-decimal system. So we have the two lower systems with pure two-decimal systems and a higher group, in which we find ourselves, in which, for purely practical reasons, people have turned to a three-decimal system.
  However, the House should note that the Government proposal is none of these. It is neither two-decimal nor three-decimal. It is a £ / penny fraction system. The truth, I am afraid, is quite simple, but once one has taken it in, the conclusion is inescapable: the £ is too heavy to decimalise.
  If we wish to keep the symbol of the £—and I understand this—then it is impossible to have a true decimal system. Everyone appreciates this. The Government, of course, appreciate it and have recognised that 100th of a £, 2·4 pence, is too large, and so they have had to lose all the advantages of a decimal system and introduce a fraction. The C.B.I. has seen this and although most of its members would have preferred the 10s. unit, it has tried to avoid this difficulty by reverting to the £-mil system rather than the system of Cyprus and so on which I have described. For many reasons, the three-decimal system is vastly inconvenient and it has as its lowest unit the mil, a concept and not a coin. It also has a very difficult problem of association. The Halsbury Report said that 3s. 9d. was 187 mils—I take its word for it, but I cannot feel that there is any connection between the two.
  The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) also recognises the truth of this matter and tries to solve the problem in another way which is by having a still larger unit. But I think that he must agree that the problems which he solves at the bottom of his scale he multiplies at the top, because his major unit of £5 would be no less than 50 times the unit of all our neighbours

  1753
  on the Continent. One comes to the conclusion that if one wants to keep the £ system, it is not possible to have a pure decimal system with it.
  I should like to turn to the international case. There is an international argument, but it is very different from that which appears in the Halsbury Report. The international argument is that if we are to modernise our currency, we should modernise it within the main stream of opinion in the world rather than outside it, as the Government propose.
  Of course it would be nice if everybody would adopt the £. It would be nice if everybody would drive on the left-hand side of the road. It would be nice if everybody played cricket. It would be nice if Sassenachs and other heathens would eat haggis and so on. [Interruption.] I am sorry about that last observation. The sore of Twickenham is still burning in my mind and it led me into saying that.
  At least we can claim that we have contributed far more than any other country to the culture and customs and structure of the world's governments. English is all but the international language of the world. This House has been called the Mother of Parliaments and the legal systems all over the world are largely ours. But we cannot have everything and I wish that the Government would recognise the one simple and fundamental fact that our currency does not fit, that we cannot make it fit and that we should either leave it as it is and not decimalise—with which I would not agree—or have a genuine decimal system.
  For myself, I doubt whether the Government system is even the second-best. For example, in the latest issue of The Banker, quoting an address of his to the Royal Society of Arts, Lord Halsbury said:
  "Let me say from the outset that there is not very much in it. No 'Currency Commission' has ever achieved unanimity on this point. Neither the New Zealand nor South African reports was unanimous. Mine was no exception."
  That is true as far as it goes, but a closer examination shows a more interesting feature. The Australian Report, and I have recently returned from Australia and would like to speak in a moment about what I saw in this context there, was unanimous, and the 10s. system was selected from many others. As I read the
  1754
  1960 Report it did not give any particular placings, although the inclination seemed to be for second place towards a system which has barely been mentioned today, the 8s. 4d. system of 100 pennies divided into, naturally, 100 pennies.
  So much for the Australian system which was unanimous. The New Zealand system was not unanimous, as Lord Halsbury says, but the minority Report, which consisted of only one member, recommended the 8s. 4d. system. Even in New Zealand, a country with the closest links with us, probably closer than any other country in the world, the system that the Government are proposing did not even get placed. In South Africa there was a commission of 15. Of that number, 12 favoured the 10s. system, which emerged as a rand-cent.-½ cent. It is interesting that the ½ cent has been dropped fairly recently, so that this is the equivalent of the 10s. case, which basically, I am arguing.
  The minority favoured what they called a £-cent-decime system, that is a £ divided into 10 florins, divided into 10 cents, divided into 10 decimes, which is another variant of the £1mil system, but not the system put forward by the Government. We are therefore in the position that what is proposed is wildly out of line with what has been done by every country in the world, including some of our closest friends, who examined with every care and sympathy the case for the £. The conclusion must be, I say it with regret, but I am convinced of it, that the £ does not fit into the needs of a modern decimal currency system. I wish that it did but it does not.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to discuss my proposal, but he did it an injustice when he said that it would be different from others. It would retain the shilling as one-hundredth of the new heavy unit. This would be exactly what a large part of the world already has.
  Mr. Macleod: I quite agree, but the idea of having a major unit 50 times the size of the franc or the mark cannot be in line with the famous phrase of the economic logic of history. The Chancellor relies a good deal on the majority verdict of Halsbury. I thought that that argument was weak at the time and I am

  1755
  bound to say that I think that it has been riddled since. What is the difference between Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and ourselves?
  It is the international case; it is that we have to look carefully at international problems of sterling. This case is out of fashion at the moment. The Chancellor said on T.V., just before Christmas, that he was not very impressed with it, and nor am I. But the Halsbury Committee was. Paragraph 373 makes this blindingly clear. The House will recall that a few moments ago I said that paragraph 372 summed up the minor advantages and came down on the side of the 10s-cent, but said that the advantages were not important enough in making a choice of system to assume more than marginal significance. Then it goes on to outline in paragraph 373 what a difficult decision it is. It puts this in heavy type:
  "The 'international' case for the £ versus the 'associability' case for the 10s. system."
  It goes on to say:
  "… one requirement points to the £-cent-½system, the other to the 10s.-cent system. In our view the differences between the two systems ar fairly small; the real decision to be made is between, on the one hand the associability ' advantages of the 10s.-cent system coupled with, and partly deriving from, the absence of fractions of the cent and, on the other hand, the avoidance of risk to the standing of sterling implicit in the £-cent-½ system."
  I could give a hundred other references from Halsbury—there is no possible, probable, shadow of doubt whatever that the Halsbury Committee saw this as a decision, on this point, between these two systems and between the associability and the international case. If one explodes the international case, and the Chancellor by playing it down has done this, then one also explodes the majority opinion of the Halsbury Report. Indeed the whole Report—or to be more accurate, five to one on the Commission—would then come down for the case for the 10s. cent. system.
  We know very well that the Bank of England's case was put to the Halsbury Committee and had great influence on it. It is in Appendix 1 and I do not propose to go into it. I usually admire the Bank of England; often I like what it does, and nearly always I like the way that it does it. I am bound to say that its evidence was sadly incoherent; it was technically unsound in suggesting that one
  1756
  could retain the half-crown and the sixpence with the £-cent-½ system. Manifestly this cannot be done. Where I criticise the Committee, majority and minority Report alike, is that it was far too deferential in the face of this salvo. It did not inquire at all into the reasons given by those whom it said were entitled to speak, and with experience, on this matter. True they are entitled to speak, but a Committee of this importance is entitled to cross-examine and to take evidence from other sources. By far the most interesting comment on this comes from the minority Report paragraph 39 page 164 which said:
  "The Bank of England advised that there was nothing to be gained by taking direct evidence from foreign bankers on the 'international' case for the £, pointing out that, while some foreign bankers would favour the retention of the £, others would minimise its importance and, in the end, an Act of judgment would still be required."
  It is doubly deplorable, deplorable that the Bank of England should put forward that view, suggesting that the Halsbury Committee should not even consider taking evidence from foreign bankers and others concerned, and it was deplorable that the Committee so tamely accepted that verdict. If only it had not done this, I believe that the international case for the £ and the majority Report would have been exploded long ago.
  The logic is clear enough. If the international case goes, associability remains. That points clearly to the 10s.-cent system. The only thing to do, and the Chancellor did it this afternoon with considerable skill as always, is to go into reverse and pretend that associability does not matter. This is the line that is now being put forward. In the same issue of The Banker from which I have already quoted there is a note from Australia which says:
  "The Commonwealth Treasurer. Mr. William McMahon, has announced that the currency decimalisation operation has gone so well that the date for the completion of the change-over has been brought forward by six months to August 1 this year-originally it had been set at two years after the start of the change—over".
  He goes on to say that the cost of the switch would be 50 million Australian dollars, against the original estimate of 75 million Australian dollars. He adds that:
  "The change … had had no discernible impact on the consumer prices index. …"

  1757
  This is a very awkward argument for the Treasury, and with typical Treasury skill, because I admire that Department very much indeed, instead of arguing it, it has adopted it. Much the same now appears in all the letters which Ministers of the Treasury have been sending to Members of Parliament.
  I find this in a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber):
  "In Australia it was found that where staff were trained to help customers with their problems there was little or no difficulty; where they were not there was friction ".
  Here comes the jump in logic:
  "Thus it is not the system in itself which makes for a smooth transition".
  The answer is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] It seems that hon. Members would like the next piece read:
  "I have every confidence"—
  That must be a different letter. I also have the letter which the Financial Secretary wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). [Interruption.] The letters say the same thing; they are identical.
  The real answer, once more, is the simple answer. Australia got it right not just because its preparations were good but because it picked the right system. This is the answer to the success of the system in Australia and South Africa; and I do not doubt that the same will apply to New Zealand.
  I have recently returned from Australia. I spent a good deal of time speaking to people—from bankers to taxi drivers—about decimalisation of the currency. It has gone marvellously well. I remember an article in one of the Sydney newspapers which said that when one saw a story about L.s.d. it referred to the drug and not to currency. This was only a very short time after the introduction of the decimal system.
  We have a variant of the new argument about associability which the Government are doing their best to play down. A pamphlet which has been distributed by Lord Halsbury contains, as it puts it, the substance of the talks which he gave to Parliamentary Committees of the two principal political parties. I do not wish to raise the temperature, and therefore I avoid comment on that. Our
  1758
  meetings are supposed to be secret. I thought that this one was. As far as I know, no authority was given by the Opposition for this.
  I do not wish to comment on that. But I do wish to comment on the new argument which emerges triumphantly at the end of this short pamphlet. Under the heading "Evidence from India", it states:
  "This is of critical importance. It is persistently disregarded because it is ten years old and has lots its news value."
  It goes on to explain how India decimalised in 1957 from an incredibly complicated system to its present system, and it says that "the transition went quite smoothly". I have no doubt that it did, partly because in 1957 the vast majority of small transactions would be in kind and not currency, but also because the rupee value of 1s. 6d. is one of the accepted groups and was decimalised into 100 Naya Paise, which is in an exact and pure two-decimal system. This is the reason for the success of the Indian system, and it is odd for Lord Halsbury to say that it is persistently disregarded because one of the bodies which persistently disregarded the advice was the Halsbury Committee itself which had this evidence presented to it, and it appears neither in the majority Report nor in the minority Report. It is slightly absurd that we should be asked urgently to consider it at this stage.
  I come to the point about whether associability matters. I have tried to show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been driven into arguing that it is unimportant, but I do not think that many people share this view. Every report from every country—and I have studied as many of them as I can—gives the palm to the 10s.-cent. In its simplest form, the argument is that under the 10s.-cent system 13s. is 1·3, which is uncluttered and obvious, whereas under the £-cent system 13s. is 65 new pennies or 650 mils. But I do not think that the evidence shows that the gap will close, although unquestionably it will narrow. The Chancellor of the Exchequer dismissed this matter much too casually.
  The comment in paragraph 218 of the majority Report on the report by Dr. Sheila Jones was this:
  "Dr. Jones's results … suggest that the 10s.-cent system would be easier from the

  1759
  point of view of paying sums than the £-cent-½ system, that the gap between the two would be very much narrowed, though never entirely closed …"
  This is a very different picture from the one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer painted today. I feel that we had had far too little scientific examination of the questions of coin handling, ease of assimilation, the education of school children and many other matters. It is amazing that we should be embarking on the world's largest currency conversion on such slender and ill-backed evidence.
  One of the most significant sentences in the Halsbury Report is the first sentence of paragraph 95:
  "Our inquiries suggest that in the last three years there has been a swing of opinion towards the 10s.-cent system, which is now the system most favoured by organisations ".
  That is true. The Halsbury Report came out in September, 1963. The Report is talking about a swing of opinion between 1960 and 1963. Nobody can doubt that that swing of opinion has snowballed since. Nobody can doubt now that it is the majority opinion among those in this country—and one must be careful about this qualification—who have studied this matter at all; because millions of people quite clearly have not.
  I speak for no particular organisation. But I think that one is entitled to look at the editorials in the major newspapers of this country. Among the newspapers which have had editorials supporting the 10s.-cent system are the Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Sketch, Evening News, Evening Standard, Financial Times—and "Lombard" has been particularly telling in his column in the Financial Times—The Guardian, Sunday Citizen and The Times.It is perfectly possible that they are all wrong. But we should consider the possibility that they may not be wrong. It is perfectly possible that every country in the world—and I have shown that we shall be out of step with the lot—is wrong. But it is at least possible that the Government are wrong.
  If we attach weight to the majority Report of the Halsbury Committee, which, as I have pointed out, was founded on a wrong judgment of the issue, and if we attach weight, which I do since I knew her when I was Minister of Labour
  1760
  and I have considerable respect for her, to the view of Dame Anne Godwin, should not we attach more, much more, weight to the view of the T.U.C. General Council, which told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
  "the bulk of industry, trade and commerce supported the 10s. system,"
  and it asked him to reconsider his decision.
  Some people have had very few letters on this matter. I have had a great number. One becomes experienced in analysing one's letters. One knows the organised letters, the letters from cranks, and so on. The letters which I have received are overwhelmingly in favour of the 10s.—cent system, and have been ever since this issue became a matter of public knowledge.
  I quote very briefly two very different points of view. One says:
  "I write as the Headmaster of a primary school as well as one of your constituents to urge you most strenuously to exercise your influence to ensure that if and when a decimal currency is introduced in this country it shall be based on the ten shilling unit so as to eliminate the need for a half-cent and the consequent complications in calculation which would follow upon the introduction of half-cents. I am certain that decimalisation of the coinage can only be of maximum value to society if the opportunity is taken to simplify our monetary system to the greatest possible extent ".
  The other is a very different letter from the Enfield Highway Co-operative Society, which has 64,000 members. It argues the 10s. case, but the only sentence which I read is this:
  "Since the White Paper was published much evidence has been brought forward of what has happened in other countries who have gone over to decimal currency and the strength and weight of the arguments against the system recommended by the Halsbury Committee have been such that the Government would be fully justified in having second thoughts on the matter."
  I agree very much that that is true. The Halsbury Committee reported in September, 1963, and the evidence particularly from countries like South Africa, Australia and New Zealand now certainly reflects upon the judgment of the majority finding.
  This is one of the most important debates that we will have in the whole of this Parliament. Let me put as I see it what we are going to do. We are setting out on a course which has been rejected by every other country, including

  1761
  those countries which have a great attachment to this country and, indeed, to the £ sterling. Secondly, we are opting for a system which will make each and every minor, particularly shopping, transaction more complicated than it need be. Thirdly, we are opting for a system that will not give the maximum benefit of teaching for our children and it follows from this that we are going against, and not with, the economic logic of history.
  It is often said of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and it may be true—that he wishes to be remembered as a Chancellor. Unfortunately, Chancellors are remembered more than anything else for their follies, and I fear that this is one of his. It has been said, and I believe that this is partly why we are in this difficulty, particularly about the vote tonight, that this country loves strong Government. I am not at all sure that that proposition is true—much of our history would contest it—but I am darned sure that it does not like stubborn Government.
  I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would gain greatly in stature by changing his mind, because I cannot believe that he does not know in his heart that what he is proposing is wrong. It would be wildly unlikely if the rest of the world were wrong and the Chancellor of the Exchequer alone were right. He is the prisoner of his own cry that the Government must give a lead. Therefore, I ask him, does that apply even on a subject which has nothing to do with party politics, and does it apply even when that lead is known to be, and can he shown to be, wrong?
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. R. B. Cant: I would like to begin, as the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) began, by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on actually introducing a decimal currency system. This is indeed a very historic occasion. Despite everything that might be said tonight from the benches opposite, I do not think that the Conservatives would have taken this step had they been returned to power. They are making a good deal of political capital.
  Having said that, however, I want to say, as the right hon. Member for Enfield,
  1762
  West said, that I am an unrepentant ten-bobber. My average length of speech in this Session of Parliament has been 11½. minutes and I do not much want to exceed that tonight. I do not, therefore, want to say anything about what might be euphemistically called the democratic aspects of the decimal currency affair.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been extremely smart in exploiting the democratic machine and bringing this matter to a conclusion. He has caught everybody on one foot, inside Parliament and outside it. My only consolation, perhaps a sop to my self-respect, is that I was shouting about the importance of this matter way back last June. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not loudly enough."] Yes, not loudly enough.
  I do not even want to say anything about the international aspects of this argument or the international case, because I appreciate that this has faded into the background. We have had private meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other people, and this argument has never been mentioned. My right hon. Friend played it down today. I am, however, absolutely certain that this is the decisive argument and is what has persuaded my right hon. Friend to take this course. [AN HON. MEMBER: "A good argument."] Is it a good one? I do not want to be provoked too much, otherwise I might speak longer than I intended.
  The elementary textbooks which I read when I was at school suggested to me that the strength of the £ sterling, secular and cyclical, had much more to do with real factors underlying the economic situation and that even when we had our financial problems associated with the fact that we were a reserve currency, and, even more important, a world trading currency, these stemmed very largely from a deterioration in our basic economic situation.
  Perhaps the Chancellor would have been persuaded by the fact that within 1,000 years we shall have an international unit in currency, even a European unit of currency as we are going into the Common Market. I do not, however, want to say anything more about that. I do not even want to discuss associability at any length. Here again, however, just as the international argument has

  1763
  changed, so the associability argument has become distorted.
  I look at this matter from two points of view. First, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West quoted from paragraph 373 of the Halsbury Report, a decisive paragraph which states, in effect, that the decision is one to be taken between, on the one hand, the international argument for the £ and the associability argument for the 10s. unit, on the other hand. And yet Lord Halsbury ends up on page 11 of his pamphlet by dismissing this entirely and saying that in terms of associability the implication is quite clear that one has no advantage over the other. Why in the Report did associability loom so large in favour of the 10s. unit and in Lord Halsbury's privately circulated document disappear entirely from the scene?
  I have just one other word on associability before I get on to what I really want to say. Not only has the argument changed, but it has become distorted in this sense. If we look at the Financial Times this morning, we see a letter from the lady who did the research for the Halsbury Committee. She is most upset about this because, she says, it is absolutely wrong to talk as the Chancellor does about three days' shopping practice being the difference.
  What, in effect, that lady says is that we must accept that some elderly or less intelligent people might take months to learn the £-cent.-½ system while some may never master it at all.
  Mr. Joel Barnett: Would not my hon. Friend agree that some elderly people have not mastered£s. d. either?
  Mr. Cant: I would not agree, and I am an elderly person. The lady who did the research for the Halsbury Committee then talks about the average housewife and says that these results were achieved only because perfect conditions operated. I would like to discuss this matter at length, but this associability argument is getting into rather deep water.
  In my remaining few minutes I turn to paragraph 40 of the Halsbury Report. I used to be a local preacher and perhaps I may be permitted to take this paragraph as my text. This is an intensely practical
  1764
  problem and one which was not discussed in detail even in the Halsbury Report. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West said that the Halsbury Committee was perhaps not scientific enough in its approach to this problem. I hope to prove that that is a correct statement.
  Paragraph 40 says:
  "Within limits the higher the value of the major unit"—
  It is the advantages of the major unit that we are discussing—
  "the more convenient and manageable it is for the recording of large amounts—wages and salaries, company and national statistics, prices of suits, of clothes, cars, houses … In a highly complex trading and industrial economy like ours, such a heavy major unit is perhaps more particularly useful."
  The second point given is:
  "It has the further advantage in that it tends towards a more economical use of business machines. If the choice lies between a number of straight two-place decimal systems"—
  note that—
  "the one with the heaviest major unit will make the most efficient use of machines capacity."
  Let us look at this question of "convenient and manageable". This really has not been gone into in a scientific way, in the sense that we would apply time and motion study to the use of notes and coins. Let us assume that we are buying a house for cash, and let us assume that the house costs £2,550 15s. 6d., which, of course, it could cost with legal charges, estate agents' fees, and so on. We would assume that the heavy £ unit would have an advantage, because it would need fewer coins. But this is incorrect. Certainly, with a large purchase like a house, it needs more units to express this in decimal terms. If we buy a suit, we might expect that if we paid cash for it, the bigger unit, the £, would have the advantage. But not at all. I will go into detail if hon. Members want me to. I am a fanatic about this point.
  If we look at this argument in economic sense, if we ask ourselves what is the likely relative effect of a £ unit and a 10s. unit, we might think that the heavy unit would have the advantage. But all Australian experience suggests that from the point of view of, say, a deflationary effect on the economy, the 10s. unit increases the marginal propensity to save and, therefore, reduces the tendency to

  1765
  inflation. A moment's reflection would prove that point.
  To go back to my original point about convenience and manageability, we are really concerned, not with buying cars, houses and suits, but with the average transaction. This is something about which we do not really know very much. The Halsbury Committee got a figure From some people who gave evidence, but we do not know much about the nature of the average transaction in this country. What is the average transaction? Is it £1? Is it 5s? It is assumed to be something around 5s. or 6s.
  If we are thinking of the convenience and manageability of the unit, we have to think of it in these terms. What has never been done in this country—until I looked at this problem, I may say, with a certain amount of conceit—and certainly was not done by the Halsbury Committee, is to take, say, transactions from 1d. to £1. Let us assume that we are making a great number of purchases, say 200. Let us estimate how many coins and notes this country would handle in one week in this context. We are told that there are 20 million families, that they make 100 purchases a week, and that this involves 2,000 units of currency. If we go right from 1d. to £1, if we calculate how many coins and how many notes will be required under the £-cent-isystem and the 10s.-cent system to transact these purchases, giving an appropriate amount of change—if we undertake this time and motion study, which I think is absolutely vital, and if we make one assumption, that we do not follow the Memorandum of Dissent and use the 25 cent, but follow New Zealand and use the 50 cent, which is the optimum, then the actual economy for persons making 200 purchases a week would be 160 coins, and, for the country as a whole, this would be a saving of 1·6 billion coins in use every week.
  This is the sort of practical problem with which the Halsbury Committee should have been faced. If I may go back to the point which the Chancellor made, in making this calculation one sees that he is making a mistake in not using the 20 cent coin, because time and time again we are faced, in paying money or giving change, with ten-plus-ten-plusten-plus-ten, or ten-plus-ten, and the use of the 10 cent would greatly facilitate
  1766
  operation. But think of the burden of 1·6 billion extra coins and notes having to be used every week in this country to make average transactions. There is the question of trouser pockets. There is a sense of anticlimax about that. I am thinking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer bothering to save £750,000 though not producing this 10s. note; yet he is going to produce all the extra coins required because he has adopted this particular system.
  I should like to say a lot more, but I have spoken for too long already. I should like the Chancellor to get somebody to make this calculation. I am prepared to give him my papers if he wants them. He would then see how much more economical is the use of the ten shilling system in practical terms, and he would see the real significance of the words "convenient and manageable".
  May I say one word on inflation. I have already made some reference to this. If the average purchase is around 5s. or 6s. now, there is no doubt that as the ten-shilling system gathers momentum in terms of its advantage, as one goes up from that point, as inflation grows, which it will with any Government, the advantage of the ten-shilling system will be increasingly demonstrated.
  My second point concerns the heavy unit and the thousand years. The Halsbury Committee gives it as an argument for the £-cent-½ system that the ½ will disappear in 20 years. This involves a 380 per cent. increase if we are going from a minimum unit of ½d to a minimum unit of 2·5. If the ½d. is dropped out of our calculations, with an average wage of £20 a week, we must assume an average wage of £80 a week before we can equally drop out the 2·4d. If we are thinking of a thousand years, we do not need to worry about the unit. The formula is merely to shift the decimal point. In my lifetime the franc has been 20 to the £, 1,300 to the £, and 13 to the £. It is as simple as that, if we have a pure decimal system.
  The other aspect of this paragraph was the more efficient use of business machines. This is really the most remarkable part of the Report, because the assumption is that if the choice lies between a number of straight two-place decimal systems, then the heavy unit will have the advantage. The Halsbury

  1767
  Report then goes on to recommend a three-place decimal system in which all the advantages are completely undermined.
  I do not want to go on to discuss this matter in any detail, although, being a fanatic, I would be happy to do so. I cannot help but feel that this is a rather sad day for this country, if I can speak without emotion, because it held out hopes of a move forward into a rational system which other countries are adopting. I think that the Chancellor has allowed tradition to triumph over reason, and that he has done this in the context of what must be a rare spirit of unity amongst people about what they want, both inside this House and outside.
  Some people say that it does not really matter. The Prime Minister at this private meeting, the account of which I read in The Times, said rather flippantly,
  "Who is going to the barricades for decimal currency?"
  Nobody is, but I think we have to accept that this piece of legislation is very different in its impact on our society from many others which may appear to be equally important, because here we are doing something which will affect the daily lives of people for a long time to come. Unlike a Finance Act, or a Companies Act, or some other things, this is going to be with us for a long time to come, and I regret it.
  I am almost tempted to quote the rude comment on the Chancellor of the journalist who said:
  "My mind is made up, but do not confuse me with facts."
  Having said that, I assure my right hon. Friend—not that he cares two hoots about this—that, being a loyal backbencher, I propose to limp into the "Aye" Lobby tonight and register my half-hearted support for this half-baked, ½-cent system.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: Although I felt it my duty to try to do so, I am rather sorry that I managed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no wish to upset the Prime Minister's dumb friends by supporting the Government, still less upset many of my colleagues and many of my constituents who, for excellent reasons, are 10-bobbers. It is very tempting to
  1768
  let the Government sweat it out, but this is a very important matter, and so long as there is the slightest risk, however small, that the Government might listen to what are loosely termed their supporters, I must declare that, after studying this question for several years, I agree with Lord Halsbury's choice of the major unit.
  That decision is strengthend by having served on a Royal Commission with Lord Halsbury for seven years. I feel that it would be taking a great deal on oneself to disagree on matters of reasoning with such a clear-headed man as that. It is a finely balance choice. Neither system is perfect, both systems will work, and either system is a great deal better than what we have at the present; but I think that the £ has it.
  I shall not rehearse all the arguments, with which we are all familiar. I would simply like to make one or two additional points, including one to do with the nature of the currency itself, which has not been dealt with at all.
  First, we are all agreed that the system must be lasting. We do not want to do it again, and in spite of what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) said—and I have heard both his speeches and respected very much what he said—the cost of rejuvenating a decimal currency system is not at all a small matter in our complex economy. It is not simply a question of moving the decimal point. It is a very expensive business, involving reconstructing the programmes of business machines all over the country, and it is a cost which will greatly increase in future. We do not want to do this again.
  Clearly the £-cent system will last longer, but it has this ½-cent which is a draw-back. I think a good deal turns on when we think the ½-cent will go. Lord Halsbury and the Government have referred to improvements in the standard of living; Lord Halsbury also certainly referred, rather coyly, to inflation. The conclusion was that the ½-cent might go in a generation. I think that it will go far sooner. For example, in 1963, when Lord Halsbury was dealing with quite another point, he referred to three things which cost 3d.—newspapers, letter post, and bus fares. That now reads like ancient history.

  1769
  We do not, of course, approve of inflation any more than we approve of fog, but it is very silly, and indeed hypocritical to ignore it. Inflation and our method of Government are absolutely inseparable. We shall always vote ourselves more than we can afford. Inflation is attractive to voters, and it is attractive to Governments. Inflation is for Governments what death is for doctors. Inflation offers the Government not only the chance of burying their financial mistakes, but of turning today's extravagance into tomorrow's bargain. Inflation is, of course, damnable. It is a method of living off one's children, but it is attractive and so we shall have it. We should therefore go for the larger unit, ephemeral ½-cent or no.
  On the question of inflation, the £-cent system, if there is any difference between the two systems, is slightly less inflationary. The difference between the two systems at the outset can come only from firms ignoring the ½-cent in the £ system by rounding up or rounding down to the whole cent worth 2·4d. Lord Halsbury did a similar calculation when he was considering whether to abandon the existing halfpenny. He concluded that this would have the effect—the Chancellor quoted the full effect, but what is important is the marginal effect, because both systems have an effect of an increase of three quarters of a point on the cost of living. Far fewer firms would abandon the ½-cent than in Lord Halsbury's calculation would have abandoned the halfpenny, and therefore the effect is unlikely to be any greater.
  Moreover, the continuing inflationary effect of a £-cent system is likely to be less than that of a 10s.-cent system. What speeds inflation is frequent interconnected rises of price. To take an extreme example, weekly alteration of wage rates tied to a cost of living index is a great deal more inflationary than wage rates which are changed at less frequent intervals. I feel that large "steps" at the bottom of a currency are a positive advantage, because they will mean that rises in price will be delayed until costs pass the middle point. Therefore, in terms of delaying rises—which is part of any policy, pay pause or freeze, for controlling inflation—the £-cent system has a positive advantage.
  1770
  There are further advantages in having a "coarse-grained" system—that is to say, one with a large minor unit.
  Mr. Bernard Weatherill: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is speaking as a banker, but I have heard it said that banks will ignore the half-cent. Can he confirm that—because ordinary traders will not ignore it?
  Mr. Smith: I understand that banks will. They already ignore the halfpenny. On the subject of a "coarse-grained" currency, I feel that, rather in the manner of Parkinson's first law, people will use a unit of currency, however small it is, whether or not they need to do so. The bank for which I work gave up using the halfpenny without ill effects in 1761, when it was worth at least eight or ten times what it is worth now, and indeed before the bronze penny had been introduced. It would be quite simple for traders to use fractions and for people concerned with price shading on paper to use further decimal points, but for banks to deal only in a larger unit.
  The principal advantage for ordinary people in having a large higher unit of currency is that small prices are represented by smaller numbers, and small numbers are very much easier to reckon in than are large ones. The £-cent system has been criticised for being too "coarse-grained", but it is possible for calculations to use as many decimal places as are required. But if, on the other hand, we have a small unit we are condemned to use it for calculations however large, and for which—and they are probably the more important calculations—the £ itself is already too small a unit.
  The £-mil system is attractive on many counts, but it has two crippling disadvantages. First, its bottom coin is too small to use and, secondly, people cannot reckon in their head with the three-figure numbers involved. Therefore, regretfully I rule out that system.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not my hon. Friend recognise that both these difficulties can be easily surmounted? The smallest coin could be two mils, which would be almost the equivalent of a halfpenny, and by introducing the florin as one-tenth of the £ the difficulty referred

  1771
  to by my hon. Friend of calculating to three places would also be overcome.
  Mr. Smith: I do not want to have a sustained rally with my betters on this point. I merely suggest that we could not do that, because it would not be possible always to give change. If we had a system involving only even coins at the bottom and odd ones higher up there would be great difficulty in giving change.
  I now turn to something less controversial but more interesting, namely, the coinage itself. The Bill proposes that we shall have two new cupro-nickel coins and that these should be of the same size and weight as the shilling and the florin. Could they please be lighter? It is proposed that they shall be the same weight as they were in 1816, when their purchasing power was many times as great as it is today. When the bronze coinage has been lightened, as proposed, the cupro-nickel coins will seem to be even more clumsy and cumbersome than they do at present.
  Almost all coin-accepting machines work on diameter. Therefore, the simplest way to lighten the coins would be either to make them of another material, which I do not suggest, or to make them thinner. Thin coins are very handsome. If the Chancellor would examine the last shilling to be minted before 1816, or the present Austrian ten-schilling piece, he will see what I mean.
  There are two other advantages in my proposal. The first relates to the major task of getting the old coins out of circulation and the new ones in. They will circulate side by side for a period, and then the old ones will have to he taken out of circulation and reminted. The business of sorting will be made easier if the new coins are of the same diameter as the old, but of a different thickness. They will not be compatible for weight during that period but afterwards they will be, and there will be no more inconvenience in getting an old florin in a shovelfull of new coins—if the new coins are lighter—than there now in getting a foreign coin in a shovel-full.
  Further, the Chancellor wishes to introduce a 10s. coin, which I regard as very sensible. But this will have to be either a cartwheel if it is compatible for
  1772
  weight, or made of a different metal, thus producing a three-tier coinage, in which the top tier is not compatible for weight with the middle tier. If, on the other hand, he will do his level best to make the new cupro-nickel coins lighter he may be able to make his top coins compatible for weight with the middle coins, and thus avoid having three tiers. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would ask someone to get him ten English shillingsworth of Austrian nickel coins so that he can see whether he does not like them better than the coins that he is at present proposing to give us.
  I want to deal briefly with the question of associability. Much has been made of this. For shoppers, the associability of the 10s. system is very much better but I think that we greatly under-estimate the talents of shoppers. Anybody who has ever bought a bar of chocolate in a foreign airport, where people not only associate two currencies at a time but, often, several at a time, and give change in them, will know that we have overdone this argument. Nevertheless, associability is very important for records and for budgeting, and for thinking.
  The £-cent system is indeed already used in certain records. It is used by the Navy—or at least it was in my day. I do not know whether the Chancellor experienced this, but in my time pay in the Navy was dealt with in £ notes and florins only. Moreover, associability for shoppers is a temporary need, but for records and statistics it is a permanent need.
  Surely the permanent part of associability—that is to say, continuity—is much more important than temporary ease. In general, we are much too liable to say that a system is easy and to choose it simply because it is, without looking further ahead.
  I want to say a little about the international case. As the Chancellor says, most gnomes can multiply by two. I have seen them do it. But not all foreigners are gnomes. Most of them are traders. The Chancellor did not give the fraction, but half of all sterling transactions take place between foreigners. For many years I have been a director of the Ottoman Bank, which deals with countries where a high proportion of these transactions take place. I know what a lot of our customers are like.

  1773
  Many of them are good traders who know everything there is to be known about Mombasa Robusta, or whatever it is they trade in, but are not very up to date on current affairs in Britain. All people, especially such people, are creatures of habit, just as we are creatures of habit, and a useful analogy can be drawn between what might happen with them with a 10s. system and what happens with us in our own dealings with our own bank. From time to time one is persuaded into making a banker's order for some dim cause or other. Later, the charity or whatever it is asks if one would make another order, as it has changed its bank. One does not always make another; sometimes one reviews the matter and realises that the money could be used better. If you ask someone to do something in a different way he may stop doing it at all: you do not transplant the flowers in your garden just because you don't think it will do them any harm; you only do it if you've absolutely got to. The great thing with sterling is not to talk about it. Sterling always strengthens a little when this House is in recess. Therefore, I think the international case for the £ reinforces the domestic case; I hope that we will not be financial "Little Englanders" over this; and I hope that the Chancellor will stick to his guns.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Buchanan: I am sorry to have been called immediately after the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), because he is a "pound man" and so am I and the debate would have been much better if I had followed a "ten-bobber".
  The debate has shown that this affects everyone in the country and every purchase. This would be a fairly easy exercise, in that the obvious minimum purchase is bound to be the minimum fare on any public transport vehicle. The proposed coins are very much along those lines. This matter affects us all in our everyday lives, so it is not a matter for superficial judgment, in the sense that 6d. is handy for one-armed bandits and half a crown for cigarette machines. We should judge not for the short term but for the far future. We are all affected
  1774
  in different ways, and those with different interests react differently.
  As the Chancellor said, if the 10s. system had been chosen, there would have been an even louder outcry. The Government made the right choice. No one, not even the Halsbury Committee, would claim that it is perfect, but I hope that the advocates of the 10s. system would not claim the same thing for theirs. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
  There was little enthusiasm for the 10s.-cent system until the present decision was announced. The bulk of the Government's case must be that they are planning for the future and must therefore plan a coinage which will endure. Inflation is not caused by a change in currency but by government decisions throughout the world. My Government was doing very well after 1945, until another Government decided to go to war in Korea. The importance of currency units inevitably lessens with time. This is not a recent phenomenon. I am not making a political point.
  One of the advantages of the £-cent system is that when the new halfpenny becomes redundant we can get rid of it with no risk. It is worth noting that much of the argument against the system is that it is not a pure decimal system and that the new penny is too high a unit. The hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster pointed out that until 1939 banks did not officially recognise the halfpenny for accountancy purposes. We managed very well with a unit much larger than the proposed new penny.
  The halfpenny until recently was used in small transactions, but our currency has declined to about one-third or a quarter of its 1939 value, when a penny bought three or four times what it buys today. Therefore, if the smallest unit for accountancy purposes in 1939 was a penny, it would today be about 3d. or 4d. The Government proposal for 2·4d. is in fact worth less than the 1939 penny. We will be better placed for flexibility for smaller transactions than we were in 1939.
  I have a booklet entitled "Shaws' News" issued by Shaws' Biscuits Ltd., the kind of document which one normally only glances at, which gives an example of the retail price in 1939 of a 7½ oz. tin of Shaws' Yorkshire Parkins, which

  1775
  are delicious biscuits. It was 10½d. Today, it retails at 2s. 1d., or 25 of the present pennies. It would cost 10·4 of the new pennies or, numerically, practically the same as its pre-war price.
  When decimalisation was discussed in the 1930s, there was good reason for insisting on a minimum unit much smaller than one-hundredth of the £, but, with the £'s present purchasing power, surely no reasonable objection could be taken to the proposed new penny—

  ROYAL ASSENT
  6.30 p.m.
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
  The House went:—and, having returned;
  Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

  1. Consolidated Fund (No.2) Act 1967.

  2. Misrepresentation Act 1967.

  3. Plant Health Act 1967.

  4. General Rate Act 1967.

  5. Forestry Act 1967.

  6. Export Guarantees Act 1967.

  7. Teachers' Superannuation Act 1967.

  8. Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.

  9. Licensing (Certificates in Suspense) (Scotland) Act 1967.

  10. Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Act 1967.

  11. Teachers of Nursing Act 1967.

  12. Iron and Steel Act 1967.

  13. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act 1967.

  14. Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation Act 1967.

  15. Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Act 1967.

  16. Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure 1967.

  DECIMAL CURRENCY BILL
  Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan: As a student of history, Mr. Speaker, a great respecter of tradition, and a lover of the House, I almost feel like changing my argument in favour of the traditional £. I am glad that the Government are trying to do something about the procedure we have just seen.
  It is a historical fact that currency units decline with time. The purchasing power of the £ declined from 1900 to 1920, and though it rose from 1920 to 1933, none of us on this side of the House want to see that happen again in similar circumstances. The purchasing power of the £ has declined ever since 1933.
  We in the United Kingdom have been used to a high value major unit. It is said to be advantageous in an economy where money transactions are large and expressed in the major unit. I do not know about that, because I have never dealt in transactions involving very large denominations of notes. I think that I speak for Mr. and Mrs. John Citizen, however, in saying that they will have an in-built psychological resistance to a 10s. unit. The fellow going for a suit which used to cost him, say, £20 will not like being charged 40 nobles, or whatever the unit would be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) spoke of his experience in France, and in his remarks there was a warning against a major unit of too low a value. I confess that I always feel psychologically uplifted when I go abroad and find, or found, the £ worth thousands of francs, lire, etc. The £ has a very definite standard of value in the minds of British men and women.
  I have been able to conduct my own opinion poll. Since my wife died in 1963, I have had to do a lot of my own shopping, particularly at weekends, and no one need tell me that the British man or woman will find it very difficult to master any new currency, no matter how complicated it may be. We in Scotland have a worldwide reputation for looking after our money—and I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear

  1777
  that in mind when thinking about where the Royal Mint is to go.
  Anyone shopping at a supermarket will realise that we are moving into a new era of currency and purchasing power. Cheques are becoming more and more the vogue for payment of larger purchases, but in the supermarket one does not find people going round noting that coffee is 4s. 6d. and soap powder Is. lid. They just put them in the basket and go to the counter where the total is worked out by a girl with a machine—
  Mr. Lubbock: Does the hon. Member really think that the old-age pensioner who goes out shopping on a very limited budget of, perhaps, £4 a week does not look closely at the price of the article she is buying?
  Mr. Buchanan: I am talking about Mr. and Mrs. Average, but I am quite certain that old-age pensioners who can cope with all they meet in the supermarket, including the loss leaders, etc., will be able to cope with the new currency. I do not say that people do not bother about prices, but, by and large, our men and women will cope with a new currency, regardless of how complicated it may be.
  I do not think that the £-cent system is as complicated as is alleged by the advocates of the 10s. system. I am not competent to argue the international case, but the opinion of the City, reinforced by the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster in consultation with the ex-chairman of the International Monetary Fund, seems to indicate that the system we are adopting has some validity.
  Advocates of the 10s. system contend that there is an association in people's minds with shillings, pence and half-crowns, but they should remember that the half-crown used to be colloquially known as the half-dollar. Is it worth as much today? We all know that it is not. That undermines the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, and I do not think that the new halfpenny will last much longer than 10 years.
  The Government have been correct in choosing a coinage that will endure for much longer than we can see ahead. It is true that it has some disadvantages, no
  1778
  one denies that, but they are far outweighed by its advantages. I wish the Government well.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an abbreviated debate. Many hon. Members wish to speak, but I hope that they will be brief.
  6.50 p.m.
  Sir John Langford-Holt: Although I am going to speak against the Government's proposal, I wish to make clear at the outset that the change which the Government are making is certainly a step in the right direction, and secondly that
  "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly."
  I am no advocate of delay.
  We have a device in this House known as a reasoned Amendment, which means a reasoned rejection. I have always taken the view that a reasoned Amendment to a Bill is a Motion for rejection of a Bill. I shall be recording my vote later in the spirit in which the House usually considers a reasoned Amendment. The Chancellor said that he hoped that whatever our views were when the system comes in, whichever it may be—there is probably little doubt about which it will be—we would all try to work it properly. There is no doubt that we shall adopt that attitude.
  Like many other movements of enlightenment, pressure for decimal currency has come not from the Treasury Bench but from the back benches. Its Parliamentary history has been too long and much too sad to record at length now. It goes back to 1841 when a Royal Commission invited the Government to consider its merits and in 1853 a Select Committee of this House recommended in favour. In 1955, much closer to the present period, a decimal currency Bill was proposed. I pay tribute to the then top sponsor, Mr. Mont Follick, who, although he was sometimes regarded as having quaint ideas, in this respect proved to be a pioneer.
  In parenthesis I think it would be a good thing if someone were to return the letter opener left by Mr. Follick in the Post Office for the advantage of hon. Members. It has since disappeared. My

  1779
  hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) and I are the only sponsors of that Bill left in the House. That Bill died, as many do, because it was persistently and consistently opposed by the Government of the day. As usual, back benchers were ahead of the Government in their thought.
  Almost the last stage of this Parliamentary saga on decimal currency was when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) announced the formation of the committee of inquiry, the Halsbury Committee, on 19th December, 1961. We are inclined to forget that when he made the announcement he made quite clear that the Committee's duty was not to decide whether we should switch to a decimal currency system. He said that the decision had already been taken, as it is put in the Halsbury Report.
  In discussion with the late Mr. Gaitskell, he said:
  "The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in noting that the Committee is not being asked to consider the question of 'whether' but the question of 'how'."
  Later Mr. Gaitskell said:
  "Have the Government decided that we will have a decimal coinage unless the difficulties are overwhelming? Has a decision been taken in that sense?"
  The reply by my right hon. and learned Friend was:
  "That is so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1961; Vol. 651, c. 1135.]
  There is not much new ground concerning decisions. When it carried out its delaying tactics, the Treasury was wrong then and I am afraid it is wrong today.
  What must a decimal currency be? First, it must be decimal. That is not so silly as it sounds. There are arguments for other systems, but basically world currencies adopt a decimal system. It must be understandable, it must be acceptable, it must be teachable, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) said. Fifthly, it must not affect the status of the currency. Sixthly, it must have units which are large enough and small enough. The Halsbury Committee put forward somewhat similar conditions but with less conciseness and relevance than these. It said that the currency should be decimal and should maximise benefits; it should be simple, flexible, last-
  1780
  ing and should not affect the standing of sterling. It should not present people with undue difficulties of adaptation in the change-over period. Seventhly, it should not result in price increases; and eighthly, it should not result in high machine and non-machine costs.
  In not one of these cases has the Government proposal advantages over the 10s. unit or the £1-florin-mil system. In most cases the reverse is true. I turn to the Committee's standards and requirements. First, what is decimal? In the Oxford Dictionary it is said to be:
  "pertaining to or of tenths and tithes."
  It is not that, so the proposal is not decimal. Dr. Sharp, who I believe sent to all hon. Members comments on behalf of the Confederation of British Industries, said:
  "It confuses the vulgar fraction with the decimal system."
  The Halsbury Committee went on to say that it should maximise benefits. What a glimpse of the obvious! No one has suggested that any of us is trying to do anything but that. The proposals of the Government certainly do not. The second condition is that it should be simple. The vast majority of goods in this country—go as high or low as one wishes—are expressed in shillings and multiples of shillings. One never sees in a shop that the cost of something is £2 8s.; it is 48s. One never sees £1 19s. 9d. but 39s. 9d. One never sees £3 8s. 3d. but 68s. 3d. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn (Mr. Buchanan) spoke about suits. We have never heard of the £2 10s. tailor, but of the Fifty Shilling Tailor.
  Mr. Lubbock: That was a long time ago.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: It was a long time ago, but the price is still expressed in shillings. I suppose the reason is that the tailor thinks it sounds much cheaper that way.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: Is it not the case that most shopkeepers mark up a price of 19s. 6d. in order not to mention the £?
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: I think that is so, although I believe very few are confused by it; at least, I hope they are not. Even more shopkeepers use the price of 19s. 11d. for exactly the same reason.

  1781
  It is quite easy to see that 48s. is 4·8 of the 10s. unit; 39s. 9d. is 3.9 for the 39s. and ·75 for the nine pennies. This is easy to work out. Sixty eight shillings and threepence is 6.825. I think we shall have a great deal of difficulty in working all this out under the £ system. I know which system I would find the simpler.
  The next condition is that the system must be much more flexible. I do not think it could be argued that a system which has a bigger top unit and a bigger lower unit can be the more flexible of the two systems.
  The fourth condition was that it should be lasting. As it has taken a Government of whatever party 100 years to take this great leap forward, this leap into the unknown—almost the last country in the world to do so—I do not think that we need worry too much about any rapid change to a new system, whichever one is adopted.
  The fifth condition was that a new system should not affect the standing of sterling. I agree that nobody would suggest that the world bankers cannot multiply by two. The Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that international traders found it a little more difficult because they were a little less sophisticated. I doubt whether there are many international traders who cannot multiply by two, either.
  As to the size of the unit, I do not think that anybody would seriously suggest that the revaluation of the French franc by General de Gaulle to the extent of ten times affected the stability of the franc. What affected the stability of the franc was the stability or otherwise of the French poiltical and economic system, not the size of the franc. If it is size and size only, I do not think that anybody in the House or outside would suggest that the dollar has less merit because it is only approximately one-third of a £, or that the Swiss franc has less merit because it is only one-tenth of a £. Nobody has ever suggested that.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer said some time ago on television that we still had the old £. Since then he has shifted ground a little. The Chancellor has made some silly remarks on occasions, but I think that that remark was jostly among the leaders in the queue.
  1782
  The sixth condition was that the new currency should not present people with undue difficulties of adaptation. I underline the word "people". The Chancellor told us, rightly, of the experiments which were carried out by the Halsbury Committee with the average housewives, which resulted in competency being acquired in five days and in eight days. Everybody is not an average housewife. Average housewives are pretty cute people. There are many among us who are not quite as rapid in the use of money or as sharp as that. Many people will find it much quicker and easier to calculate that 38s. 6d. is 3·85 of a 10s. unit than to calculate that it is 1·925 of whatever this new currency will become known as in the future.
  The seventh condition was that it should not result in price increases. One needs to say very little about this except that, to put it at its lowest, in general prices are rounded upwards. Therefore, the bigger the unit the bigger the increase in prices which will result.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does not my hon. Friend realise that in this regard both systems are exactly the same? They both have a unit of 1·2. Only at the lower end is there any question of rounding up.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: That is because my hon. Friend is introducing what I said was the vulgar fraction on to a decimal system. If the vulgar fraction is accepted, what my hon. Friend says is true. I am trying to avoid this confusion of the two systems.
  Of all the main alternatives, the Government's solution has least to commend it. I should have liked to have seen the 10s. unit adopted. If it is still not possible for the Government to consider that, I should have thought that a fairly minor change on to the £-florin-mil, with comparatively little modification, could be accepted.
  Cmnd. 3164 "Decimal Currency in the United Kingdom", says this in paragraph 1 on page 1:
  "On 1st March 1966 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the House of Commons the Government's decision to adopt a decimal currency system in February 1971."
  This was a decision which was not taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He only took the decision as to timing.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): And as to system, which the Tory Government were unable to make up their mind about.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: I quite accept that. Paragraph 2 on page 1 says this:
  "This is an historic decision."
  The historic part of it was the decision to change to a decimal currency rather than the precise method and the date. I believe that one of the problems is that the Government have taken so many administrative decisions and actions already that they are unable to retreat from the path upon which they have embarked.
  What will happen to us in the House? We know—there is no party point in it—that some hon. Members opposite are in favour of the 10s. unit and that some of my hon. Friends are in favour of the £ unit. We know, too, of the powerful persuasions of loyalty which can be imposed upon hon. Members opposite. Such power of persuasion has clearly been brought to bear upon the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I have been long enough in the House to know the enormous power which that has.
  I appreciate the Government's difficulties. If, even at this late stage, they could be deflected from taking what I consider to be a wrong decision—I am sure that the decision, if taken, will last for many years, probably for centuries—I should not regard that as a sign of weakness but one of strength and purpose.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) speaks of powers of persuasion. I am one of those on these benches who is very disappointed that we were not allowed a free vote. I indicated that opinion on an appropriate occasion recently. I am disappointed that the majority of my hon. Friends do not feel as I do. I am sorry that we were not allowed a debate on the White Paper before the Government announced their decision. I am sure that it would have been wise to have had such a debate. Some of us are in a dilemma. We do not believe that the Chancellor's decision is the right one. We do not agree with the official Opposition spokesmen, for
  1784
  reasons which I shall try to explain, about the 10s. unit. We are in a difficulty.
  I hope that the brevity of my speech will not be interpreted as meaning that the proposition which I shall make is not a serious one. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will not treat it as a red herring. It is an alternative proposal which has gathered a good deal of serious support among all those who will use the new currency in the future and I believe that, had the public debate gone on longer, it might very well have been shown that it had a majority of the public behind it. It provides a way out of the collision between the 10s. unit and the £ unit, the inadequacies of both of which I think have been well illustrated during the debate.
  Of course I am in favour of decimalisation. If my hon. Friends study HANSARD they will see that I have been pressing for decimalisation in respect of currency and, indeed, the introduction of the metric system for weights and measures for a good many years.
  The compromise solution which I want briefly to explain was referred to by both my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). It is very simple. It would be relatively very economical to introduce, and it avoids almost entirely any transitional upheaval during the change. It is based on a major unit of currency worth five of the present £s sterling. Various names have been proposed for it, including the Royal and the Britannia. For the purposes of my speech I shall refer to it either as the heavy £ or the fiver, which I suspect would be the name by which it would be known, whatever its official title, if it were adopted.
  The system based on it would have the following four principal advantages. First, it would be large enough to withstand many years of inflation and still retain a useful value. I think that that point is a major criticism of the 10s. unit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) said, the present £ has become worth about one-quarter of what it was in 1939. The fiver would be worth about what the £ was at the end of the First World War.

  1785
  At the present rate of inflation all over the world—whatever Governments are in power in different countries it will probably accelerate—the 10s. unit will perhaps be worth 2s. in 25 or 30 years and if we are to make the change there is an overwhelming argument for having a substantial value attached to the major unit at the top of the scale.
  The second advantage is that under the fiver system none of the existing coins would need to be changed, except the 1d. and the shilling which would continue, would have 10 pence instead of 12. £5 and £1 notes could simply be overstamped if necessary during the transitional period, "£5 equals 100 shillings" and "£1 equals 20 shillings". The 10s. note could continue as it is and the existing coins remain in circulation. The new quarter and half shilling and new half crown could remain the same size and design as the existing 3d., 6d. and 2s. 6d. pieces. The new 1d. would become a mil, with 1,000 to the fiver. I agree that there is a case for reducing its metal content and size.
  One of the supporters of the fiver solution is the former superintendent of the Royal Mint. He makes a point, with which I agree, that it would be most desirable to reduce the metal content of the 1d., probably to one-third of its present weight. It now contains almost 1d. worth of metal. He says that if this change could be made it could be paid for by the metal recovered from reducing the size of the 1d.
  The third advantage of the heavy £-cent-mil system would be that the new currency would provide a satisfactory top and bottom unit. The fiver would be large enough to be very convenient for banking purposes and the 1d. small enough for the housewife or shopper who wants to buy a small item or travel on public transport. If the ½d still has a use after the transitional period, which I think is very arguable, it could be retained at a value of 20 to the shilling as a temporary measure.
  The fourth advantage, which is important, is that the process of decimalisation would be extremely simple for the individual human user of money and would involve no change in existing slot machines and very little change in cash registers and other business machines. In effect, the first two digits after the decimal point would be the shillings, and the
  1786
  third digit would be the pence. If there were a ½d., it would be the fourth digit. One would be able to convert simply. For example, 19s. 9d. becomes 0·199; 13s. 4d., 0·134; and 7s. 9½d., 0·795. It would be so simple that there would be no problem for anyone to understand the transition.
  I could make a longer and more detailed speech about the advantages of the fiver, but they are points that are probably better made in Committee. I believe that it would be a sensible compromise. As I said earlier, had the public debate been allowed to continue it is a solution that would have attracted increasing support. It is a good combination of a necessary modern reform with as much of our national tradition and individuality as it is sensible to retain, and it would protect the prestige of the £. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with these points.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: On the system of which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) has just spoken, I would only say that, whatever the merits of the many alternative systems, they were investigated in some detail by the Halsbury Committee. In practice, the argument has now narrowed to a choice between the £-cent-½ system proposed by the Government and the 10s.-cent system supported by the vast majority of those who oppose the Government. I should like to concentrate on that controversy and begin by taking up one or two points made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  In arguing, he always sounds like an extreme Conservative. I sometimes wonder whether I am back in the pre-1964 period when I listen to him speaking about the well-known £, known throughout the world, and its great prestige. He should have had a Union Jack on the Dispatch Box while he was speaking. I was reminded of the last phrase of the poem that Christopher Logue wrote at the last General Election, when he said:
  "I shall vote Labour because deep in my heart I am a Conservative."
  I think that the Chancellor is a person to whom that description should be applied.
  The Chancellor says that the disadvantage of the 10s. system is that one would

  1787
  change the major unit for record-keeping purposes. That, too, is a very good Conservative argument. If we take the National Income and Expenditure Blue Book, in which a series of figures is given for ten years, what could be easier when the next annual edition is produced than for somebody to go through all the figures and multiply them by two? Is that such a difficult exercise that the Chancellor can say that it will disrupt our whole economic life?
  Mr. Woodburn: Does not the hon. Member agree that when this country is trading with countries all over the world, which have been trading in £s for 100 years, it is a great handicap to the continuance of trade when they must start wondering what are the comparative prices of machinery which they order in this country and calculate them in a different unit? Continuity is very important in international affairs.
  Mr. Lubbock: It has already been pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he was listening—that the French had no difficulty when they altered the value of their franc. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman looks at the export performance of France and ourselves over the past few years and sees which is better. One of the reasons why we have chosen a long preparatory period is to enable people who must use the new currency to be adequately educated and prepared. That applies just as much to the foreign traders using sterling as the basis of their transactions. Traders and bankers all over the world will have practically no difficulty in understanding a change in the major units.
  I do not believe that the international arguments are of the slightest importance. I agree with the Chancellor that they cannot be dismissed, and that means that they should have been considered by the Halsbury Committee. But they were not, apart from the evidence given by the Bank of England, and, as I think the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) showed, there was no attempt to test the validity of that evidence. I agree that the Committee is to be strongly criticised for not calling in foreign bankers to see whether the assertions made by the Bank of England were true.
  1788
  I have some claim to speak on the subject, because I have always been a passionate advocate of decimal currency. I put that in my 1962 election address much to the disturbance of my agent, who said that it was not an issue of any importance. But I knew that sooner or later it had to become an issue of importance. I therefore welcome at least the decision to go over to decimal currency in 1971. I also welcome the Government's decision to set up a Decimal Currency Board to facilitate the conversion. That idea was included in a Bill which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell) presented to the House nearly two years ago. This, like the other Bill mentioned by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), never made progress because it was consistently vetoed Friday after Friday by Government Whips.
  I want to make one or two new arguments which have not so far been mentioned in the debate as to why the 10s.-cent system is to be preferred. I dispute the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contention that there is no difference in the costs between the two systems as regards minting of coins, the conversion of machinery or the use of accounting and business machines generally. On 9th March, I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could give me some estimate of the cost of minting alone. In a Written Reply, he said:
  "No firm estimate has been made of the minting costs of any 10s. system, but the difference would not be significant."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 340.]
  I wrote back to the right hon. Gentleman saying that surely he must have made some estimate or calculation in his mind of what the difference would be. He very courteously wrote back saying that, upon the calculations that he could give, the difference in minting costs would be about £3 million. I am convinced that the difference would be much larger than that. The right hon. Gentleman's letter shows how little he has considered the matter, because he says:
  "… if a 10s. system were introduced the 1 and 2 cent coins would be identical with the 1 and 2 new penny coins."
  He forgets that, in the £-cent system, the lower tier of the coinage has to have three coins in it and not two—a half and a one and a two. That is why I intervened in his speech today and asked whether

  1789
  the number of these coins it was proposed to mint was still as given in the Appendix to the Halsbury Report. He replied that to the best of his knowledge this was so, and I want to give some interesting calculations on this point.
  The two new penny piece, valued at 4·80d.—1,500 million of them are to be minted for the Halsbury scheme—can be entirely eliminated under the 10s.-cent system because the one and two cent pieces under that system would be the only bronze coins one would need at the lower end and then one would go on to cupronickel. The weight of new bronze coins is in proportion to value, and if we take the cost of minting as being directly proportional to the weight—a legitimate assumption because labour cost is quite small in comparison with the whole—we can work out the cost of the two new penny piece as being no less than £6·1 million, according to the Report in paragraph 253. But since the total minting costs have increased since then from £22·5 million to £30·75 million—as stated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum—I have increased this estimate in the same ratio and make the cost of minting two new penny pieces alone as £8·3 million.
  The other major difference lies in the retention of the half crown. Here I admit that the saving is more difficult to calculate because Halsbury recommended a 20 new penny coin which does not appear in the White Paper. Since, however, there are in circulation about 450 million half crowns, worth over £50 million, their scrapping and replacement by an equivalent volume of some combination of the 10 and 50 new penny coins, can hardly cost less than the figure I have given for the minting of two new penny pieces.
  Apart from minting costs, there is a substantial additional element in the Halsbury proposals arising from the conversion of coin-operated machines—gas, electricity and parking meters, ticket vending machines, particularly on the underground, public telephone boxes and vending machines. It is obvious that, in all these applications, the 6d. is of paramount importance and since the Government will only pay compensation in the most exceptional cases the consumer will have to foot the Bill.
  1790
  The motorist who parks in London will have to pay for the conversion of the parking meters. The electricity consumer will have to pay for the conversion of the electricity meters through his bill. In the case of vending machines alone—machines in which commodities like cigarettes, sweets, beverages and snacks are sold—the cost of dropping the 6d. and half-crown is estimated to be about £13·2 million in the memorandum submitted by the Automatic Vending Machine Association to the Chancellor on 2nd November. With these few items, the total additional cost of the Chancellor's system is £29·8 million.
  The Chancellor says that under his scheme the cost of converting business machines, cash registers, adding machines and accounting machines is lower because the 10s.-cent system
  "… makes less efficient use of machine capacity."
  He says this in paragraph 15 of the White Paper. This is only true to the extent that businesses ignore the half unit. If they need an extra column to record it, as they will do in the case of cash registers for retail shops, for example, the capacity of machines will only be one-fifth of what it could be under the 10s.-cent system. There is also the cost to the country of having to continue manufacturing non-standard machines recording the half unit which will not be used anywhere else in the world.
  I now turn to the arguments about associability and the half unit, which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are at the core of the difference between us on this issue. I agree with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West that Lord Halsbury has taken a very unusual step in circulating the contents of his speeches to private meetings of parties. I think that it is unusual and I suggest irregular that the Chairman of a Committee appointed by the Government should write round to all hon. Members purporting to reinforce the conclusions of that Committee, but in fact, as I shall show, contradicting many of the most important findings of his own Committee. He has been worsted in public argument and must have been viewing with some alarm the prospect of his scheme being defeated, which it would have been had it not been for the undemocratic decision by the Government to impose the Whips.

  1791
  Despite the views, of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), whom we all respect and know to be well informed, I hope that many hon. Members opposite will disregard the Whips on this issue, which is not a party political matter. Hon. Members should be free to make up their own minds on the basis of the expert advice they have been given and their consultations with their constituents.
  To get back to the curious pamhplet published by Lord Halsbury, I want to quote a passage from it and compare that passage with a quotation on the same subject from the Report. In the pamphlet, Lord Halsbury says:
  "It seems impossible to accord to associability the importance that is currently attributed to it. … Associability should be eliminated as a policy determinant from the arguments respecting the relative merits of the £ and 10s. systems of decimalising our currency."
  I am glad that the Chancellor does not go as far as that and agrees that associability is at least a factor to be taken into account, even though he does not attach to it the importance that some of us do. The Halsbury Report said in Chapter VI:
  "… it would be wrong to disregard the worry and distress which a change of currency could involve, particularly for some old people or harassed housewives."
  Later, also in Chapter VI, it said:
  "The pure 10s.-cent system must be regarded as the best, both from the point of view of the immediate change, and, though less obviously, during the remainder of the transitional period and beyond",
  I know that the Chancellor says that this is only a short-term operation and that people will get equally used to both systems after a period, but again I am sure that he is incorrect on that. The Report continues:
  "This advantage, multiplied many times in a multitude of transactions of every description day by day, is not a factor which can be ignored in selecting the right decimal system."
  That is a direct contradiction of what Lord Halsbury has said in the pamphlet he circulated to all hon. Members.
  The next thing I thought rather curious was that Lord Halsbury pointed out that millions of tourists go abroad every year and find no difficulty in shopping in foreign currency. The Chancellor repeated that argument. But people who go abroad do find difficulty in shopping
  1792
  in foreign currency and this is one of the reasons for the popularity of package tours, in which the tourist pays for his air passage, hotel bill and various other things in advance in sterling before he starts on his journey. He then does not have the bother of having to make calculations in different money.
  In any case, the person who can afford to go abroad on holiday is not the sort of person who is most likely to find the transition hard. It is the elderly and the poor housewife who can never afford a holiday, let alone a holiday abroad, who will suffer. It appears that Lord Halsbury lives in a sort of upper class fantasy world, to judge from this pamphlet, in which everyone goes to New York for holidays, has a joint on Sunday, does not look at prices when choosing goods in the supermarket and is constantly buying new hats. Let us try to think for a few moments of the 70-year-old pensioner, or of a mother with five children trying to live on unemployment benefit. To these people anything which makes shopping more difficult will cause misery and hardship.
  The evidence given by Dr. Sheila Jones in this respect and her letter to the newspapers this morning have already been mentioned. I remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in her evidence Dr. Sheila Jones spoke not about three or five days, but about two or three months for the average housewife to achieve her present £ s. d. standard of performance with the £-cent-half system.
  She has recently told me that this estimate is very conservative for a number of reasons. One is that however realistically actual shopping transactions are imitated, the situation in practice would not approach the relatively ideal conditions of the experiment and that the housewife's attention in the experiment was not distracted by extraneous conditions. Another is that the housewives received individual training each day in recognising the value of present coins in terms of their decimal value. In addition, all mistakes were rectified and explained at leisure by the experimenter and intensive practice under skilled guidance of the kind given in the experiment was probably more conducive to the acquisition of a new skill than would be the case with haphazard practice.

  1793
  I have discussed this with Dr. Sheila Jones and asked whether it is possible to say how long it would take to acquire the £ s. d. performance under average shopping conditions. She said that on the basis of the experiment it was not possible to make that estimate, but that there was no doubt in her mind that the two or three-months' period mentioned in the Halsbury Report was very conservative.
  We shall also consider the evidence of Mr. Broadbent, the Director of the M.R.C. unit in Cambridge, evidence which has not been mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He concluded that calculations involving fractions were significantly harder to perform than calculations which did not involve fractions. The Halsbury Report said that his conclusion supported the commonsense view that the 10s.-cent system was to be regarded as distinctly the easiest from the point of view of paying sums, one including a ½ and the other not.
  It must be stressed that this would be a permanent difference which would not disappear in two or three months. There are plenty of quotations from the Halsbury Report to prove that it is the fraction which causes the difficulty, and there is no fraction in a true system of decimal currency. Paragraph 46 says:
  "Logically, of course, decimal and vulgar fractions are generally incompatible and there is no place whatever for vulgar fractions in a decimal currency."
  Paragraph 224 says:
  "But we take note that, under a £-cent-½ system, reintroduction of fractions in many fare scales"—
  the Report is here discussing transport—
  "coupled with the increased incidence of fractions in change-giving, must add to conductors' difficulties and decrease their efficiency."
  This will be not just for one month, but permanently, for as long as bus conductors have to handle the half unit.
  The half unit will not disappear for quite a while. I notice that on 21st December the Chief Secretary was very careful not to say what he meant by "eventually", but I put it to the House that the half unit will not disappear for a very long time and that these difficulties will be with us for perhaps 150 years.
  Let me explain how I work this out. I start with the evidence given to the
  1794
  Halsbury Committee by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which suggested that at the present rate of decline both in its use and the value of money it might be 20 years before the ½d. became as obsolete as the ¼d. was in 1952, eight years before its demonetisation. That means that if we were not to convert to decimal currency, we should be thinking about demonetising the ½d. in about 1983.
  In the debate in another place, Lord Halsbury said that the rate of inflation was at a factor of about two per century. Therefore, if we were not thinking of converting to decimal currency, we would be considering demonetising the penny in about 120 years from now, or about 2087. The smallest unit in the Government's suggested system is 1·2d. and, on the calculations which I have given to the House, it is reasonable to say that the half unit would last until the beginning of the 22nd century A.D.
  Who can tell what changes may have taken place in coin handling and money recording by that date? Coins and bank notes may no longer be in use and everyone may have a Barclaycard, or its equivalent. The last thing we need in a period of rapid and accelerating technological change is a system designed to last for a thousand years.
  I also dispute the Chancellor's contention that with increasing prosperity coins of the smallest value become less important. I believe quite the reverse. Lord Halsbury says that the 1d. of today has 20 per cent. greater purchasing power than a ¼d. of 1900.
  Nobody suggests that a ½d. equivalent is unnecessary in any decimal system. Indeed, the Chief Secretary went to some pains on 21st December to explain that when he said "eventually" and when the word was used in the White Paper, it did not mean "in the next few years". But the Government cannot have it both ways. If the Government say that the ½ new penny will disappear quite soon because of the great inconvenience of fractions in any system of decimal currency—with which I agree—if in fact it disappears before the coin has become obsolete through changes in the value of money, then the effect is bound to be inflationary.
  I know that it has been said that there is no relatively inflationary tendency in

  1795
  this system which does not also exist with the 10s. system, because the smallest units are the same in both cases. However, I dispute that, because there will always be a tendency to round up to the nearest whole number of units.
  For instance, the price of the Sunday Express, which is now 6d. would be 5 new pennies on the 10s. cent system—it converts very nicely—but under the £-cent-system there is no exact equivalent and it is very likely that the price would be increased to 7·2 pence. The cigarettes which I smoke—Players No. 6—now cost 3s. 6d. and would cost 35 new pennies under the 10s. cent system, but 17½ new pence under the £-cent-system and the cigarette manufacturers would want to avoid the use of half units which would be extremely inconvenient in the giving of change in shops and even more inconvenient for use with the machines.
  I do not know whether the Financial Secretary saw the item in The Times the other day under the heading
  "Decimals could put S.T.D. up to 1s."
  It was written by Mr. Pearce Wright, the science reporter, and he said:
  "With the introduction of decimal coinage, the minimum charge for using a public telephone S.T.D. kiosk could go up to a shilling. Even the Post Office recognises that such an increase would meet with public outcry, but its engineers face big problems in maintaining the present charges under a decimal system."
  There would be no 6d. equivalent and that slot in the coin box would have to be blanked off and the minimum charge would be 1s.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not want to appear discourteous, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have appealed for reasonably brief speeches. This is a short debate and many hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Lubbock: I apologise if I got carried away.
  I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made a serious error by not taking the views of the public into account in this matter. The Consumer Council survey has already been mentioned. It says that nearly two-thirds of the people who were aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the two main systems were in favour of the 10s. system.
  1796
  I should like to refer the Financial Secretary to the correspondence which I have been receiving from members of the public, not only from my own consituents, but from people who have seen me discussing the matter with Lord Halsbury on television, people who have read my articles in the newspapers.
  Of these letters, 66 have favoured the 10s. system and only five the £ system. I have had five letters favouring the £-mil, 11 some other system, and four in favour of no change. From this evidence I think that the overwhelming majority of the public is in favour of the 10s. system. I do not know whether the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary talks to members of the public and whether they have discussed this matter with bus conductors, shop assistants, housewives, the old folk and the people in the local. If they do they will get the same answer from them and it is that they want the 10s. system.
  The Government are making a hideous mistake, and it has been detected by the common sense of the British people. The Chancellor has listened to his friends in the National Cash Register, in the Bank of England and in the City of London, from whom we have heard this evening. He has been mesmerised by the power of the great financial authorities and he has ignored the woman in the street.
  The public is overwhelmingly against him and if there was a free vote this evening this House would be overwhelmingly against him. He will have his memorial, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West predicted. When many of the issues in this Parliament have been forgotten for a long time he will be remembered as "Half Cent Callaghan" the man who did not dare trust his judgment, and put it to the test of the House of Commons.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. A. H. Macdonald: May I begin by referring to an argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). He said that as far as the actual coins were concerned, he thought that the 10s. system had the advantage. I recognise that from his point of view this was only a marginal advantage, and that his main argument for and against lay elsewhere. If I may say so, he was in error

  1797
  here. I choose my words carefully, I am not suggesting that, in my opinion, he was making a mistake in judgment. He is in error, and the coinage in the 10s. system is twice as bad—this is something that could be quantified—as in the Government's proposals.
  It is important to draw a distinction between the unit of account and the token of exchange. When I speak about coinage I am speaking about the token of exchange. Under the 10s. system, as presented by its advocates, if there shall be a rise in the value of prices, and whether this takes a long time or a short time is irrelevant, the smallest unit in the fullness of time will become superfluous, but under that system it cannot be discarded because it is necessary for the giving of change.
  Therefore, under that system, it is necessary to continue in existence a coin that is no longer required. This is not an economic method of proceedings, and is an argument to be weighed against those recently advanced by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) when he was adding up the cost of the various types of coinage. I say that this matter can be quantified precisely, because the same phenomenon appears in the coinage system proposed by the Government, but at one stage further on. Under that system, when the time comes when the smallest unit is no longer necessary it can be discarded without any adverse effects in the way of giving change.
  Mr. Ginsburg: Is it not a fact that 40 per cent. of transactions will include this lowest denomination and that, therefore, if this coin were to disappear we would be in some difficulty?
  Mr. Macdonald: I have no doubt the fault is mine for not making my argument clear. It is probably true at present that a large number of transactions, I cannot tell if it would be 40 per cent., but a large number of them, would involve the lowest unit. I am looking ahead to the time when the increase in prosperity or inflation, or perhaps both, has brought about the situation, where the lowest unit, on either system, is not of a size sufficient to purchase anything. Then it should be discarded. I am suggesting that under the 10s. system it cannot be discarded, because it is required for the giving of change. Under
  1798
  that system we shall be forced to continue with a coin which is serving no useful purpose for purchases.
  I turn now to an argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) who referred to the capacity of accounting machines. Again this was an argument advanced by the hon. Member for Orpington. I can understand all of the other arguments in favour of the 10s. system, although I do not agree with many of them. But I do not understand the argument about machine capacity in favour of the 10s. system. It seems to be manifestly clear, simply by looking at a cash register or accounting machine, that the capacity will be halved by the introduction of a 10s. system. It will not be multiplied by five, it will be halved, and this can be demonstrated simply by inspection of the columns produced by the standard accounting machine.
  This is not the first time that this House has discussed a question of a change in coinage. I have been doing a little historical research on this subject and I find that as far back as 1695 there was a discussion about the proposed change of coinage. That was when the silver coins were made of silver but had smooth edges and people were clipping away at the edges. It was decided to replace them by milled coinage. I looked up the debates of that time, and they make particularly interesting reading. There was a discussion first of all on whether to introduce the new coinage and secondly, once that decision had been taken, whether to retain the existing units. I quote from the Parliamentary History of this period:
  "The next step was to consider whether the several Denominations of the new Money should be the same weight … as the old … The Court Party—"
  I take this to be the term used to describe the Government—
  "… were for preserving the old standard …"
  They said:
  "… in respect of our foreign commerce there was no reason to alter our standard. That at home great confusions would attend it."
  After a long debate the report goes on:
  "After debate, the commons resolved …"
  to continue:
  "… according to the established standard … at last this great undertaking of the greatest difficulty, yet of absolute necessity, was

  1799
  happily accomplished, to the immemorial honour of the parliament in general, and in particular"
  of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Can my hon. Friend inform us if the House had the privilege of a free vote on this occasion?
  Mr. Macdonald: The record is silent on that point. It states that the decision taken was a distinct and brilliant success. We have, therefore, a happy precedent in changing our coinage, but in maintaining the existing unit, and I hope that this is a precedent which we shall follow.
  I have a particular interest in taking part in this debate, because I am a member of the National Union of Bank Employees, I think the only member in this House. It will be agreed that everyone will be affected to a greater or lesser extent by this proposed change, but that members of the banking profession will be affected more than anyone else. While everyone handles money, and carries out transactions from time to time, members of my union are handling money all the time.
  I understand that my union is a strong supporter of the Government in this matter, and warmly endorses the proposal to introduce a £-cent-½ system. Naturally, this is an argument which weighs very heavily with me, but I should like to think that it may be significant to other hon. Members when they realise that the professional body most closely concerned in this matter endorses the Government's proposal.
  While I am on this topic, I wonder whether this is the place to put in the Government's mind the suggestion that they may find it well worth while to co-opt on the Decimal Currency Board a member of the National Union of Bank Employees. My reason for saying that is that when the transitional period is entered upon, no matter what system we choose, there is bound to be a certain amount of confusion and difficulty. People will have problems, and they will turn to the banks for advice. It is my members behind the bank counters who will have to give advice to the people who ask for it.
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: Would my hon. Friend explain how this advice
  1800
  will be given when the banks do not propose to employ the new half unit?
  Mr. Macdonald: It is perfectly simple to give advice, because, although the banks will not be employing the half unit, they will naturally be dealing with customers—private, retail and wholesale—who will be employing the half unit. They will be seeing their books of account and registers in the course of banking transactions and they will have to be familiar with the operation of the new system, whatever it may be. Retailers and wholesalers will have their difficulties in the transitional period, and the natural person for them to consult for advice is their banker. There are serious arguments for the suggestion that a member of the National Union of Bank Employees, which is most deeply involved in this matter, should be co-opted on to the Decimal Currency Board.
  I turn to one of the arguments which is most commonly advanced in favour of the 10s. system, and that is associability. It has seemed to me for some time that associability is one of the main arguments against it. I have noted that the examples quoted by those who advocate the 10s. system are most highly selective. I have often seen the suggestion that under the 10s. system 63 cents will be roughly equivalent to 6s. 3d., and that it will be easy and natural for the housewife to make the transition. That example is just and accurate: 63 cents are roughly equivalent to 6s. 3d.
  But if we go further up the scale to 68 cents, is it unreasonable to suppose that a large number of housewives, knowing that 63 cents equal 6s. 3d., will conclude that 68 cents equal 6s. 8d.? Of course, it does not: it equals 6s. 10d. I know that at that level 2d. is not a large amount. But the same situation obtains at lower levels. We can see that 13 cents equals 1s. 3d. There will be a great tendency on the part of the housewife to conclude that 18 cents equals 1s. 8d. It does not: it equals 1s. 10d.— a difference of 2d. It is even possible that a number of housewives will conclude, on the analogy of 18d., that 18 cents equal 1s. 6d. This is a difference of 4d.—20 per cent. This is a large sum in a small amount.
  The 10s. system, so much vaunted for its alleged associability, contains a built-in

  1801
  tendency to mislead housewives and towards concealed price increases by retailers and other organisations. I cannot understand why this system is advocated as the one from which housewives will most benefit. It seems to me manifest that it is the system from which they are likely to benefit least of all.
  I know only one serious argument advanced in favour of the 10s. system. It is an undoubted fact that if the £-cent-½ system is adopted accounting machines will not be standard machines and therefore will not be readily exportable. This argument was brought to my attention by a constituent. I am obliged to him. It is an argument against the Government's proposal, but I do not think that alone it is sufficient to stand up against the weighty arguments in favour of the £ system advanced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer today.
  There has been a great deal of confusion in the minds of those who oppose this system between the unit of account and the token of account. What the hon. Member for Orpington said about bus conductors was beside the point. Bus conductors will not be affected by the name of the tokens used. Whether the smallest token is called a cent or a half cent will make no difference to the operation of taking in money and giving change. They will recognise the token. In the same way, members of the public will recognise the tokens quite readily and will not be confused by the names which may be given. The picture which is conjured up of agitated members of the public crowding round bus conductors, news vendors or public conveniences nervously fumbling with their coins to get the right one is quite unrealistic. People will readily and easily learn to recognise the coins required.
  The advantages given by a heavy unit—which are so great that because we are accustomed to them I sometimes wonder whether we fully appreciate them—would be minimised by converting to a 10s. system. If the Government's system is adopted, we shall have a lasting system which will not detract from our international trade. I agree with those who say that the international argument is not strong, but it exists. Any change from the established £ cannot benefit our international relations and the activities of sterling, although I do not think that
  1802
  it would greatly weaken it. All the arguments seem to me to add up to a weighty, cogent and convincing case in favour of the £-cent-half system, and I shall have no hesitation in supporting the Government.
  7.58 p.m.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I listened to the arguments of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) with great interest. I hope that he will excuse me if I do not take them up except in passing, because other Members wish to speak and I want to be as brief as possible.
  I am very sad that the House will not have the opportunity of voting on this issue on its merits. I found the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was no longer practical politics to argue further about the matter, very unconvincing. There is no reason why we should not take a decision different from his at this point. The delay which would be involved in drafting another Bill would be very small. Certainly I do not think that we can accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that further delay would jeopardise the timetable which has been agreed. It was very much in his hands to avoid this situation arising. There is no reason why he should not have brought this matter before the House earlier so that we could have taken a reasonable decision.
  The Chancellor made great play of the fact that the majority of the Halsbury Committee—admittedly only 4 to 2—was in his favour. But he disregarded the fact that nearly all the other organisations in this country are against him. There is certainly not a majority of the organisations representing all interests in this country in favour of the Government's system. As has been rightly pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to risk discovering whether the majority of the House supports the Government's proposals.
  The Chancellor rightly said we should consider how much weight we should give to the various arguments which are adduced for and against the different systems. I wish to refer to them in particular relation to the question of timing. If one thing is clear, it is that the advantages and disadvantages of the £ system and the advantages and disadvantages of

  1803
  the 10s. or any other system arise differently through time. Some systems have an immediate advantage whereas others have a delayed advantage. This is an important point to consider because while we may be legislating for 1,000 years, we should not give the same weight to an advantage which will happen immediately the system is adopted as we should give to an advantage which may not benefit the country until 2967 A.D.
  I wish first to speak briefly about the so-called international case. I am not at all convinced by the idea that international bankers are so naive that merely changing the unit will shake confidence in our national currency. I am sure that international bankers and, indeed, those with whom we do business, are far more sophisticated than that. At all events, even if there is a slight point here which should be borne in mind, it is a once-for-all change and while it is immediate it does not repeat itself throughout time.
  I am much more convinced by the international argument which has been put forward that we should have a 10s. unit—I come down on that side of the fence—because it would enable us to have a system which is comparable with the systems of other countries and not a system which is the only one which is not a pure decimal system. I do not feel that much weight should be given to the argument for the heavy £-cent-½ unit, and still less to the argument for the even larger unit which has been advocated from the benches opposite. The time over which inflation and the rise in the standard of living will reduce the importance of whatever maximum unit we have is likely to be considerable. This—the argument for a heavy unit—is a deferred advantage and not one to which we should give great weight when comparing it with the immediate advantages of the 10s. system.
  A point which has not been adequately considered is that the £ system is not a pure decimal system but has a vulgar fraction added on at the end. This means that our business machines will be related to the impure system. This will mean that we have to produce different business machines if we export. This difference is likely to perpetuate itself. Eventually, when the half unit falls off
  1804
  the end of the £1 system with the increase in inflation and the rise in the standard of living, we shall find that many of our business machines have to be converted yet again. This is a further point which tells against the £ system and in favour of the 10s. system.
  The main advantage of the 10s. system arises from the question of associability. This is an immediate and transitional advantage which should be evaluated highly on account of the fact that it is immediate. Similarly, the point was made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that on telephone slot machines the figure will not be cut down to about 4½d. or its equivalent under the £ system but rather is likely to be raised to 1s. This is again likely to be an immediate disadvantage of the £ system.
  The more one looks at the whole question, the more one finds that the advantages of the 10s. system are immediate and the advantages of the £ system may be deferred for several generations. I cannot accept the Chancellor's argument, which he described as a powerful one, that some of the transitional difficulties may be overcome in weeks rather than months, because what I have said about business machines continuing to operate on a mixed decimal and fraction system will continue for many years ahead. The same would be true of teaching arrangements on the mixed system. If one reads carefully the Halsbury Report, one sees that it is clear that the balance of advantage of the 10s. system is likely to last for a generation or even longer. These are, therefore, the arguments to which we should give considerable weight.
  I turn from the question of timing to consider briefly the costs of conversion and the control which the Government will have during the transitional period. This falls very much under the Clauses of the Bill dealing with the Decimal Currency Board. Clearly, if the cost of conversion is to fall effectively on the users of the machines, the timing of the operation will turn very much on bilateral negotiations between producers and users of the equipment. If, however, the Government are to make no contribution to this cost or do not make investment allowances available on certain of these business machines, the Board will have great difficulty in controlling the timing of the conversion. That, I gather,

  1805
  is in contrast with the situation which has existed in other countries—for example, Australia—during the transitional period.
  There are some considerable technical points which the House should bear in mind. We are to try to carry out what has rightly been described as the largest currency conversion ever, from the present system to a decimal system. This will mean an enormous increase in the production and conversion of business machines. Are we satisfied that the capacity of the industry will be adequate? More particularly, does not a grave problem arise because we will be asking the industry to expand its capacity rapidly, it will have to do so for about three or four years and then it must cut down rapidly? What provisions do the Government propose to make, presumably under the present Bill rather than under the later one which will follow, for encouraging investment in the business-machine industry in general and the computer industry so as to encourage them to invest sufficiently in plant producing the business machinery during the interim period?
  If those industries are to have sufficient incentive, their overall profits must be sufficient to provide an adequate payoff merely during the conversion period, except for the additional machinery which may reasonably be expected to be needed after that period to cope with the ordinary growth in the use of business machines. This raises problems concerning both investment in business machine producing equipment, the training of new staff and then subsequent redundancy.
  When making its decision this evening about whether to support the Government's £ system or whether it would rather support a 10s. system, the £-mil system or any of the other systems which have been proposed, the House is entitled to know what would be the cost, at this stage, of changing our minds from the system to which the Government have prematurely committed us and opting instead for the 10s. system.
  Clearly, in the light of the Chancellor's statements, a number of people may have taken investment decisions. If we were to change our minds at this stage, clearly such people would incur a loss. Can the Chief Secretary give us any idea
  1806
  of what that cost is likely to be? If it is nil, is there any reason why we should not change our minds at this stage either on these grounds or because the Royal Mint has made its arrangements in anticipation of the transitional period?
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I shall be able to answer the hon. Member's second question a lot more easily than his first.
  Mr. Higgins: I shall look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman's answer on both points. What would be the cost to private firms or the Government of our changing our minds at this stage? Would it be £10 million, or more or less? This is something which the House needs to take into account in making its decision tonight. Overall the arguments are somewhat finely balanced, but I come down very much in favour of the 10s. unit.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. W. T. Williams: The Chancellor will have carried the whole House with him in bringing before it this determination to change from our present system to that of decimal currency, but it would appear, from the course of the debate, that he carries the House in little else.
  Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I think it is a great pity that the Second Reading of the Bill takes place without any prior opportunity having been given to discuss the merits of the different systems. That may have helped the Chancellor in coming to the conclusion to which he is so firmly holding, more particularly in the light of the position that was reached by Halsbury, the consequences of that decision, and the effect of that decision as soon as it was known.
  The position, undoubtedly, is that the Halsbury Committee was greatly affected by the argument regarding the international status of sterling. That emerges quite plainly in paragraph 373 of the Halsbury Report. Indeed, one of its members, I think it was Dame Anne Godwin, after the Report was published and the Chancellor had himself declared that the argument in relation to the international status of sterling did not overwhelmingly impress him, said that if she had not been so persuaded about the international consequences of the change in the basic

  1807
  unit she might herself have voted in favour of the domestic advantages of the 10s. system. Certainly if that were so it would have meant that Halsbury would have been equally divided. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod) went further than that. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought that, except for the overwhelming pressure on the minds of the Committee about the international status, the majority would have been heavily in favour of the 10 cent unit system.
  Since the Halsbury Committee reported, the Chancellor has been given a good deal of information, and a good many representations have been made both to him and his predecessors over the years regarding the £-cent system to which the Halsbury Committee had committed itself.
  It is therefore a pity that the Chancellor, knowing that the principal national distributive trade associations were strongly in favour of the other system in the light of the reservations that ultimately emerged from members of the Halsbury Committee and of the tremendously growing and massive support for the 10s. system which followed the publication of the White Paper, did not afford the House an opportunity of presenting its views. The Chancellor is obliged, without the opportunity of hearing what hon. Members have to say, to come to the position where today, when we are discussing this important matter, the debate is almost like a discussion between deaf people.
  The position is that the Chancellor has made up his mind. All the arguments that have been advanced in this debate will substantially be dismissed, as the very powerful arguments which the Chancellor has already heard have already been dismissed by him as that of a pressure group of people having a vested interest and not really worthy of his consideration.
  I take the view that the Chancellor has begun on a false premise and so has come to a false conclusion. Shakespeare, I think, got Malvolio, from the logic-chopping of a clown, to agree that his grandam was, in fact, a wild fowl. The Chancellor has not gone to that length, it is true, but apparently he took up his position initially because he was per-
  1808
  suaded that Halsbury was right. Halsbury took up this position initially on the ground that the international argument for the £-half cent system was essential for international purposes. The Chancellor has changed his mind on that issue at least once, but he appears today to have gone back substantially to the position which he held initially. He now says that he is not impressed by the argument about the £ from the point of view of principle, but that it does seem to have some merit from the point of view of convenience.
  I do not want to repeat the arguments which have already been used concerning the advantage and the simplicity of the 10s.-cent system. But if the argument regarding the international status of sterling falls down—and I want to say a word about that in a moment, because I think that it does—there is a tremendous lot to be said in favour of a system which has the merits of simplicity, ease and convenience from the point of view of the ordinary person.
  After all, the real purpose of our coinage system is that people shall be able to use it simply, that they shall be able to understand it, that they shall not find it complicated, and that they shall not be faced wih unnecessary difficulties. With regard to the great mass of people, even if it is only on balance, on balance the advantage clearly lies with the 10s. system. Its associability is obviously greater.
  I cannot for the life of me see any merit in the argument that because of some doubtful advantage internationally the argument must be taken to the point that our own people shall be faced with difficulties and with problems that are unnecessary. Over 95 per cent. of all day-to-day transactions involve only shillings and pence. The transition under the 10s. system is obviously very much easier. The coins that the Government will have to introduce will be unfamiliar. The tendency to inflation will be greater. With a basic coin of 2·4d. we have to introduce a fraction in order to reduce it in the hope that we will quickly, be able to dispense with the lowest coin. These are obvious disadvantages. Indeed, the existence of a fractional unit is in itself a serious disadvantage. It unnecessarily complicates the system—the

  1809
  more so because of the fact that the banks will themselves ignore the fraction.
  The truth is that the Government have missed the point of the real argument which we are advancing on behalf of the 10s.-cent system. The ease with which the Chancellor dismissed the question of associability is itself a pointer to this. In his argument this afternoon in favour of the £ system he in fact used the same considerations. There is an associability argument in relation to the keeping of the £ in the same way as there is an argument on associability in relation to shillings and pence if decimalised into almost the same figure.
  The Chancellor has said that from the point of view of associability the advantage of the £ is that the major unit will be the same, that all existing coins above 6d. will have exact equivalents in decimal values and will be able to be used in shops, that the shilling and the florin will be of the same size, and that the people who handle the new coins will be trained to help people to associate the new with the old system. That being so it seems to me that unless there is an overwhelming case internationally for the maintenance of sterling, it is probably unnecessary, and certainly undesirable, to introduce a system which has its own complications, which takes it out of the main stream of the currency systems of the world, and which, whatever the advantages or disadvantages in cash machines and the like, will have the result that our cash registers will forever be odd in relation to those in other parts of the world. They will always be nonstandard. To do this for what on the Chancellor's argument is possibly an advantage of convenience, seems ridiculous.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West put better than I can the point which I intended to make, but I think that it is worth underlining. So far from the position being that the £ unit will be an advantage internationally, I verily believe that from the point of view of the general currency position in the world it will be a disadvantage. I say this because if one looks at the situation in all the major industrial countries of the world one sees that the £ is a top-heavy final major unit of currency.
  The tendency, even in countries which formerly used the £, has been to change
  1810
  over to the 10s.-cent system. Like the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, I, too, was recently in Australia. There, because they changed to the 10s.-cent system, it was possible for the Government to abandon their long-term training provisions. Their people quickly became familiar with parallel coinage and they had no difficulty in going over to the new system. Without exception the people to whom I spoke expressed surprise that we were going into an unnecessarily complicated system which they believed would be a disadvantage. The researches which they had done had led them to prefer the 10s. to the £ system, which our Government has chosen.
  In my view it would be foolish to retain a unit which is heavier than the heaviest of the other units among the major currencies of the world. If the time comes, which we are led to believe may be in the near future, for Britain to go into the Common Market, a true decimal system will be absolutely essential. The Government, by their decision, has unnecessarily increased our difficulties in that eventually. The Good Book says that it is the foolish man who has his eyes on the ends of the earth, so it is a foolish Government who consider what is to happen in 100 years' time without, as seems to be the case here, taking sufficient cognisance of the problems being created in the immediate future.
  I support the Government wholeheartedly in turning over to decimal currency, but I regret that the Government have chosen this unit, that they have done so without sufficient discussion in this House, and that, in regard to a matter which surely should have been left to the judgment of hon. Members, they have chosen to have their way by imposing a Whip.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I agree wholeheartedly with the last words of the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams). It is a disaster that we should he discussing a Measure as crucially important as this on a day when we have had two Ministerial statements which took three-quarters of an hour out of our debating time, on a day when we had a Royal Commission, and when we have had a morning sitting which has

  1811
  docked half an hour off the debate this evening.
  I agree with the Government that it is right to retain the £, and I shall not repeat the arguments which were put so well by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith).
  In riposte to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), I say that I was unimpressed by his argument that the £ is too heavy to decimalise. There are many firms today which do all their accounting in decimalised £s, including billing their customers, and no difficulties arise because of that.
  This is a free vote on this side of the House, and I shall vote for the Government. I shall not vote for the Amendment because it deplores a system which includes the £. On the other hand, I believe that the Government are wrong in the subdivisions which they have chosen to introduce. The £-cent- ½-cent system is wrong and I believe we should have the £-florin-mil system instead.
  I believe that the right answer is to keep the £ on the associability argument because then there is no change over the vast mass of transactions.
  The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) was right in saying that we have to draw a clear distinction between the handling of coins and the conducting of paper transactions. Once we have the coins in our hands, what matters is counting them. The problems of transition from the old to the new will arise whatever system is adopted. In the case of written transactions we shall have £s and decimals, and no great difficulty arises. The argument put forward about Centigrade and Fahrenheit is false, because both those systems have existed side by side and nobody has been forced to use Centigrade and to discard Fahrenheit.
  The arguments for the use of the florin-mil sub-division fall under three heads. First, there is the coinage aspect, secondly, the question of flexibility, and, thirdly, the inflationary aspect, about which we have not heard a great deal this afternoon. The great advantage of the coinage system that I advocate is that it does away with the fraction. The reten-
  1812
  tion of the vulgar fraction has been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I agree with those criticisms. In written accounts it is unimportant, because decimals are used, but when dealing with Coinage the fraction can be very tiresome.
  The florin-mil system would allow the retention of the 6d. piece. The powerful arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) about parking meters and telephone charges would be met if the 6d. piece could be retained. Those machines would not need to be changed. With the Government scheme we shall have one new penny, two new pennies, five new pennies, and ten new pennies, the first two coins representing 2·4d. and 4·8d., respectively. With the £-mil system, at this level there would be five coins—five mil, representing 1 ·2d., ten mil, representing 2·4d., 25 mil, equivalent to 6d., 50 mil, equivalent to Is., and 100 mil, equivalent to the florin. The great argument for that system is that we should be able to have exactly the same coins as with the 10s.- cent. system, with one addition, and we should have all the advantages which have rightly been claimed, on the coinage side, for that system.
  The other great advantage would be that with the £-mil system we could go below the equivalent of 1·2d. We could have a two mil coin, equivalent almost exactly to the existing ½d. I agree with the Chancellor, however, that more scientific tests should be carried out on coin handling. I suggest that coins of the appropriate denomination should be made available to Members over the next few weeks, so that we can see them and handle them and make up our own minds which coins are better looking and are easier to handle.
  The second argument for the system that I advocate is that it would enable us to have a smaller unit than 1·2d. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) put this argument very forcibly. It would allow for price changes in much smaller steps. It would allow price changes to take better account of cost changes. Cost accountants are accustomed to working to three places of decimals of a penny, and prices must also be free to move in very small stages.
  Many of the products in daily use rise in price only by small amounts over the

  1813
  years. I am thinking of such things as beer, bread, eggs, petrol, sugar, milk and tobacco. Price changes in these products are usually measured in halfpennies, and that situation must be allowed to continue. It is not always possible to adjust the size or weight of a package. It is often against the law. That means that we must have the greatest flexibility in pricing.
  We must not under-estimate the total amount involved. If the cost of a packet of 10 cigarettes is increased by a halfpenny, people have to pay £24 million extra a year. If it rises by 1·2d. they pay no less than £58 million a year more. The difference represents the penalty that would be paid for having the smallest unit equivalent to 1·2d.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith), I believe that it is a disadvantage for price changes to be delayed because the smallest unit is too large. In my view there is a need for flexibility. If a price change is delayed later than the date when it should take place the return is reduced, and when the change has to be made it is greater than it otherwise need have been, thereby leading to inflation.
  We must ensure that our system will be the most suitable for the Common Market, which I am sure we will join sooner or later. The important point there is that a large number of industries which sell their commodities in small units must have the maximum flexibility of pricing to enable them to phase in with competing products on the Continent. To condemn them to a smallest unit of 1·2d. is to make their task much more difficult in this important transition.
  If we introduce a sales tax on the pattern of the Common Market sales taxes, we will need a much smaller coin. All those countries which have such a tax need a large number of the smallest coins to simplify transactions. There are 3,400 million pfennigs in circulation in Germany, amounting to 58 per head, compared with 15 halfpennies per head in this country. The Dutch have even more per head and America, with a large number of sales taxes, mints about 3,000 million cents every year and has done so for the past two years. There is no figure for the total in circulation. Only
  1814
  the £-florin-mil system will provide this important flexibility. This argument has not been considered before the past few months, but the Government must listen to it.
  Both the main systems must involve some measure of inflation because we are dealing with ladders of 12 rungs and 10, and thus the rungs are not exactly opposite. If the smallest unit is 1·2d. the temptation will be to increase prices more than if there were a smaller unit, the mil. The figures in paragraph 8 of Appendix 7 of the Halsbury Report show that the retention of the equivalent of the present halfpenny will reduce the inflationary effect by three times. Instead of it being 1½ points, it will be half a point.
  This all represents a substantial improvement on either of the main systems advocated today. The case was hardly argued by the Halsbury Committee. This is a great pity, because it has much to be said for it. Even now, it is insufficiently understood, but it is now favoured by industry, which recognises that, as the Government are determined to keep the £, we should have the advantages of the system advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, plus the greater flexibility which a smaller coin would give. Assuming that the £ must be kept, the £-florin-mil is the better system of sub-dividing.
  The Consumer Council, dismissed this argument in two cavalier paragraphs. They said that it was rejected by Halsbury. They were wrong: it was never argued by Halsbury. They said that it would inevitably involve three points of decimals. They were wrong: with the florin there can be two points. They said that the smallest coin would be the mil. They are wrong: the smallest would be 2 mils, equivalent to the halfpenny.
  If these are the only arguments against the system, the case for it is even stronger. I recognise that, because of the polarity of the main arguments, the debate must be either for or against the Government's system. I believe that they are right in adhering to the £ and that the "ten-bobbers" are wrong.
  Therefore, I shall vote for the Government, but I hope that I shall have an opportunity in Committee to press the case for the £-florin-mil system in more detail than time allows this evening.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. David Ginsburg (Dewbury): It is a strange experience for me to be aligned with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) in opposition to the hon. Member for Wanstead a ad Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. Listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, it occurred to me to say to my right hon. Friend what a marvellous Chairman of the Decimal Currency Board he would have been. He proved, moreover, that the Government were wrong in their decision to decimalise the £. They may have been right to decimalise the currency, but if the intention is to try to keep the £ as a unit of currency, surely the answer is that one should go for the £-mil.
  In the course of the debate, I was a little disappointed to hear that the Government and the Chancellor continue to lean on the Halsbury Report. It is rather strange for those of us on the Labour benches to hear our own Government giving support to a majority report. In the past, the Labour Party has made some of its greatest progress by espousing minority reports. I am reminded of Sydney and Beatrice Webb, George Woodcock, and Nicholas Kaldor. There is something to be said for looking at minority reports.
  This debate has been sufficiently good natured to have convinced the Chancellor that he was mistaken not to have had a general debate and taken the feelings of the House, as happened in another place.
  The main error of the Government and the Chancellor has been over the question of convenience to the public. Presumably we are decimalising for the convenience of the public and not for ideology. Therefore, it is an issue on which the public should be studied and even, to a degree, consulted.
  I speak as one who is still professionally active in market research and, in terms of good management, it is fantastic that my right hon. Friend has not undertaken any sort of market research. In the Treasury, he has his own social survey team. He has not used it. The only empirical evidence from the public is that of Dr. Sheila Jones of the Medical Research Council. But the Chancellor was not fair in suggesting that her evidence pointed his way.
  1816
  I am not sure whether he was in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) referred to her letter in today's Financial Times. I would urge him to read that letter in full, because it shows such empirical evidence as he has is definitely against and not for him.
  Turning to the international argument, I have looked at the Bank of England memorandum to the Halsbury Committee. It is very thin and pretty amateurish. The short answer to the Bank of England memorandum on the £ lies in paragraph 42 of the minority Report:
  "We believe that the City does itself less than justice by suggesting that a large section of foreign customers might take their business elsewhere as the result of such a decimalisation move, and so deprive themselves of the continued enjoyment of the integrity and unrivalled services and experience which the City gives."
  The Chancellor is a courageous man but an obstinate one. He has been courageous in defence of the £. I would urge him to think again on some aspects of this proposal. There is nothing wrong in changing one's mind. In the Finance Bill of 1965, he made some major changes which were to the improvement of that Bill.
  However, because I have the old-fashioned concept of loyalty and still live in some degree of hope, very reluctantly I shall go into the Division Lobby with him tonight.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, moving the Second Reading, said in effect that we should not now argue any further about this issue but should come to a decision, but this is the first real opportunity we have had to argue about that at all. The point is that this debate should have taken place earlier or the Bill should have been delayed, and I believe that in recent months and weeks the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House have treated this House deplorably on this question.
  This is not a party matter, but a matter pre-eminently for the House of Commons. It will closely affect every citizen in the land as consumers, shoppers, travellers and handlers of cash generally. Although the change is nearly four years ahead, the decision has to be taken during

  1817
  the coming months. Many members of the public have not yet had the opportunity to consider the effects of decimalisation, but it is all the more important for that reason, as several hon. Members have pointed out, that their Parliamentary representatives should have had a chance to consider and debate decimalisation before Second Reading.
  A currency change of this kind occurs only about every two centuries, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has attempted to steamroller the Treasury's preferred system through the House without the chance of a general debate and apparently oblivious of the disagreement with the system voiced by most of the bodies representing the large majority of the country to be affected. The Press has been over-whelmingly against this proposed system. The Economist in December stated that the Government were proposing to carry out decimalisation in the worst possible way. Yet the right hon. Gentleman said on 7th March that there was very little protest in December.
  Where has the Chancellor of the Exchequer been in recent months, when a great many bodies representing industry, commerce, transport, catering and other services, trade unions and the consumer organisations have been stating their views loudly in opposition to the £-new penny-½ system? A striking letter appeared in The Times on 12th December, signed by a number of distinguished persons representative of all walks of life in Britain and there were many other indications of disquiet and the need for a debate in this House.
  Several hon. Members, including myself, made our concern clear. I had applied for one of the debates on the day when we adjourned for the Christmas Recess, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer's White Paper came out in December. My debate duly took place but it could be only 50 minutes of private Members' time. Before the debate, the right hon. Gentleman sent me a message asking me to cancel it as there would be a full debate in the House later. Thank heavens I did not comply with that request.
  But in view of that attempt, I can only describe the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7th March as thoroughly misleading. He then said:
  1818
  "It is very late for the Opposition to raise this question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 1242.]
  Later the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The protest started on the day that the Bill was introduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 1242.]
  That date was 1st March.
  Because, fortunately, I had refused to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request, my debate took place on 21st December. In it, I and another hon. Member—and other hon. Members by their interventions—made it clear that they criticised the Treasury's preferred system. More important, I asked for an assurance that action would not be taken to commit the country to a particular system before Parliament had considered the question. In reply, the Chief Secretary said:
  "The hon. Gentleman also asked me if I would state that no action had been taken, and could undertake that no action would be taken, to prejudice the issue between the two systems. Certainly no instructions have been given to machine companies or anything like that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1966: Vol. 738, c. 1513.]
  That statement having been made in this House last December, one would like to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to say on 7th March:
  "Administrative decisions … have, of course, been taken and a number of companies, based on the decision announced by the Government over 12 months ago, have already entered into particular commitments on this matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1967; Vol. 742, c. 1243.]
  We had previously heard the sound of the approaching steam roller. Now it had arrived.
  However, on the following day, the Press—and I am thinking of The Guardian in particular—reported statements by the companies that they were not committed; that they could still go for either system. We would therefore be interested to hear, in reply to a question put by one of my hon. Friends, what are the commitments, and what would be the financial cost of a change at this stage. Have any commitments been entered into before today's debate as regards the minting of the coins?
  The Chancellor's reference to his announcement 12 months ago should not go without comment. The announcement on decimal currency was in a speech in this House after the General Election

  1819
  had been announced and in a debate on Government conduct of the country's economic affairs. Naturally, no other hon. Members in that debate reverted to the subject of decimalisation. After the election a further statement was expected. In due course it arrived in the shape of a White Paper in December, but no one expected to take that first statement, included in a speech in the House at that time, as the last word.
  In the same speech the Chancellor put forward another scheme, the mortgage option scheme. After the election that scheme was very quickly withdrawn and another different scheme was put forward. I have been on the Committee on the Bill referring to that matter. I know very well the differences between it and the scheme announced by the Chancellor in his speech of 1st March last year. He could easily have withdrawn this decimalisation proposal which was made in a similar way at the same time as the other scheme and he could have come forward with another proposal.
  During the summer the Consumer Council and other bodies were active on the matter and a number of hon. Members gave clear indications of their doubts and their opposition to the system. In the event, we did all that is normally necessary to point out clearly our dissent and the need and wish for a debate on this important subject. I am afraid hon. Members on both sides of the House had little assistance from the Leader of the House on this matter. I am sorry that he is not here at this moment.
  It was made clear on several occasions on Business Questions that a general debate should be held before the Bill was considered. The reaction of the Leader of the House can be explained only by his reply to a business Question last week when, with a revealing mental reflex he said:
  "… we consulted the Department ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March 1967; Vol. 743, c. 721.]
  I fear that the Department was not only consulted on this question but its view was allowed to prevail and, as a result, this House is being allowed today only to add its stamp to a Government decision. The Chancellor is presenting this system for endorsement only.
  1820
  There is no dispute about the need for decimalisation, but it is vital that the best system should be adopted. That is the issue. It is pointless for the Government to base their argument on the Halsbury Committee Report because this question of the system was the very question which that Committee could not agree upon. Four members favoured a £ system while two favoured the 10s. unit system. Yet even at that time, over three years ago, the Report recorded that there had been a swing of opinion towards the 10s. unit, and that swing has continued apace since then.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. kin Macleod) pointed out, the Halsbury Committee was much influenced by the international case. Also in considering the two competing systems the Committee said that the real decision was between the domestix advantages of the 10s. system and the international advantages, as the Committee saw them, of the £-cent-½ system. In the three years which have passed, the international argument has virtually disappeared. Even the Government gave some recognition to this in the White Paper, but the domestic advantages of the 10s. system have become clearer. While the country has benefited from the Halsbury Committee's excellent and unanimous advice on many aspects of decimalisation, it is wrong to have based the selection of the amount and system on the Committee's divided views on this subject. The Government's proposed system would not bring us the advantages of pure decimalisation. Unlike the decimal currencies in the world, we should have a fraction and virtually three units.
  Here I would ask the House to consider the main principle and the advantage of moving to a decimal system. This is that it should be possible to express any sums of money in not more than two columns. At present our currency is clumsy, because we need four columns.—pounds, shillings, pence, and a halfpenny. The Government's proposed system would entail using three columns. To achieve the full advantages of decimalisation, one has to select a major unit of a size such that division into 100 parts will provide a small unit whose size is small enough to cater for all reasonable transactions. That is the way in which a

  1821
  decimal system which will express any sum of money in two columns only is found. This is the kernel of the matter.
  It will not work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West pointed out with devastating clarity, with the £. This is why the Government have had to produce their fraction, but it is possible with the 10s. unit. It also explains why other variations have been put forward—for example, the £ divided into 1,000, producing mils. Here the smallest unit would be smaller than required, but at least it would eliminate the egregious fraction. I understand the explanations of this that have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin).
  This was something which the C.B.I. put forward, but only after pressing the 10s. system and finding the Government adamant against it. Here I quote from the C.B.I. Journal of 3rd March:
  "It became clear in the end that industry's order of preference was for the 10s.-cent system first, for the pound-mil next and the pound-cent a bad last."
  There is also the proposal for a £5 unit which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker) has put forward. This is the 10s. system with the decimal point moved one place, but the smallest unit would be the same. The disadvantage of dividing the main unit into 1,000 rather than 100, which is common to these two systems, is that large figures would have to be used for fairly small transactions in shillings. A housewife shopping would be involved with figures like 755 when she was in the area of 15s., and the conversion from present sums would not be simple. What is common ground to almost everyone who has considered this subject is that the Government have selected the worst of the possible systems.
  I will now consider the 10s. system, because this is the one that has the large majority of support in the country. My right hon. Friend gave the main reasons for its advantages over the Government's proposed system. I should like to stress four points in particular—its simplicity; the advantage that it is less likely to cause price increases; that the changeover period would be much easier; and that it would be less expensive to introduce.
  1822
  On simplicity, conversion is much easier from the present currency. This has been made clear by a number of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) argued against this, because he said that it was not exact conversion. That is the reason for the awful word "associability" which has come in. All prices are not convertible to within a penny, but at least the housewife or other shopper can see at a glance whether the price is roughly in the area she is expecting; she can compare when she moves into the new system.
  Furthermore, the fraction will preclude the simplicity which a decimal currency should enjoy. Because of the fraction, there is a danger that prices will be rounded off upwards. That is what the consumers organisations have been worried about, and that is where the Chancellor misunderstood the argument, although I did not press to interrupt him. He said that the argument was that the fraction would disappear, and that prices would be rounded off upwards. But that is not what bothers the consumer organisations. They are worried that people will try to avoid the fraction, although it still exists, and are then likely to push the price upwards rather than downwards.
  The change-over period is expected to be about two years. We have heard that in Australia, because the 10s. unit was so successful, they have been able to reduce the period to 18 months. During the change-over period here, the old and new currencies will have to circulate together. Under the 10s. system only two new coins are required to replace the present bronze coins—the smallest coins. All our present silver coins, or more correctly cupronickel coins, could continue. If I did not mishear the Chancellor, he said that under this system all the coins above 6d. will continue, but that is not so. The half crown will have to go, because it becomes a fraction. Under the Government system, four new coins are necessary. The Government are introducing five and suggest that they may introduce a sixth. The sixpence must disappear because that is also a fraction.
  During the transition period all those coins will be circulating together. There will be our present currency, including pennies and the sixpence, which will become 2½ new pennies, together with

  1823
  five new coins in the new currency called new pennies and new halfpennies having a different value from the existing ones. They will all circulate together for about two years, and no one will bless the Chancellor who introduced this system. Apart from the general public, those who must handle cash, like bus conductors, shop assistants, newspaper vendors and cashiers will find that their transactions with their customers are slow and difficult.
  The change-over under the 10s. system would be less expensive, not only because only two new coins would be needed but because meters and vending machines depending upon shillings, sixpences and half-crowns would not need alteration. It is not surprising that Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have all decided on the 10s. system. The White Paper, "Decimal Currency in the United Kingdom", published last December, refers to them at various points, but it is remarkable that not a word is said recording or revealing that they have all adopted the 10s. system.
  I now turn to the argument for the £ unit. I am not one of those who have said that there are no advantages in it, because I agree that there is the familiarity of the name and its international standing abroad. But that is not in itself a good enough reason to make decimalisation the kind of operation which the right hon. Gentleman now proposes, that is, a mix-up between fractions and decimals and the other troubles which we have discussed. A modernised, efficient and workable currency without a fraction could strengthen sterling in world esteem.
  Both the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) mentioned the question of international trade. But that is vague; we do not have the information. The Halsbury Committee did not investigate it. I believe that both that question and the question of market research, which has also been mentioned, need to be examined before the Chancellor goes ahead with the Bill. I hope that he will withdraw it while that very necessary research is carried out.
  The Chancellor said that the arguments are still the same as at the time of the Halsbury Committee, but the point is that their weight has altered. Some
  1824
  of the arguments are much more weighty than the others. The Government seem determined—unless we hear something different from the Chief Secretary—to foist a bastard decimal-fraction currency upon the country. Regrettably, the vote tonight cannot represent the true feelings of the House owing' to a Whip having been imposed on the Government side. There is, however, a free vote on this site of the House. This is not a party political matter. I am aware that many hon. Members opposite do not like the new penny-½ system and some have made it clear today. If there were a really free vote I am certain that the 10s. unit system would get a substantial majority.
  There are hon. Members opposite who are concerned because of the effects on the general public and their constituents and because of the views of the T.U.C., the Co-operative movement and trade or transport undertakings with which they are associated. They are not rebels and should not be treated as such. Nor is the subject related to the Common Market, Vietnam or the pay freeze. Yet the Whip has been imposed. They should never have been put in this dilemma and I sympathise with them. I hope that they will exercise their right of conscience because I cannot believe that a non-party question which affects the daily life of every citizen can really be regarded as a matter of party discipline.
  If the Government do nevertheless press on with the Bill, it will become clear that they have chosen a new method of minting coinage and that their new instrument for minting it is the steamroller. It may give the Government a feeling of security in this House but it is crushing the expression of a free and true opinion in this House. It will not remove the problem. The Government are pressing through a system likely to meet increasing opposition, from those who have to use it as they learn what is entailed. The Chancellor will come to regret that he chose earlier to ignore both this House and representative bodies outside.
  9.7 p.m.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will share my view that, considering the tone of the arguments that have been used in the Press and in

  1825
  a great deal of the propaganda put forward, no complaint can be made about the debate. Many views have been expressed. It is absolutely right to say that this is not a party issue, because we have had support for my right hon. Friend's proposal from both sides of the House. It has been opposed on both sides. We have had alternative proposals from both sides. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then why the Whip?"] I shall answer that in a moment.
  If we were exclusively concerned—which we are not necessarily and technically concerned with—with the principle of decimalisation there would be no vote at all. I am sure of that. The whole House approves decimalisation. The Halsbury Committee was set up by right hon. Members opposite. It reported and my right hon. Friend announced the present Government's decision. I am not going so far as to say that had the Opposition still been in Government they would have announced their decision, because at the moment I want to keep on ground which does not raise passions. It is clear that the House is in favour of decimalisation, and in that sense we can call this an historic day, for the system that we have had has been with us for hundreds and, in certain respects, for over a thousand years. But the whole House is almost unanimously agreed that we shall now move forward to a decimalised system.
  In such an important decision, the Chancellor would naturally wish that full discussions and collection of the views of everyone should take place, and there has been some objection that this has not been done. I really cannot understand that complaint, and I hope that those who feel that way will bear with me while I recite some of the facts. As my right hon. Friend said, the Committee, set up by the last Government, went to enormous lengths and into enormous detail to receive and sift evidence before reaching its conclusion. I have no need to go over it, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already done so.
  A full year ago, in March, 1966, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a perfectly clear statement about decimalisation. The interest shown was minimal. The objections were negligible. So far as one could test public opinion, it was
  1826
  in support of decimalisation related to the £. There was no means of knowing that hon. Members on either side of the House wished to press the matter, until much more recently.
  The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said that he wished that he could have had the opportunity to have a debate when the White Paper was issued. He knows that he had that opportunity. He made an interesting and lengthy speech—and he was not the only one—and his views were made absolutely clear and I had the pleasure of listening to every word. It is not the case that the House has not had the opportunity of having a debate on this topic.
  My right hon. Friend feels that we should now move on, for the reasons indicated by many speakers. What is business to do and what is industry to do, having regard to my right hon. Friend's statement of more than a year ago? They want to know whether we mean business and the answer is that we do. It is the Government's responsibility, having listened carefully to all the arguments and having read all the reports and having gone to endless trouble, as they should, to send skilled individuals to study what is happening in other countries which are going through the same kind of experiment, to make up their minds. We had to make up our minds because nobody else would. The Opposition are not doing so, but are doing exactly what my right hon. Friend complained about—adding their voice to opposing what is proposed.
  There are all sorts of people who are opposed to this method and if we were to have a free vote, we would need at least six Lobbies. We would need an 8s. 4d. Lobby to support a system which has not been mentioned today, but which is a solid and reliable system for 100 pennies. We would need a ten-bob Lobby and a 10s.½ Lobby, we would need a £-cent-half Lobby—the present proposal and we would need a £-mil Lobby for the idea put forward in a very persuasive speech by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and a £5-mil Lobby for the idea put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Francis Noel-Baker). The Halsbury Report indicates that all those

  1827
  are solid proposals. Many of them have advantages.
  As my right hon. Friend said, any one system would probably have a majority against it. We are all politicians and we are all aware of that phenomenon. But the Government have to make up their minds and on balance they take the view, after the carefully considered Report of the Halsbury Committee and the further consideration which the Government have given, assisted by Departments and officials, including those in the Treasury who are well informed about these matters, that this is the right system.
  Sir Robert Cary: Surely the Leader of the House has been under a permanent obligation since last March to give the House an opportunity to discuss the matter before the presentation of the Bill.
  Mr. Diamond: I cannot speak from first-hand knowledge for I am not always here when the Leader of the House is questioned about business, but I am told that in the last three months there has been no request of this kind. The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) is better informed about what goes on in this place than most of us are, and if he so much wanted a debate, he knows that the Opposition always have the opportunity to secure a debate on any topic which they feel to be of great interest and on which the House is not in step with the Government.
  There has been no such request to devote a Supply day to this. I refer to these matters delicately, but it was right that those distinguished and knowledgeable Members of Parliament who are members of the Parliamentary Labour Party Economic Group should have an opportunity of discussing this matter at first hand with the Chairman of this Committee, who was courteous enough to come along and address them. All ten of them turned up to listen.
  Mr. Brooks: Is it not true that the date of that meeting happened to be the date on which the Bill had been printed?
  Mr. Diamond: It is true that that was notified. I do not want to go into it with indelicate definition. It is true that the date had been notified and, had there been a tremendous interest in this, of
  1828
  course there would have been more Members. I do not know how many Members turned up on a similar occasion when the Chairman addressed Conservative Members. The short point is that there is clear evidence that the time had arrived for the Chancellor to make up his mind. He announced his decision, a White Paper was published, and there has been every opportunity for pushing points of view.
  The Chancellor, as everyone knows, is anything but arbitrary. [Laughter.] I should know. I have worked with my right hon. Friend and I have worked in this House. I have never listened to more criticism than came from this House on the number of occasions when the Chancellor had changed his mind on a number of tax proposals. Every time that he acceded to a request to change his mind, the Chancellor and I were criticised on the grounds that we were flabby, flexible, could not make up our minds, and did not know where we were going. The House cannot have it both ways. As everyone knows, my right hon. Friend is anything but inflexible.
  We have our responsibility as a Government, particularly to those about whom I have been asked questions. I have been asked what commitments have been entered into. I want to make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn that what I told him previously was absolutely true and it is precisely true today. There have been administrative decisions made and some administrative planning. It costs something to sit round a table and plan, but that is not the cost which is referred to in his question, or that of one of his hon. Friends.
  I have been asked what cost has been incurred, and the answer is that no commitment has been undertaken by the Government, or in the public sector which would in any sense prevent us from changing our minds now. It is open to Parliament to come to its decision. We said that and we have maintained it. Until we have the authority of Parliament, we do not propose to undertake any commitments of that kind.
  I am not able to answer the hon. Gentleman about what others may have done. It is completely beyond my knowledge, but it is clear that those who want to meet a given date will have to be

  1829
  making arrangements, and it is our responsibility to let them know that they can go ahead with those arrangements, without being incommoded and put to nugatory expense through a Government's vacillation. I hope that I have dealt fairly and fully with the points raised.
  Mr. Lubbock: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what information was given to the National Cash Register Company at the meeting held with it on 13th April, 1966, three months before the White Paper was published, and whether he knows of any decisions made by that company to go ahead with its plan for a £-cent-½ system?
  Mr. Diamond: I gather that the hon. Gentleman has had a communication from my right hon. Friend and he therefore knows the answer to that question. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman had thought it important, he would have raised the matter when he spoke. He did not think it important to refer to it then.
  Mr. Lubbock: I asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell me with what organisations consultations had been held. He has courteously—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief at this stage.
  Mr. Lubbock: The information which he gave me was that a meeting was held with the National Cash Register Company on 13th September, 1966—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must take note of what the Chair says.
  Mr. Diamond: I want to help the hon. Gentleman as much as I can, notwithstanding that he is raising a point which he could well have made in his speech and which he could make in Committee.
  I understand from my right hon. Friend that he has received many delegations, including this one, and told them the same thing, namely, what the Government's proposal was and that the Government were not entering into any commitment until they had Parliament's authority. This is known to everybody. There is nothing unusual, secret or mysterious about it.
  May I proceed with the arguments used against the proposal, because it is clear that there is no proposal for any other system on the Order Paper. The
  1830
  Motion on the Order Paper, as one expected, criticises the system which the Government propose.
  There are a number of possibilities. However, once one accepts, as I think one is bound to accept, the logic of the Report as to the likely future falling into disuse of the halfpenny equivalent, then only two systems come up for final consideration. Of the two systems, the Committee, by a majority, came down in favour of the one which the Government propose. A number of Members, including the right hon. Gentleman, have sought to destroy that decision by saying, in effect, that the reasons which the Committee adduced were the wrong reasons, or that one of the subscribers to the majority Report has since changed her mind.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: No.
  Mr. Diamond: That has been suggested, not by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Therefore, may I make it absolutely clear that Dame Anne Godwin has not changed her mind. She was, and remains, for the £, the system which is in the Report and in the Bill. She reached her decision without attaching importance to the international case. I have been authorised to make this statement. Let us be clear about this: the majority was and remains solid.
  The right hon. Gentleman said, surprisingly enough—and this point has been taken up by a number of speakers—that the international case was stated in the Report to be the dominating argument, as a result of which the majority reached its conclusion. One part of the Report has been quoted time and again. I am absolutely astonished that we have never heard today the whole of it. May I read the part which has been quoted and then, to put it in context, read the real conclusion of the Committee.
  Paragraph 383, which has been quoted, says:
  "From a purely domestic point of view the 10s.-cent system without a fraction offers, on balance, the best system for the immediate future and the smoothest transition ".
  But it says "for the immediate future". Towards the end of paragraph 384, it is said:
  "Confining our examination to transitional matters relating to the introduction of the decimal system, we concluded that the disadvantages

  1831
  of the £-cent system as opposed to a 10s.-cent system were a price well worth paying, in the general interest, to avoid risk to the international standing of sterling".
  Paragraph 385 goes on:
  "If we look further ahead than the transitional period, the balance of advantage, even without the ' international' case, inclines, in our view, increasingly towards the £-cent-½ system."
  I cannot understand why one of my hon. Friends built the whole of his case on the one argument that the international case had determined the decision of the majority and that if the international case is removed, the majority evaporates and one comes back to a 10s. system. There is nothing to support that.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman is looking at the wrong paragraph. I referred not to paragraph 383, but to paragraph 373, in which he will find in heavy print the words which I quoted. The Halsbury Committee said, in effect, that it boils down to
  "The ' international' case for the £ versus the associability' case for the 10s. system."
  Mr. Diamond: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman referred to that paragraph. I remember looking at the bold type. If one takes that paragraph together with what I have read, it becomes absolutely clear. The paragraph from which I read is only 10 paragraphs later and the right hon. Gentleman said that he had read the whole Report carefully. Of course he has. He would have seen that the Report says in the most specific terms, which I have read out, that if one refers purely to the transitional period, these arguments balance one another perhaps, but that when going further ahead, as we want to do, without question and even ignoring the international case the Committee came down on balance in favour of the system which is proposed. One is bound to do that for all the reasons which have been adduced by those hon. Members, including many of my hon. Friends, who support what the Government are proposing.
  There are several long-term advantages in connection with the £. On the short term, the question of associability
  is fairly evenly balanced. It is remarkable with what skill people can adjust themselves to handling different coins and currencies once they are compelled to do so—once, that is to say, the coins which they are at present handling are removed.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that there will be the fullest preparation. All the experience in other countries is that with careful preparation there is easy transition. It is not the unit which is chosen but the preparation that is made that determines whether the transition shall be easy.
  The value of having a £ which we know about, which is the same and which has the same value, the same name and the same international reputation, putting it no higher than that, is of such long-term advantage that it should not be easily thrown away. An overwhelming case against it has to be demonstrated to justify throwing away something which has stood us in good stead over all these years.
  Particularly if a Government are inviting the whole community to go, as they are, into a new situation with some unfamiliar coins and some unfamiliarity in the decimal system, as is inevitable, it is surely right that a responsible Government should say, "Here is something you can hang on to, something you know all about. It is absolutely familiar. It is what you have been having your wages in, what you have paid your rent in and what you have been buying your motor car or your television with. It is what you have been used to for your housekeeping allowance." It is surely right that the Government should see that a citizen should know and handle a £ note which is familiar and will continue to be familiar in an unfamiliar system.
  For these reasons, I feel sure that the House will give us the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: —
  The House divided: Ayes 261. Noes 169.

  Division No. 298.]

  AYES

  [9.30 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Archer, Peter

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Albu, Austen

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Awdry, Daniel

  Allen, Scholefield

  Ashley, Jack

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Barnes, Michael

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Ogden, Eric

  Barnett, Joel

  Hamling, William

  Oram, Albert E.

  Baxter, William

  Hannan, William

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bell. Ronald

  Haseldine, Norman

  Orme, Stanley

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Oswald, Thomas

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hazell, Bert

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

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Bishop, E. S.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Horner, John

  Park, Trevor

  Booth, Albert

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Boston, Terence

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Boyden, James

  Howie, W.

  Pentland, Norman

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hoy, James

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Huckfield, L.

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

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

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hunter, Adam

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Hynd, John

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rankin, John

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Redhead, Edward

  Cant, R. B.

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Rees, Merlyn

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Richard, Ivor

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Chapman, Donald

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Coe, Denis

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)

  Coleman, Donald

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

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

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, T. A. (Rhondda West)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Judd, Frank

  Crostand, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Kelley, Richard

  Rose, Paul

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

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

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kimball, Marcus

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Lawson, George

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Slater, Joseph

  Dewar, Donald

  Loughlin, Charles

  Small, William

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Luard, Evan

  Smith, John

  Doig, Peter

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Snow, Julian

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  McBride, Neil

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  MacColl, James

  Stonehouse, John

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Swingler, Stephen

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Taverne, Dick

  Ellis, John

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  English, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Ennals, David

  Mackie, John

  Tinn, James

  Ensor, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tomney, Frank

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Faulds, Andrew

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Fernyhough, E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marquand, David

  Weitzman, David

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mason, Roy

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Maude, Angus

  Whitaker, Ben

  Ford, Ben

  Maxwell, Robert

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Forrester, John

  Mellish, Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Wigg, Rt. Hn. George

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Millan, Bruce

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Gardner, Tony

  More, Jasper

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Ginsburg, David

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Winnick, David

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Murray, Albert

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Newens, Stan

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Mr. Harper and

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Mr. Walter Harrison.

  1834

  1835

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Murton, Oscar

  Astor, John

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Neave, Airey

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

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Nott, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Onslow, Cranley

  Batsford, Brian

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Grant, Anthony

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Pardoe, John

  Bessell, Peter

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Peel, John

  Biffen, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Percival, Ian

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Peyton, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gurden, Harold

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Pym, Francis

  Braine, Bernard

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick Angus, N&M)

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Royle, Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Sharples, Richard

  Carlisle, Mark

  Holland, Philip

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

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hornby, Richard

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Stainton, Keith

  Clegg, Walter

  Hunt, John

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Cooke, Robert

  Stodart, Anthony

  Cordle, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Summers, Sir Spence

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kirk, Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Crawley, Aidan

  Kitson, Timothy

  Teeling, Sir William

  Crouch, David

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Dance, James

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Davidson,James (Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Cromarty)

  Walters, Dennis

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Ward, Dame Irena

  Doughty, Charles

  McMaster, Stanley

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Webster, David

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Maddan, Martin

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Eden, Sir John

  Marten, Neil

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Emery, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wood. Rt Hn. Richard

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Eyre, Reginald

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Wright, E.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Monro, Hector

  Younger, Hn. George

  Fortescue, Tim

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Foster, Sir John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Mr. Goodhart and Mr. Lubbock.

  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: I beg to move, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 171. Noes 246.

  Division No. 299.]

  AYES

  [9.42 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Biffen, John

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Astor, John

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Bullus, Sir Eric

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

  Blaker, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Campbell, Gordon

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Carlisle, Mark

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Batsford, Brian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Bell, Ronald

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Clegg, Walter

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Cooke, Robert

  Bessell, Peter

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Percival, Ian

  Crawley, Aidan

  Hiley, Joseph

  Peyton, John

  Crouch, David

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Currie, G. B H.

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hordern, Peter

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Dance, James

  Hornby, Richard

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hunt, John

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Royle, Anthony

  Doughty, Charles

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kimball, Marcus

  Scott, Nicholas

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Sharples, Richard

  Eden, Sir John

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Emery, Peter

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Smith, John

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Fisher, Nigel

  Loveys, W. H.

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Fortescue, Tim

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Foster, Sir John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Teeling, Sir William

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

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marten, Nell

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Maude, Angus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

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

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Grant, Anthony

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Walters, Dennis

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Monro, Hector

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  More, Jasper

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Grieve, Percy

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Webster, David

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Gurden, Harold

  Murton, Oscar

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Neave, Airey

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nott, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Wright, E.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Wylie, N. R.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pardoe, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Heseltine, Michael

  Peel, John

  Mr. Goodhart and Mr. Lubbock.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Carmichael, Nell

  Faulds, Andrew

  Albu, Austen

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fernyhough, E.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Chapman, Donald

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Archer, Peter

  Coe, Denis

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Ashley, Jack

  Concannon, J. D.

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Ford, Ben

  Barnes, Michael

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Forrester, John

  Barnett, Joel

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Fowler, Gerry

  Baxter, William

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Freeson, Reginald

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Gardner, Tony

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Ginsburg, David

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Boston, Terence

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Dewar, Donald

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Boyden, James

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Doig, Peter

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Donnelly, Desmond

  Hamling, William

  Brooks, Edwin

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hannan, William

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

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Harper, Joseph

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Eadie, Alex

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Buchan, Norman

  Ellis, John

  Hazell, Bert

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

  English, Michael

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Ennals, David

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Ensor, David

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Cant, R. B.

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

  Horner, John

  1838

  1839

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

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

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mason, Roy

  Rose, Paul

  Howie, W.

  Maxwell, Robert

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Hoy, James

  Mellish, Robert

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Huckfield, L.

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Millan, Bruce

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

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

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

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Hynd, John

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Moyle, Roland

  Skeffington, Arthur

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

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Slater, Joseph

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Murray, Albert

  Small, William

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Newens, Stan

  Snow, Julian

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

  Oakes, Gordon

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Ogden, Eric

  Stonehouse, John

  Jones, T. A. (Rhondda West)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Taverne, Dick

  Judd, Frank

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Kelley, Richard

  Orme, Stanley

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)

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

  Oswald, Thomas

  Tinn, James

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

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lawson, George

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Park, Trevor

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Weitzman, David

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Whitaker, Ben

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Loughlin, Charles

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Whitlock, William

  Luard, Evan

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Probert, Arthur

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  MacColl, James

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rankin, John

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Redhead, Edward

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Rees, Merlyn

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Winnick, David

  Mackie, John

  Richard, Ivor

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

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

  Mr. Fitch and Mr. McBride.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  DECIMAL CURRENCY [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

  Resolved,

  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the introduction of a decimal currency, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses of the Decimal Currency Board to such amount as may be authorised by the Treasury.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

  PRICES AND INCOMES (NEWS AGENCIES' STAFFS)
  9.53 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod (Enfield, West): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Temporary Restrictions on Pay Increases (20th July 1966 Levels) (No. 4) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 217), dated 22nd February, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be annulled.
  I feel that I ought to apologise for troubling the House for the third time today, partly on the statement on prices and incomes, then on decimal currency, and now on this Prayer. I am getting in practice for the Finance Bill which lies ahead.
  This Order arises out of the 1966 Prices and Incomes Act. We opposed the original Act. We opposed it even more fiercely when Part IV was introduced into it, and consistently and vehemently we have opposed the Orders which have been made under it.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not the only ones.
  Mr. Macleod: Perhaps we are not the only ones, but we are the only ones who voted against them.
  In passing, I would say that it is pleasant to be debating this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary. This is the first time that I have had that opportunity. He will know of my affection for his Department. I am bound to say that it is very sad that he has to defend the sort of Motion which comes before the House today.
  We had this afternoon from the First Secretary a statement that I found mainly incomprehensible and, where I did understand it, unfair. It has already been savaged in comment, and this Prayer is a very good illustration of what happens when a Government try to intervene in detail in statutory support of their prices and incomes policy. The basic facts are not, I think, in dispute, although it is fair to say—I have seen most of the parties to the dispute—that some of the parties look at some of the facts—naturally enough, perhaps—with a rather different eye.
  1842
  As I understand the position, it is that the Press Association, Exchange Telegraph and Reuters had an agreement with N.A.T.S.O.P.A., now S.O.G.A.T., which expired on 30th September of last year. The union gave notice of termination of this agreement towards the end of April 1966; that is to say, before 20th July. At a meeting on 3rd November the management and union representatives together agreed on revised terms, which included a minimum increase of 29s. 6d. for employees aged 21 or over, and termination on 31st March, 1968.
  In accordance with normal practice, this offer was then submitted to the union executive council, which approved it for membership ballot. The ballot was favourable. There then rose the problem of implementation, and another meeting was held with the union. The union suggested that the management should write to the Ministry saying that the management proposed to implement from 1st January, 1967. The management agreed to do so, and its letter contained these sentences:
  "We propose to implement this Agreement with effect from 1st January, 1967. Payment will be made under the new Agreement in the week beginning January 23rd unless we hear from you before that date that this is unacceptable."
  The letter ended:
  "A gross anomaly exists as a result of N.G.A."—
  that is, the National Graphical Association:
  "and NUJ employees of"—
  the three agencies "—
  "having received negotiated increases in 1966 on expiry of their two-year agreements while S.O.G.A.T. employees, the lowest paid section "—
  and I will return to that point later:
  "on the expiry of their two-year agreement have not."
  The Minister's reply contested the question of whether or not there was a gross anomaly and also whether the question of the criteria of the lowest-paid worker should apply. It ended:
  "Subject to further consideration … we hope that both parties will meet the wishes of the Government deferring this increase until the 1st July, 1967, at the earliest."
  Finally, all three chapels of the B.N.A.—the British News Agencies Association including Reuters, who are not directly affected by this Order—voted to strike

  1843
  for 24 hours in the first instance. Reuters subsequently withdrew the strike threat—
  Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am of the opinion that the box on the Liberal bench conflicts with the protocol of this House about bringing cases into this place. I have noticed that previous Speakers have ruled that such things be taken out. Any reflection on the subject would indicate how undesirable this practice is. Once we start we almost have portmanteaus brought in. May I request you to ask Liberal Members to remove the object?
  Mr. Speaker: This is a difficult question. I noticed that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) brought in a strange contrivance, which, I imagine, contained his speech on decimal currency. That has to go now, unless it is serving some useful purpose.
  Mr. Macleod: I was observing that the Reuters strike threat—all three were for 24 hours in the first instance—was withdrawn and the Press Association and the Exchange Telegraph decided to pay from 1st January and the Minister, in retaliation, made this Order. So much for fact, I do not think the facts are in dispute. There may be more facts which one could add, but the basic facts are those.
  Now I turn to comment. As I understand the position, of those concerned in these news agencies the highest paid received their 1966 advances just before, indeed one day before, the 20th July statement. They received them on 19th July. Therefore, the lowest-paid workers—this is very ironic—are being affected by this decision. This is why I came to this point as quickly as I could when the statement was made this afternoon by the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. It seems quite clear that the Government have no conception of what a lower-paid or lowest-paid worker is. Perhaps they are waiting once more for Mr. Aubrey Jones, who, I am bound to say, has very odd ideas of a low-paid worker. The higher paid workers got their award and the lowest-paid workers did not. That is what we are debating.
  1844
  Those affected by paragraph (a) are about 200 in the Press Association. They are copy takers, typists, clerks, librarians, cleaners, maintenance men—those on the lower end of the scale. Paragraph (b) is even more strangely worded. It applies, I believe, to about 100 of a vastly larger number in the Exchange Telegraph and applies only to certain departments. One might ask why these particular departments are selected for mention in this Order. There is no doubt about the answer. It is that these are the departments in which S.O.G.A.T. is so strongly organised.
  In all negotiations S.O.G.A.T. has always spoken for all the staff in the Exchange Telegraph and all staff have received whatever increases and improvements the union has achieved for them. But now this Order in Council has been used to differentiate between non-trade unionists and trade unionists. Management is now perfectly free to pay the former any increases it thinks fit. It may be that it will not do so, but who knows with certainty? It is very difficult with individual payments to find out. What is absolutely clear is that S.O.G.A.T. is being penalised by this Government in part, at least, because of the hostile attitude it has taken from the beginning to the Government's prices and wages policy.
  Mr. Orme: Is it not a fact that this differentiation whereby trade unionists are to be victimised and non-unionists have the right to payment is the very thing which many of us in this House protested about at the very beginning of this prices and incomes policy, which we are now seeing is the result of Part IV?
  Mr. Macleod: Exactly. The hon. Member has anticipated, and perhaps will recall as I read them, the words I used in the debate on the implementation of Part IV. I said on 26th October:
  "I have one more general point. These particular Orders—this seems to me very curious coming from a Labour Government—affect only union members. Because they affect only union members, there is nothing to prevent non-union members from being paid any increase they can get although doing precisely the same work as those who are controlled. I never expected such a proposition to come from the Socialist Party."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1966; Vol. c. 865.]
  I remember very well Frank Cousins nodding agreement as I spoke those

  1845
  words. I remember the disagreement which came from the Government Front Bench on this issue.
  My first point was in relation to the lower paid. My second point concerns the attitude towards S.O.G.A.T. and the discrimination in relation to the trade unions. One of the trade union leaders came to see me a day or so ago. He started by saying, absolutely fairly, that he was a Socialist but he had come to see me because I had tabled the Prayer. He told me that he was losing some union members who had handed in their cards because of the discrimination this Government are carrying out. Some may rejoice in this, but I do not. I believe that it is absolutely deplorable that the Government should use all their strength in this way to bring about this sort of situation.
  Thirdly, there is the case which I mentioned that one of the news agencies—Reuters—although mentioned in the Schedule, is not estopped. The reason given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on Wednesday, 22nd February, to the hon. Member for South-all (Mr. Bidwell), was that Reuters, unlike the others, had not been paying an increase in breach of that standstill. That may be so. It is only fair to say that there are some people who take a somewhat different view of the present situation.
  I make it clear that I have no criticism of Reuters, either of the management or of the men. It is perfectly all right to me if they can get the increases. What has happened is that the increases backdated to 1st October, 1966, under a wage structure review have been paid by Reuters. I think I am right in saying that the Ministry, in the last day or so, has given a similar blessing to a move by Exchange Telegraph.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley)indicated assent.
  Mr. Macleod: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary confirms that that is so.
  I put it no higher than this. Some people at least think it is strange that the union which withdrew its strike should have been promptly rewarded. After all, if these increases were not affected by the standstill, why were they not paid
  1846
  when they were due last October? If they were due, why were they put forward as an alternative to implementing the wage structure which I have discussed? I am sure that the Government take a different view on this. It may be that they have a completely satisfactory answer, at least from their point of view. However, it is right for me to draw the attention of the House to the fact that some disquiet has been expressed on this matter.
  I come briefly to my last point—the question of the effect on pensions. I have here the Press Association's announcement to monthly paid S.O.G.A.T. staff. No doubt similar documents could be found for Exchange Telegraph. The point here is extremely important. Pay has been issued to these people at a higher level. The Minister has now ruled that their pay has to go back to the level of 20th July. It therefore follows that their pay has been reduced and that their pension or their liability to pension has also been affected.
  The Press Association, very helpfully—I am sure that the others also did this—has suggested:
  "S.O.G.A.T. staff who are members of the Annuity Fund and within five years of retirement are therefore strongly advised to consider contributing to the Annuity Fund on the basis of their salaries at the rate current for the week ending 25th February, 1967 so that their pension and other benefits will reflect the higher salary they would have continued to receive but for the 'freeze' Order."
  In other words, they have a choice—either to pay the appropriate contributions on a salary which they are not getting or to lose part of their pension benefit. I cannot think that the Parliamentary Secretary will not feel ashamed at having to defend that position in this and so many instances.
  In due course we shall naturally press this matter to a Division. No doubt, some hon. Members opposite will abstain. I wish that they would do more, but I understand the House of Commons. The rest will support the Government, and they will doubtless be acclaimed as loyalists. In view of the account which I have given, which I do not think can be challenged on any major point, one may well ask, "Loyalty to what?" Loyalty to the doctrine of fairness? But the Order is grossly unfair. Loyalty to the principle of helping the lowest-paid

  1847
  workers? But it is the lowest-paid workers who are being penalised by the Order. Or, finally, loyalty to trade union principles? But the trade unions are themselves being discriminated against by the Order, which the Government will invite their supporters to support in the House. I am sure that we all really know that, including, I would guess, the Parliamentary Secretary. The Order is shabby. It is in part vindictive, and therefore the House should not tolerate it.
  10.12 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: As my hon. Friends and, I think, most right hon. and hon. Members opposite realise, I am fairly new to this debating Chamber. But, as many of my hon. Friends also know, I am not new to the trade union movement or the difficulties of negotiating in industrial relations.
  It is perhaps an odd situation that on this occasion I find myself substantially in agreement with most of what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said, but I am sure that it is not the first time that some very odd or strange bed-fellows have found themselves in the same position of repose. Perhaps I can console myself by thinking that his position is substantially on the right side of the bed and mine is substantially on the left side of it.
  The representatives of the workers concerned, members of the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades, came to see me at the House about the problem. Some of them were friends of mine because of a former occupation I followed. When I listened to their case I was very tempted to ask some of my hon. Friends to join me in putting down Prayer to annul the Order, because I felt so incensed at the injustice against these workers. I also thought that the whole case showed up the inadequacies of the Government's prices and incomes policy, as exemplified in the Prices and Incomes Act.
  I am therefore very glad today to find that it is substantially going back into the melting pot. It must, because the whole trade union movement is opposed to it in its existing form—not only the whole trade union movement but also, apparently, the chairman of the Labour Party. I think it is obvious that the Opposition, in bringing this case forward this evening, are shedding a lot of croco-
  1848
  dile tears about the rights of trade unionists. Nevertheless, I feel that it is my duty, and that of many of my hon. Friends who think as I do, to take advantage of this opportunity to give the retreating aspect of the Government's incomes policy a further shove.
  It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that after I had heard of this case I put down a Question to the First Secretary of State asking him not to make an Order. His reply was that an Order had been made restricting the remuneration of certain employees of the Press Association Limited and the Exchange Telegraph Company Limited to what they were receiving before 20th July, 1966. He did not make an Order in respect of Reuters Limited because that company, unlike the others, had not been paying an increase in breach of the standstill. I heard a little about the history of this, and it smacks very much of victimisation, because I understand the situation to be that other employees have had increases, or have been promised them, back-dated to last April.
  There is an enormous amount of overlapping of the work between Reuters employees, Press Association employees, and Exchange Telegraph employees. I am not surprised, therefore that the S.O.G.A.T. branch issued a statement in which it said that it considered the Order in Council, if operated, would put their wages back to a level which was unjust and unprincipled, particularly in view of the fact that S.O.G.A.T. catered for the low-paid workers and prior to the freeze there had been increases made—I understand substantial increases—to members of the National Union of Journalists and to members of the National Graphical Association who are higher-paid workers in the print industry.
  They said it was unjust because it would merely increase the already substantial difference in wages between themselves, the lower-paid section of the staff, and the rest of the employees, and that the Order would apply to one-third of the staff, and that one-third would be the lowest-paid.
  Members of S.O.G.A.T. on whom the Order in Council is imposed also negotiated a wage increase in 1966, but it could not be paid because of the standstill. The new but frozen agreement contained a wage increase of £1 9s. 6d.

  1849
  a week on the basic rate of £14 12s. 6d. established in October, 1964, and the Order in Council if applied means that the S.O.G.A.T. members alone among employees of the three news agencies, the Press Association, Exchange Telegraph and Reuters did not have an increase in wages for almost three years.
  They said that the Order was unjust because it discriminated against the lower paid. Many of the workers were lower paid according to the figures which I have mentioned, and they also said that it was unprincipled for the following reasons, namely, that all three associations had negotiated an increase, that the S.O.G.A.T. agreement was for an increase of £1 9s. 6d., that the Order was to apply only to S.O.G.A.T. members of the Press Association, to some members of the Exchange Telegraph Company, and that it did not apply at all to members employed by Reuters.
  S.O.G.A.T. chapels in the Press Association and Exchange Telegraph Company pressed for the implementation of the agreement, and after strike notices had been handed in the managements of these two agencies agreed to implement the increase with effect from 1st January, 1967. Reuters' chapel withdrew their strike notice under duress, and as a result the new agreement was not implemented in Reuters. The Order in Council did not affect them later on. However, the management of Reuters had informed the employees that the Minister had agreed that the cost-of-living bonus should be paid in April, 1967. I understand that it has been, or will be, back-dated to October of last year. We are now left with the position that S.O.G.A.T. members on Exchange Telegraph and the Press Association do not know exactly where they stand, because in the freeze their cost-of-living bonus has already been included, and so other groups of workers are going forward.
  Another point which puzzles them is that apparently the Order was applied to departments where S.O.G.A.T. members were employed, and it is common gossip that a number of other employees, who were not caught up in collective bargaining arrangements, have had increases in emoluments in some way or another.
  The situation in Exchange Telegraph is extremely confusing. The Order in Council applies only to specific depart-
  1850
  ments and, oddly enough, those are the departments organised by S.O.G.A.T., says the statement. The departments which are excluded from the Order are non-trade union organised and it is therefore concluded that the Order in Council is specifically designed to discriminate against trade unionists in the Exchange Telegraph. For all these reasons it is considered that the Order in Council should be annulled by Parliament as unjust and unprincipled.
  In listening to these representations I could not find an argument to suggest that the Order was not unjust and unprincipled. This kind of thing is one of the most glaring examples of the many injustices which are obviously coming out of what is not really a prices and incomes policy, but a groping towards such a policy, forced upon the Labour Government, some may argue.
  I will give another example of the way in which the workers feel about it. In a letter addressed to one of the officials of S.O.G.A.T., the father of the chapel concerned said:
  "Upon looking at the Order in Council that you sent us, my committee wishes me to put on record to you and to the Executive Council the following comments.
  That in naming certain departments this order has discriminated between union and non-union personnel at Extel House. This discrimination could have a very bad effect on the morale of this Chapel once the order takes effect, unless the reference to departments is deleted.
  In their deliberations with the Ministry, the Extel Management have indicated departments in which our members work. However, we do have members in other departments, and had we been involved in a prolonged dispute these members would have been affected. How would the Order have been applied then? The Order appears to us to lack both principle and common sense.
  The action our Chapel threatened to take, despite the various labels attached to it, was solely to back our Union, and actively support its policy regarding the wage freeze. This was done in spite of thinly-veiled hints from the Management that other workers, presumably non-union, would go ahead of us financially. We therefore look to our Society to do all they possibly can on our behalf."
  I do not envy the Parliamentary Secretary his job this evening, because he will be defending what I consider to be a crumbling policy. I have listened carefully to many of the other discussions on wages Orders. In his speech concluding the debate on the last occasion, my hon. Friend referred to Mr. Frank

  1851
  Cousins, the former right hon. Member for Nuneaton and the general secretary of the union which, incidentally, is the landlord of the headquarters of the Labour Party. He took as his norm £15 a week for the low-paid or lowest-paid worker—we get rather confused with these terms.
  Some of the workers concerned in this case earn about £11 a week. On this occasion I would like my hon. Friend to throw away his brief. He is a fellow trade unionist and I would like him to attach his mind very closely to the substance of what is said in the debate. He said on one occasion, in answer to a critic, that the Government should have an incomes policy but it should allow people to break it. Of course it has been broken. He has talked about drawing a line but there is no line. There was free talk about criteria. What do the criteria mean? A criterion is an assessment of judgment, but there has been no fair and just application of the incomes policy up to date.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to help the hon. Gentleman. He cannot discuss the incomes policy in general. What he must do is apply it to this Order.
  Mr. Bidwell: It is very tempting to want to do that, especially when the White Paper has just been published. This particular case is a glaring example of what can follow in the wake of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) talked, on the last occasion, in terms of the three principal Ministers concerned charging about in the delicate china shop of industrial relations. That very aptly sums up the situation.
  It has not been a hit-and-miss policy in my view; it has been a hit-and-mess policy. It has shown up hideous deformities, assuming of course that we had a correct distribution of the national income to begin with. No more glaringly than in this particular case are the inadequacies of the whole policy exposed.
  10.26 p.m.
  Sir Lionel Heald: I am glad to be following the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), because I believe that this is a matter which should be discussed, as he has made quite plain he was discussing it.
  1852
  from a non-party point of view, but from the point of view of understanding what is the effect of an Order on this kind upon our constituents. We ought to recognise that this is a case where there was an agreement freely entered into by independent parties, involving an increase in their remuneration. We are interfering with that if we agree with the Order that we are now considering. We ought to know what that involves.
  There are several matters upon which I believe the House is entitled to have an explanation, arising out of the White Paper issued today. We are surely entitled to know, if this Order is effective, what will be the future position. What will happen in July? I am very concerned, having had the opportunity of reading the White Paper since it was produced at 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, and considering it in relation to what we are discussing now. On the face of it, it would appear that in July this agreement will be allowed to go forward. I am relying here upon paragraph 25 of the White Paper which says:
  "Commitments, the operative dates of which have been deferred 'at least until 1st July' … may be implemented from that day, unless the parties concerned agreed on a later operative date or the commitment is … the subject of a reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes …"
  On the face of it, that sounds very attractive, but when we look back at the previous paragraph, we begin to wonder what the situation will be. A little earlier in the White Paper we find the statement that:
  "In the present economic situation … There can be no justification …for returning to the norm of 3–3½ per cent. per annum. Over the twelve months' period beginning 1st July, 1967, no-one can be entitled to a minimum increase;"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he cannot discuss the White Paper. He must discuss the Order before us, relating to one particular case.
  Sir L. Heald: I am giving reasons why we should not agree to this Order. The first reason is that unless we have an explanation of the effect of the Order on the future of these men under their agreement, which they have entered into according to law, we cannot make up our minds except in one direction, and

  1853
  that is to refuse it. [Interruption.] Of course, there are some people who do not like the law, except when it is in their favour, but in this case, as the hon. Member for Southall has pointed out, there is a serious question as to whether injustice is being done to these men. That is what I am concerned with. I take it that the hon. Member and I will be in agreement.
  I was not being legalistic but was being very practical about this. We want to know whether these men, if they cannot get this increase today, will be entitled to get it in August. I am very doubtful whether they will, and I will explain why. Unless we are satisfied that that is so, I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be very anxious to know exactly where we are going. How long are these men to be deprived of their rights under a legal agreement?
  This is what is said, and I will be short about it:
  "Over the twelve months' period beginning 1st July 1967, no one can be entitled to a minimum increase; any proposed increase … will need to be justified against the criteria set out below."
  That means, apparently, that steps will be taken to see not only that they do not get the increase now, but that they will not get it then either.
  Paragraph 23 of this wonderful document which was produced this afternoon refers to the
  "Report on Incomes Policy which was approved by the Conference of Union Executives",
  when
  "the T.U.C. General Council stated that priority should continue to be given to encouraging settlements which promote productivity and to improving the relative position of low-paid workers. The Government accept the desirability of maintaining these priorities …"
  When we look at the "Descriptions of Remuneration for Work" in the Schedule to the Order, we find that specific reference is made to doorkeepers, storekeepers and handymen, editorial and sports services, sports room, and so on. Can it be said that we know where we stand with regard to that matter?
  We are being left in a state of great confusion on this matter. It is bad enough when men who are admittedly holding down the jobs which they are doing well and are classed very much
  1854
  as lower-paid workers are told that their agreement is not to be honoured today; but not to know where they will stand in July or for another six months or year is utterly wrong.
  I do not want to pursue this matter further, but I suggest that we in the House of Commons tonight should realise that a statement was made in the House this afternoon without our having had an opportunity of reading the White Paper. We have now had an opportunity of looking at it, and this evening we begin to see the first signs of what it will mean. We ought to demand very careful consideration of the whole subject before we go any further.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I want to deal with the central theme arising from the Order. This is about the eighteenth Order to be made under Part IV of the Act. The number is considerable. This is what many of us said would happen: once we embark on the policy of legislation, there is no end to it.
  We can chart the passage. In recent times we have gone through the cases of the Denby Pottery workers and the limb-fitters, and now we have arrived at the P.A. We must be at the bottom of the pit in the Government's policy on Part IV. This is a mess of pottage, and this Order is one of the worst that the Government have introduced.
  It is ironic that I should sit on this side of the House and hear the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) make the case for trade unionists as opposed to non-unionists while my right hon. and hon. Friends sit mute on the Front Bench. I never thought we would see the day when a Labour Government would bring forward legislation which made it possible for non-unionists to be awarded an increase whilst trade unionists were denied it. The case against the Order has been explicitly laid out by hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell). The facts are not in dispute. I should like to know whether certain offices have been included in or excluded from the Order. Is it a fact that non-unionists have been paid this increase and that S.O.G.A.T. members have been denied it? We are entitled to an answer from the Minister.

  1855
  The implementation of the prices and incomes policy has led us down the road where we chase a few innocent people—worthy citizens, who are producing the wealth of this country. They are being chased from pillar to post by the Government, who are seeking to justify a prices and incomes policy which has now been discredited in the eyes of the country. The publication of the new White Paper today is an indication that we are getting towards the end of the line.
  Bringing forward Orders like this to try to plug a hole here and there in the prices and incomes policy reminds me of the story of the little Dutch boy sticking his finger in the wall of the dyke to try to stop the water coming through. In the end the water did come through. It is all very well for the Minister to laugh. He sees the matter very superficially. Those of us who have worked and lived in the trade union movement, however, regard the position as far more serious.
  This Order is one cardinal error in a number of false steps taken in implementation of the prices and incomes policy, and I shall not be able to support it in the Lobby. The right hon. Gentleman has said that we can abstain. Of course, we will abstain. The right hon. Gentleman knows the situation. We are seeking to make known to our Government by the strongest means in our power the fact that we are opposed to this policy. We believe it to be utterly wrong. Whatever hon. Members opposite may preach about this tonight, I have not seen them summon up the courage to vote in our Lobby very often.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: If my hon. Friend is opposed to the policy of the Government let him follow the logic of his views and vote with the Opposition—if he has the guts. Do not let him pretend that he cannot, and water down his action.
  Mr. Orme: I do not want the advice of a paper tiger on my side of the House. My stand and convictions on this are well-known.
  The Government should recognise the folly of this policy—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting into a broad debate on the Government's prices and incomes
  1856
  policy, which he cannot do on this Order. I am afraid that he must concern himself with the steps leading up to the Order.
  Mr. Orme: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; when I said "this policy", I meant "this Order".
  These Orders are causing grave concern among a section of the community upon whom we will call to give increased productivity for the wealth of the nation to create the social services which we on this side want. The Government ought to drop the Order. My hon. Friend ought to recognise the strength of the case against it. This would be a Gilbertian situation, if it were not for the fact that it is no laughing matter for the people involved.
  I say to my hon. Friend as one trade unionist to another—I will not mention his union, because his general secretary is Mr. Clive Jenkins—that the Order is an indication of where we have arrived. I ask the Government, even at this late hour, to withdraw it.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: The attacks from the Government benches are becoming more vitriolic with each Order that we discuss. The Parliamentary Secretary must have some disfavour for his duties here on these occasions—
  Mr. Hattersley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Burden: I should have thought that he would agree, because he cannot be pleased at his hon. Friends' reactions. If he had to justify the action which he will take tonight before his general secretary, Mr. Clive Jenkins, he would need pep pills or a bromide.
  One of the worst charges against the Government is that there is victimisation of members of S.O.G.A.T. because of the power of the union. It seems that the 18 Orders which have come before us—one wonders how many more will be, are directed at trade unionists. Small firms in which there are no trade unionists or very few are paying their workers higher wages and getting away with it. Hon. Members opposite have said that the Order is unjust and unprincipled and the Parliamentary Secretary must answer this charge from his own back benchers. This is the depth and strength of the charge. I hope that he will take it seriously and do his best to justify the

  1857
  Order, in view of the very strong words which have been used.
  Looking at the Order, one cannot help seeing that among those who are to be denied any increase are doorkeepers and cleaners. The Government have always stated that they wish to see that the lowest paid workers still get some increase, despite the freeze, but in this Order the lowest-paid workers have been denied it.
  We know that the average wage is £20 a week. If the hon. Gentleman understands this Order and its effect, surely he will be able to tell us what are the wages of the doorkeepers and cleaners who have been refused an increase. We should like to know whether they are the lowest-paid workers or lower-paid workers. How do their present wages compare with the national average?
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give me the answer tonight. I asked him a similar question when we debated the last Order, but, either because of pressure of time or because he did not know, he did not give me the answer—[Interruption.] Well, I hope that he will be able to give me the answer tonight.
  We find also that handymen are included specifically in the Order. What are their wages? I suggest that they are not among the lower-paid workers, but among the lowest-paid workers. It is not surprising that we hear from hon. Members opposite that some of these men are being victimised—and I use the word now. Agreements have been entered into, and, in Order after Order, the Government are refusing to allow firms to honour the agreements which they have reached with trade unions. It is not surprising that the unions are losing members.
  An extraordinary position has arisen out of the Government's policy. They represent a movement which grew to power from the strength of trade union support; yet here they are penalising the members of the unions on which they have relied in the past, while non-members are getting increases, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows it.
  He has a great deal to do to justify this Order. I wish him luck, not only in the House but in the eyes of trade unionists in the country as well.
  10.48 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I endorse and agree with all the chronology and detail outlined with characteristic moderation by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod).
  Having agreed that the historical facts were right as set out by him, I must clarify one point. The initial error was his, but it was repeated and compounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) and the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden). It is the simple but crucial fact of the people to whom the Order applies in two senses: first, whom it applies to within the establishments under consideration, and, second, why those establishments or parts of them appear in the Order.
  As to the first of those senses, anyone who has read the Schedule and followed recent debates will understand how wrong it is to suggest, as was implied by the right hon. Gentleman and stated by my hon. Friend, that a trade unionist doing the same job as a non-trade unionist in the same firm, at the same bench and under the same conditions, would somehow be discriminated against.
  The Schedule is quite specific. It applies to anyone who is "expressly or by implication" covered by the terms of the agreement between managements and unions. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West said, it is in the nature of agreements that they are made between trade unions and managements. But the Order is quite specific in that it stipulates that its application is equal both to those members of the trade union who have an agreement signed on their behalf by their national negotiating body and those other employees in the firm who are equally covered by the agreement which the trade union has itself signed.
  It is absurd to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that there is more benefit financially not to be in the union; that there is some benefit, some financial advantage in handing in one's union card, in that to do so entitles one to a wage increase. Of course it does not. When the right hon. Gentleman says that he had an application from a man who asked him, "How am I to advise my

  1859
  members who say that they wish to resign from the union because of the Order?". I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the advice he must give is quite clear. It is that the union representative or the shop steward must tell his members: "Resigning from the union does not entitle you to a financial increase." To do that gives no financial increase because the Order applies to everyone working under the agreement as outlined, and proposed for implementation on 22nd December.
  Mr. Orme: What I was saying was not that men doing similar jobs were being victimised in relation to this, but that certain offices or departments which were organised under S.O.G.A.T. were held up under this Order but that other offices and departments that are perhaps not organised, not doing the same work, are excluded from the Order.
  Mr. Hattersley: That takes me naturally to the second problem of definition which I said at the beginning I would make—why the two agencies are chosen for the Order, and why part of one of them is stipulated in the Schedule to the Order. The answer is quite simple and straightforward, and in no way sinister. The Order is made against those establishments, and those parts of those establishments which propose to break the line of the prices and incomes policy. The Government did not make the Order apply to people who were not proposing to accept that offer of a wage increase that was outside Government policy—[Interruption.] I do not understand the cause of the hilarity amongst my hon. Friends.
  I do not know whether they are indicating that the Government should make Orders against people who have no proposal for a wage increase, or indicating that other departments, other firms, have implemented wage increases and have not had Orders made against them. If it is the second case, I can give them a categorical and absolute assurance that that is not so. Whether by voluntary agreement, which is by far the most preferable course, or by the working of the Order on employees in their establishments, the employees of the Press Association, Exchange Telegraph and Reuters are now receiving remuneration totally in line with
  1860
  the proposals in the Government's prices and incomes policy—
  Mr. Burden: Is the Parliamentary Secretary really suggesting that there are not a great number of small companies which have given wage increases which have never been made the subject of an Order yet, and are unlikely to be? And is it not the fact that when other wage increases have been agreed there will not be anything that comes under the Order at all?
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman keeps on asking me to give answers to questions he has not asked in the first place. If he is saying that people are receiving wages in excess of the prices and incomes policy, it is absolutely wrong. If he says that other firms are breaking the line of the incomes policy, I must say to him, as I must say to others of his hon. Friends, that they must produce some evidence to suggest that. When the evidence has been produced—and I quote again the much-discussed and argued case of Acrow, and cases that have been listed in the journal of my trade union—when actual instances are examined by my Department, it almost invariably suggests that, in fact, they do not break the line of the prices and incomes policy criteria.
  Let us go back to the chronology of the case, to the facts as outlined by—
  Mr. John Biffen: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great confidence on this matter. But is he confident that every increase that has been paid to a systems analysts or a computer programmer has been authorised by his Department and that no such increases have taken place without his knowledge?
  Mr. Hattersley: Of course, I do not make such an absolute conjecture, but I see the world in rather less absolute terms than the hon. Gentleman. I am saying that by and large the country voluntarily accepted the prices and incomes policy and those who have not accepted it have been caught by an Order. Every week the hon. Gentleman makes some unsubstantiated comments and believes, although he has produced no evidence, that he has scored a point. It will not do.
  The right hon. Member for Enfield, West said rightly that the important date,

  1861
  the significant and fundamental date concerning the new agreement, was 22nd December. That was when the union and at least two of the managements came to the agreement on payment at the new rate. It is a significant date because it is a month after the publication of the White Paper on the Period of Severe Restraint and five months after the publication of the White Paper on the Standstill.
  There is, therefore, no question that this trade union, a national union, strongly led and well-informed, had any doubt that the agreement signed on 22nd December would be in contravention of the prices and incomes policy, if it were paid on the date it originally suggested, 1st January. The union was deciding, overtly and formally, with all the information at its disposal, that it would ignore the prices and incomes policy as laid down by two Government White Papers.
  Presented with that situation, the Government had to decide between three alternatives. The first is no doubt the one that would have been commended by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), that is, to abandon the incomes policy altogether. But I understand that it is not the one that would have been commended by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West.
  The second alternative was to say, "We stick by the prices and incomes policy, but not for the militants. We have prices and incomes policy for those who agree, for those who comply, but when a union like this chooses to stand out against us prices and incomes policy can be breached for it."
  The third alternative, which the Government rightly chose, was that incomes policy required that the line be held, that breaches should be resisted, and we put into operation the powers at our disposal to make sure that breaches were resisted.
  It is significant in that situation to analyse the attitudes of the three managements. All three understood perfectly well, as did the union, that to pay the increases on 1st January was in direct contradiction of the Government's incomes policy. All three managements consulted my Ministry and were advised by my right hon. Friend that the proper
  1862
  course was to defer the increases until the end of the period of severe restraint. All three managements reported to their workers that that was the course that they intended to adopt.
  The Press Association was immediately threatened with a strike on 3rd February, which would have been particularly damaging to it. As a result, it felt that it had to agree to pay the increases on 13th February, back-dated to 1st January. The Exchange Telegraph felt that it too had to break the incomes policy and pay increases from 1st January.
  Reuters, threatened with a strike on 8th February, chose not to pay the extra 10 per cent. It has had no strike, and there has been no Order, because the Reuters management and workers are voluntarily observing the prices and incomes policy. That proves, first, the nature of the management, secondly, the wisdom of the union in that concern, and, thirdly—and perhaps most important—the virtues and values of having a cooling-off period during which both parties can consider whether they want to proceed in a head-on collision with the Government over prices and incomes policy.
  The other two institutions decided that in the face of a strike threat they had, in their own commercial interests, to offer the wage increase, at a time which was totally unacceptable to the Government. For this reason the Section 29 Order under Part IV of the Act was made, including—and I emphasise, and re-emphasise this—those sections of both the Exchange Telegraph and the Press Association where there was, or was to be, a breach, excluding no one who would have made the breach, excluding no one who would have received an increase which was in excess of the terms of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
  As I repeat most weeks on one of these Prayers, the Government's duty before they make such an Order is to make sure that an increase cannot be substantiated, cannot be defended, cannot be approved, even within the terms of the Government's prices and incomes policy.
  Fundamentally, the point to consider in this regard is the one suggested by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, namely, the criterion which decides whether or not a gross anomaly justifies a

  1863
  wage increase in excess of the general stipulations of Government policy. It is extraordinary for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the case in question was a gross anomaly.
  The case in question was one in which traditional differentials had, over six to seven months, been broken. I do not believe that on reflection the right hon. Gentleman, many of whose views on British management are progressive, will go to the stake tonight, or on any other occasion, to defend the traditional level of differentials in British industry.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he is, as he was earlier, on an entirely false point. The phrase "a gross anomaly" exists in this case. It was not invented by me tonight. It was put to the hon. Gentleman in the letter which came from the management with the union's consent. It is not an invention of mine. It is the opinion of both management and trade union, but it is my opinion as well.
  Mr. Hattersley: I do not understand the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making. He is saying that his opinion, which is totally false, totally insupportable, and in favour of nothing other than supporting traditional differentials, is the point of view of the trade unions involved. I am sure that it is. But it does not make it more right, more logical, or more desirable. The right hon. Gentleman offered that as one reason why the wage increase should have been allowed to go forward. I am saying that to interpret the phrase "gross anomaly" as something which is no more than a temporary destruction of traditional differentials is to misunderstand many of the problems of British industry in 1967.
  I turn now to the other criterion which might have entitled this claim to be taken and paid and allowed to go forward. This is the requirement to consider whether or not the workers in this industry were lowest-paid workers. I hope that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) will listen to my figure with great care. He is right in saying that he asked the same question last week. He is wrong in saying that he did not get an answer. He received answers of enormous complexity giving him
  1864
  seasonal variations as well as flat figures, and if he checks in HANSARD he will see that to be the case. Let him therefore listen to the figures in this respect.
  The old agreement entitled men to a minimum of £15 a week, rising after five years to £16—
  Mr. Burden: I did not ask about general wages. I asked the hon. Gentleman to quote the wages of doorkeepers, cleaners, and handymen.
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself. I shall come to all these things. The old agreement was for a minimum of £15 a week, rising to £16 10s. in five years. The hon. Gentleman must understand that minimum is a minimum. This is at least what the men were getting, irrespective of the nature of the work. They were getting a minimum of £15 a week. I repeat what I said a week ago, that all the criteria for the lowest-paid workers which have been presented to us from sources which do not agree on many things, from sources whose views on the prices and incomes policy are very different—some supporting the policy and some rejecting it—suggest that £15 a week certainly does not, by any reasonable term, qualify as a "lowest-paid worker". Certainly not when the average earnings in the industry are £3 or £4 more than that, making the figure more like £18 a week. Certainly not when the suggested increase on the average of £18 is as much as 10 per cent. It would be fatuous to suggest that men of this sort can, in the terms of a redistributive prices and incomes policy, be regarded as the lowest-paid workers.
  I turn to the fourth question of substance which the Government have been asked this evening, that concerning the nature of other increases which have been paid notwithstanding the Order. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West asked about the increases, either incremental or cost of living, for both are affected, which might have been paid in October, 1966, and which in the case of Reuters have been allowed for April, 1967. The right hon. Gentleman asked why, if the men concerned were entitled to this increase, they did not get it in October. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with the incomes policy, but I am entitled to ask

  1865
  him to read it. The answer is clear and certain. Existing commitments entered into before 20th July, 1966, come to be paid, within the terms of the incomes policy, six months after the operative date. As I add it up, April, 1967, is six months after October, 1966, and that increase is consistent with our concept of and proposals for the incomes policy.
  Reuters are receiving the increases, both incremental and cost of living, for the simple reason that in the absence of a Part IV Order and in the absence of their agreement to the new proposals of 22nd December, Reuters are operating under the old agreement, the pre-July 20th agreement, which included stipulated commitments, tight commitments, precise commitments, enabling Reuters, under the terms of the incomes policy, to give increases six months after the operative date.
  All the "concessions" which have been made to Reuters are not concessions at all. They are simply agreements which the incomes policy says they may have, and I want to make it quite clear to the House this evening that the same concession, if "concession" is the right word, the same agreement, is available to Exchange Telegraph and the Press Association.
  In the view of the Ministry of Labour, the result of the Part IV Order is to have these two establishments working at least on the terms of the old agreement, the pre-July 20th agreement, and the terms of the old agreement stipulate incremental increases for men in their first five years of work, or for men from their first day of employment to their 21st birthdays. The prices and incomes policy makes it clear and precise that that sort of fixed incremental increase is acceptable to the Government. We make quite clear that this sort of increase entered into and agreed before 20th July, with an operative date some time after that, may be paid six months after the original date for payment. If the Exchange Telegraph owners, or the Press Association owners, or the unions at either of those establishments, wish to have from my right hon. Friend a written assurance that the benefits and increases to which they were and are still entitled under the pre-July agreement can be paid, then that offer is certainly open to them.
  1866
  I emphasise this evening, as I have emphasised on the other five occasions since Christmas when we have made Prices and Incomes Orders, that it is not the intention to penalise the unions, to pick them out for specially unpleasant treatment. We are simply saying that they must hold the line of the incomes policy, for there is certainly no question of a legalistic interpretation which deprives the men who were the subject of a Part IV Order of the benefits which they would have legitimately received if they had chosen the voluntary rather than the compulsory path.
  We are clearly aware that the majority of the country continues to choose the voluntary path and that the majority of the country is prepared to co-operate with the Government in voluntarily limiting wages. All the figures suggest that. All the figures suggest that it is not what the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) suggested that it was a week ago—simply a matter of deflation. Comparing this period with other periods, all the figures suggest that a voluntary incomes policy, with the overwhelming co-operation and compliance of the majority of the country, has been a material factor in keeping costs and the wages bill low.
  Clearly, the Government treat it as their duty to make sure that the minority, who are not prepared to accept this voluntary principle, accept it in the interests of the community. We do not see it as our policy or duty to impose on them obligations and penalties which they would not have undergone had they taken the voluntary course first of all. We are therefore offering to the union all the benefits which it would have received had it gone on with the voluntary scheme rather than compelled us to make a Part IV Order. We are saying to it, as to other unions, that during this period holding the line of prices and incomes policy is essential to the economic well-being of the country.
  I say to the House that holding the line in this case is a more straightforward example of the need for a Government policy than other Orders which we have had in the last few months. We are faced with a union which knew that it was breaking the incomes policy, and chose to do so. We are faced with a

  1867
  union which was well paid, but nevertheless was insisting on pushing its way to the head of the queue. We are faced with a union which has challenged the Government's prices and incomes policy, and whose challenge must be resisted, not because we object to the challenge, but because the policy is in the interests of the welfare of the nation.
  11.12 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has not begun to answer the questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). These may be legal questions, they may be legalistic questions, but the Government have chosen to take up the weapon of the law, and they must wield it with precision. If they take up this sword, they must be careful not to perish by it.
  The question put by my right hon. and learned Friend was: what is the effect of this Order when the parent Act expires? There are three possibilities. I put the question of the Denby Order, and he said that he did not choose to answer until the Government made its intentions for the future clear. The Government have now made their intentions fairly clear about the future, but the hon. Gentleman still refuses to answer about this Order that we are debating. I do not see why either the men or the management should have this Order made upon them until the Government make clear what the effect will be when it the parent Act expires.
  There are three possibilities. The first possibility, when it expires, is that the men will be entitled to the back payments from the date of the agreement, or the date when the Order bites. Is that right? If it is, it means that the management ought to put this money into a blocked account which ought not to be distributed in dividends or put into a profit and loss account in the general way. It ought to be put into a blocked account and the men will know that they will receive it.
  The second possibility is that when the Order expires, as a result of the expiration of the parent Act, these contractual agreements are automatically paid, without restrospection, that is, they
  1868
  will be payable from 20th July or 1st August, or whatever is the correct date, without more ado. Is that the view of the Government? If it is correct, there again, people will wish to make their dispositions accordingly.
  The third possibility is that this agreement, which was freely entered into in December, is killed for good by this Order, when the Act expires, and is not revived by its expiration, and a new agreement will have to be negotiated, presumably within the terms of the new White Paper. These are very important questions for the persons concerned, and not a single syllable has been given in reply, in spite of the fact that the Government have now made up their mind.
  I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will ask your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to answer these questions because it is ridiculous, and contemptuous towards the people who are concerned with an Order naming certain persons in certain departments—a very specific Order—that they should not know where they stand when the Order expires. There are three totally different possibilities, and no explanation has been given by the Parliamentary Secretary, either because he does not know or because he dare not say.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am sure that we all listened very carefully to the speech by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I am also sure that when we heard it, we realised even more clearly than before precisely how unfair this Order is. However, I will go into that in a little more detail later.
  The statement of the Press Association chapel makes it quite clear that the members of the National Union of Journalists and of the National Graphical Association, who are the higher paid members of the staff, negotiated and received increases in wages during 1966 just prior to the imposition of the wages standstill in July of that year.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made great play of what he called traditional differentials. If it is true—and I am accepting the view of the unions—that the higher paid section of the workers in this job have received

  1869
  an increase in pay, then it is not a question of keeping the traditional differentials. It is a question of expanding the differentials and making the position much worse than it was before. We made it quite clear that the application of the Government's incomes policy was grossly unfair and this, in my opinion, is a first-class example of its unfairness.
  Then we are told, "If only they had accepted the old agreement, they would get a certain increase now, that this is in line with what they would get under the old agreement, and it is perfectly possible to pay this; but because they had negotiated a new agreement, arrived at by proper negotiation between the employers and the trade unions, which was then caught in the wages standstill, they cannot have the increase." I have never heard a more utterly ridiculous argument in all my life. I should like my hon. Friend to go along to the trade unionists in that shop and explain the situation to them. I am sure that he would be sympathetically received by the workers, who would understand the circumstances very well! It is too ridiculous for words, and I do not think we ought to be expected to listen to this sort of thing.
  I want now to come to the question whether this Order operates for the trade unionists or the non-trade unionists. Again, we can only be guided by what the trade unionists say. They say that the situation in the Exchange Telegraph is extremely confusing. They say that the Order in Council in the case of the Exchange Telegraph applies only to specific departments and, oddly enough, these are the departments which are organised by S.O.G.A.T. The departments which are excluded from the Order are unorganised and non-trade unionist. This is a very clear statement by the trade union involved. They say, "Can you understand"—I can—"why the workers in the trade unions say 'It is discrimination against us'?"
  The Parliamentary Secretary's answers are not satisfactory. We have been told that the mass of the trade unions accept this voluntary principle. We are told that they are all happy about it and that the workers in the country are delighted, quite voluntarily, to accept the wage freeze. I have yet to find these
  1870
  workers who are delighted to accept the wage freeze.
  But let us for a few moments examine the word "voluntarily". The Government introduce a Bill which contains certain penal Clauses. It is like pointing a pistol at someone's head and saying, "Sweep that floor. If you don't, I will shoot you". He replies, "Right you are"—and does it. Afterwards, we are told that he did it quite voluntarily.
  When we talk about what is voluntary and what is not voluntary, let us get this clear. This policy has nothing to do with voluntary acceptance. It is a decision of the Government. If the workers had carried out their opposition and gone on strike, the penal Clauses in Part IV would have come into operation. Perhaps the trade unionists should have challenged it. That is a matter for them.
  It is quite clear that the whole of this prices and incomes policy, of which this Order is a part, has reached a situation in which the entire trade union movement, through the Trades Union Congress, have said, "No more. If we are to have an incomes policy, we will administer it ourselves".
  This is an example of the bankruptcy of this particular policy. We warned the Government where legislation would get them. This is the crazy, fantastic situation into which we get when we have legislation of this kind.
  I do not like to say more. I am a loyal member of this party. I was on a local authority for six years as a member of this party, and I never once abstained or voted against my party all the way through. I supported my party all the way through, and always would. But we are being asked to support this policy against the consciences of ourselves as trade unionists. I could never bring myself to support any of this type of legislation. I said that before the Bill was introduced, I have said it right through, and I have never supported legislation of this kind. I have no intention of doing so this evening.
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Iain Macleod: As mover of the Motion I do not need the leave of the House to comment briefly upon it. I wish to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to some points, which I will

  1871
  briefly run over, which have been put with great force from both sides of the House.
  First, on a small point, I do not regard this argument about Reuters as central to the case that I was making. But he was somewhat abrupt with me and asked whether I could not calculate six months. Indeed, I can. The point is that he was talking about the cost-of-living bonus of 6s. a week which was payable from 1st April, which is six months after October. I was talking about the wages structure review, which is what matters.
  I have in my hand the staff notice from Reuters dated 8th March, which states that
  "members of the clerical staff will be receiving increases in their salaries this week, under the company salary structure, which will be back-dated to 1st October, 1966".
  It would be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary were not quite so abrupt on some of these matters and if he did not assume that one did not know what one had looked at.
  I pass quickly from that issue to say a few words about the key issues. The first is whether this is or is not discrimination against trade unionists. I am certain that it is. The reason which the Parliamentary Secretary gave was that S.O.G.A.T. in one case deals with a very small minority of all those who could be affected, but it was negotiating by custom for everybody. Any increase which they obtained—this is the merit of trade unionism in this field—would be extended to people who were not trade unionists.
  The Parliamentary Secretary says, however, quite rightly, that he can only, on the face of it, make the Order against those whom he knows to be planning to break it, which are the members of S.O.G.A.T. We have taken this point abroad, but this does not alter the fact that the hon. Gentleman is legislating in terms, in the Schedule in particular, about the departments in which S.O.G.A.T. is organised.
  The hon. Gentleman can get all the assurances he likes from the companies—of course, they are given accurately, no doubt—but he cannot be aware of individual agreements made with people who are not trade unionists. He will agree
  1872
  with me that he has no ultimate sanction for those individuals except the ridiculous one of bringing an Order to this House to say that Tom Jones or John Smith should not be given the advance.
  That is what the point is about. The hon. Gentleman has the sanctions, and we know it, for the trade union people. The sanctions are in the Act. We all know this. The hon. Gentleman completely missed the point which I, the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and many others have made. Clearly, this seems to be a matter of discrimination.
  The hon. Gentleman should ask the House for leave, which I am sure would be granted, to reply to the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and emphasised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). A week ago it was a good enough excuse, perhaps, in response to this sort of point, that the Government's policy had not been clarified. Leaving aside the word "clarified", we had an announcement this afternoon about the next stage. The Parliamentary Secretary now has simply no excuse for not answering in precise terms the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend and I hope that, however briefly he has to do it, he will do so.
  11.27 p.m.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry if the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) thought that I was terse with him. My intention was to be conciliatory. For a Wednesday evening, this has been a very conciliatory debate. I hope that I will have time to go through the points put by the right hon. Gentleman and I will take them in reverse order, because I am sure that that would reflect the priority which he would give to his questions.
  In terms of what happens when the Order expires, the advice which I am given, the advice of counsel available to my Department, is that certainly there will be no question of a man being able to claim back pay for the period which was covered by the Order. I am sure that I do not have to tell either him or the hon. Members who raised the matter of the difficulties with which any judgment must be hedged around which is

  1873
  dependent on legal advice which is given but untested. The best advice available to us, however, is that back pay certainly could not be claimed in August when the Order expires.
  In terms of whether the payment can then immediately go forward, the right hon. Gentleman knows well, because he asked my right hon. Friend the First Secretary several times earlier today, that there has yet to be a statement on powers. Until the statement on powers is made and until that White Paper is published, it would be improper for me—not merely inexpedient or difficult, but improper—to make any judgments about the outcome of cases such as this at the end of the period of severe restraint.
  We have promised to continue to discuss the nature and extent of the powers with both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. I am sure that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman does not want me to give ad hoc decisions about how individual orders should be applied or operated after the end of the period of severe restraint until those negotiations and discussions are completed.
  I turn now to the point which is certainly the most important and which has caused most furore tonight: that is, the suggestion, despite what I have tried to say, that there is still discrimination against trade unionists. The right hon.
  Gentleman is quite wrong to say that to make it essential for individuals, any Tom, Dick or Harry, in the lists included, to stick to the Order if they are not party by implication to the agreement between the union and management, it would be necessary to have a specific order relating to a specific man.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept my repeated assurance that every Tom, Dick and Harry, as he chooses to call them, whether S.O.G.A.T. members or not, in the departments and the spheres included, is covered by the Order expressly or by implication. There is a sanction against them. The Order applies to them in the way that it applies to the man on the next bench who is a S.O.G.A.T. member.
  There is no sanction against the departments which are not included, but those which are not included have not tried to pay an increase in excess of prices and incomes policy. If they were to do that—to take the extreme case, if Reuter's were to do that, which is inconceivable—of course a general Order would be made against them.
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)).
  The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 168.

  Division No. 300.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hornby, Richard

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Eden, Sir John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

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

  Elliott, R.W.(N"c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Hunt, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Emery, Peter

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Batsford, Brian

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kimball, Marcus

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kirk, Peter

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Foster, Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bessell, Peter

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

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Biffen, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Loveys, W. H.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Goodhart, Philip

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Braine, Bernard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Grant, Anthony

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

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Monro, Hector

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  More, Jasper

  Burden, F. A.

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Neave, Airey

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Onslow, Cranley

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Clegg, Walter

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Crawley, Aidan

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Peel, John

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hordern, Peter

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stodart, Anthony

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Royle, Anthony

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Sharples, Richard

  Ward, Dame Irene

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

  Weatherill, Bernard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Webster, David

  Mr. David Mitchell and

  Smith, John

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mr. Timothy Kitson.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Gregory, Arnold

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Archer, Peter

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Ogden, Eric

  Barnes, Michael

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hamling, William

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bishop, E. S.

  Haseldine, Norman

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hattersley, Roy

  Padley, Walter

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Boyden, James

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Braddook, Mrs. E. M.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Howie, W.

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hoy, James

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Huckfield, L.

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

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

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hynd, John

  Probert, Arthur

  Chapman, Donald

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Rankin, John

  Coe, Denis

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

  Rees, Merlyn

  Coleman, Donald

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Richard, Ivor

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones. J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, T. A. (Rhondda West)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Judd, Frank

  Rose, Paul

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Kelley, Richard

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, s.)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Shore, Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Luard, Evan

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Slater, Joseph

  Dewar, Donald

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  stonehouse, John

  Doig, Peter

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Swingler, Stephen

  Donnelly, Desmond

  McBride, Neil

  Taverne, Dick

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacColl, James

  Tinn, James

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Urwin, T. W.

  Eadie, Alex

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  English, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Ennals, David

  Mackie, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ensor, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wellbeloved, James

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wells, William (Waisall, N.)

  Fernyhough, E.

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

  Whitaker, Ben

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Marquand, David

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mellish, Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Millan, Bruce

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Forrester, John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gardner, Tony

  Moyle, Roland

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mr. Walter Harrison and

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Murray, Albert

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  PLANNING (HOCKLEY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bishop.]
  11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a situation which is causing quite unnecessary hardship and distress to a number of my constituents who live on the fringe of the village of Hockley, in Essex.
  The hardship in this case arises from an arbitrary planning decision taken over two years ago to include a residential area of some 32 acres in the proposed "green belt", and also, I regret to say, from the failure of the Minister, at least up till now, to confirm or reject that decision, despite the fact that he has been made aware of the distress which it has caused.
  Even if this were a case where it could be argued that private interests should be made to yield to the public good, there would be grounds for protesting against the delay and uncertainty caused. But, as I hope to show, the contrary is the case. There is no pressing public need which justifies the treatment meted out to my unfortunate constituents. Since this is a matter which could be resolved by the Minister administratively, I am making a plea to him to make a decision without further delay and to end the two years of misery and uncertainty which my constituents have had to endure.
  Briefly, the facts are these. In March, 1965, the Essex County Council submitted the revised county development plan for the Minister's approval. The plan included a proposal to designate as public open space an area of 32 acres on the east side of Plumberow Avenue, about a mile from the centre of Hockley. Within the area at that time, there were about 100 people living in 30 or more houses and bungalows, most of which were built in the late 'thirties or since the war.
  As I have seen for myself, the majority are pleasant, well-equipped, brick-built dwellings with well-kept gardens. Ironically, the owners of 10 of these dwellings have had planning permission in
  1878
  recent years to make improvements and extensions. It seems that they have wasted their time and money. If they wish to sell, there are no buyers except, perhaps, the local authority. If they wish to remain, they are faced with the prospect of compulsory purchase at some unspecified date in the future.
  Thus, if this ludicrous proposal is approved by the Minister, perfectly sound dwellings will have to be acquired at considerable public expense by the local council and then demolished, at a time when that authority already has a long waiting list for accommodation and there is a national shortage of houses. Already because one family has emigrated, a perfectly sound house has been bought by the council and the roof ripped off to prevent anyone living there. This is planning gone mad.
  As any sane person would expect, the proposal aroused intense local opposition, and not merely from the residents directly affected. The idea of providing additional open space for the people of Hockley was not disputed by the residents; it was welcomed. But, as deputations pointed out to me, a far more suitable area existed to the west of the village comparable in size, unencumbered by houses, unsuitable for agriculture, and much nearer to the bulk of the residents who could be expected to use it.
  A public local inquiry to hear objections to the county development plan as a whole opened in February, 1966. But it was not until April that objections to the Hockley proposal were heard, over a year after the blow had fallen on the residents.
  In January, 1966, I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in these terms:
  "I trust that the Minister's attention will be specially drawn to this nonsensical proposal which has caused serious anxiety to the householders concerned, and will cause them much inconvenience and loss if it is not quashed, as well as wasting the time of your Inspector, myself and numerous officials. One can only assume that the proposal originated from some 'planner' drawing lines on a map without having visited the area or having considered alternatives in the locality for the provision of open space which would not inflict injury on existing householders. Whether this was so or not I would argue that it is proposals of this kind, involving heavy and unnecessary expenditure, which bring planning into disrepute."

  1879
  I was assured by the Parliamentary Secretary on 4th February that
  "… careful consideration will be given to all the representations before a decision is reached."
  Although the objections were heard in April, the months slipped by without further word, and in August I was obliged to write again to the Parliamentary Secretary, saying:
  "Surely by now on a small matter of this kind of decision could have been reached? The constituents concerned cannot sell their properties and feel that they have been treated very badly indeed by the inclusion of their area as one for open space. As I think I made clear at an earlier stage I entirely agree with them. I would be glad if you could let me know how the matter stands …"
  The reply this time came from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources, saying flatly that it would not be possible to consider this particular problem in isolation. Any decision would have to be properly related to the review proposals as a whole. That was rubbish. Any objective look at the problem would show that a decision would be taken on the merits of this particular case, if the will to do so existed.
  The Parliamentary Secretary ended his letter by blandly informing me:
  "If any of the owners whose properties are affected by the allocation are suffering hardship because of planning blight, it is open to them to ask the council to buy their property on these grounds."
  That letter was dated the 7th September, 1966. The blow had first fallen on the unfortunate residents in March, 1965, and thus we were getting towards the end of 1966, with no decision in sight. During that period the residents found that they could not sell their properties nor could they develop them. Some of them were ill with worry.
  Therefore, on 19th October, 1966, I wrote again, as follows:
  "It is really monstrous to suggest that if the unfortunate people concerned are suffering hardship they should get out of their homes and ask the Council to buy them, a course which would involve heavy public expenditure at a time when your Department has had to curtail a wide range of necessary public services. In any event, this suggestion pre-judges the Minister's decision on the matter and I have already told you that this particular proposal has no merit. In my view it is reasonable to suppose that the Minister may very well decide not to authorise such a waste of public money.
  1880
  Is it not possible, therefore … to look at the matter separately and urgently in order that these people can be put out of the misery they have suffered for some considerable time and which our ponderous planning procedures seem likely to condemn them to endure for many months to come?"
  I was told, in reply, that there were difficulties:
  "I would like to be able to say that an early decision could be given on a specific question but I know you will appreciate the difficulties. The planning of a whole area necessitates the careful provision for all the various land uses; to change one proposal inevitably has an effect on another. For example, provision of public open space in a district will depend to a large extent on the total needs of an area … I can assure you, however, that he will issue decisions on all the review proposals as soon as possible."
  Let the House ponder those words—"as soon as possible".
  Nothing has happened since, except that I have had heartbreaking letters from residents which show that, if anything, I have underestimated the harm that this wrongful decision and the Minister's refusal to act has done. I want now to read some brief extracts from those letters. The first says:
  "Two years ago the open space was proposed, since then we have been living in a state of terrible anxiety.
  I have spent most of my working life building homes for others. We would like to know now whether this is our home or not.
  P.S. We cannot even sell the place to relieve our anxieties."
  The next letter reads:
  "My property is a modern brick-built bungalow and, by many of today's standards, spacious."
  There follow details—I have seen the house. The letter then continues:
  "A large amount of the work necessary to bring the place up to its present standard was carried out as a result of planning permission granted to me by the very authorities who are now requesting permission to nullify all the time, money, and labour involved by demolition if and when they can.
  I would also like to bring to the notice of whosoever has to give a decision on the proposed plan the effect on people living under a shadow, not knowing how the education of their children is going to be affected and in my own case, being a Civil Servant who is considered mobile, especially on promotion, whether or not I would have either to resign, thus losing hard-won pension rights, or perhaps go into lodgings away from my family. An early decision would be beneficial to all concerned and anything you can do to expedite this would be greatly appreciated."

  1881
  The third letter states:
  "My property being 'blighted', prevents me from selling on the open market. This has already meant the loss of a better position with my company in South Wales. Having decided to disrupt my life by their insane proposal to 'condemn' this soundly constructed post-war property, this lack of decision seems to be the salt that is rubbed into the wound. Should I plan for the future here? I am not growing younger."
  There follow heartbreaking references to the home that this man and his wife have built up.
  The decision of the planners in this case was wrong from the very beginning, and it was taken without regard to local circumstances. Since then my constituents have endured two years blighting of their hopes, with the Minister declining to intervene. And to what end? To meet some great community need for land so that others could be housed or that roads could be built, or a fine park established?
  No. The only development so far, apart from the misery caused to innocent people, is that the local ratepayers have had to buy one house, presumably with Ministry consent, so that it can be rendered uninhabitable. Will this bureaucratic stupidity continue? It is a scandalous state of affairs, and my purpose in raising it tonight is to persuade the Minster to put an end to the whole matter by making a simple decision to reject the proposal, and to reject it now.
  11.52 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) has put his constituents' case forcibly and with reasonable accuracy, and they will be grateful to him for having taken this matter up for them.
  But he was a little unfair to my right hon. Friend on his part in the matter, as I shall try to explain. The hon. Gentleman starts from the assumption that this is a bad decision by the planning authority. He used phrases like "ludicrous proposals" "nonsensical idea" and "arbitrary planning", and so on. I want to make clear that the planning authority for these purposes is the Essex County Council—not a bureaucrat, not a back room planner and certainly not my right hon. Friend.
  The planning authority responsible for preparing amendments to the development
  1882
  plan is the county council and under the law it has prepared its plan for the whole County of Essex. As the hon. Gentleman said, it submitted it in March, 1965. It is a very large and comprehensive plan for a very complicated and difficult county which has many problems—of expanding population, of varieties of terrain, and so on, and varied qualities in housing.
  The plan led to 1,300 objections being lodged. There were 20 objections to the particular proposal that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. An inquiry was held a year ago, starting in February, 1966. It was not a 24-hour working day inquiry, with a report written over the week-end; the whole inquiry took five months, ending in July.
  After the inquiry had been completed and the tremendous amount of material assembled, the inspector had to prepare his report. After his report has been prepared the decision must be not only on this particular scheme, but on all the other matters concerned in the inquiry.
  When the hon. Gentleman says that what my right hon. Friend should have done was simply to say, "This is a lot of tripe. We will have this out and settle it straight away", he is really saying that my right hon. Friend should pre-judge the considered recommendation of the planning authority, which he has no legal or moral right to do. It is his duty under the law to consider all the objections, and to consider the proposals of the planning authority, and, having considered them all, and having had regard to the inquiry, to make his decision.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are supervised not only by the High Court, which can deal very firmly with any deviations from the law, but also by the Council on Tribunals, which watches over procedure in these matters with great care. My right hon. Friend has to look at all these matters together before coming to a final conclusion, and letters which the hon. Gentleman quoted set the position up as it is. It is true that it is a long business, and it would be wrong to try to gloss over this and pretend that it is something which can be done quickly. It will take quite a time to look into all these matters.
  The hon. Gentleman might go on to say that, accepting that we cannot deal

  1883
  with this by some sort of summary rejection, why not now pick out the parts of it which affect Hockley and deal with these in isolation from the others. There are many difficulties about this. It could be done. I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not sheltering behind the law and saying that it could not be done. It could be done under the law, but it would be difficult to do in practice.
  In the first place, it would mean selecting areas in which everybody feels that his own problem is very urgent and should be dealt with. It would be very difficult to say to one part of the county, "This is urgent and must be dealt with quickly", and to another part that something can wait. Difficulties of this kind do arise.
  The other difficulty is that of defining the area to be taken out. One cannot tell whether the county is being reasonable about the allocation of open spaces unless one knows what the size of the population is going to be, where it is to be situated, and what alternative spaces will be available. The difficulty about planning is that if we are to do it properly and adequately we must have a comprehensive view of an area. This is the whole point of having a development plan.
  The position is difficult for people who suffer from what is generally known as planning blight. I do not hide that. It is worrying for those concerned. I am not quite clear what the problem is, because the hon. Gentleman says, "It is such a fantastic idea that you could not even for a moment let the planning authority acquire the property". We have to look at the proposals. There are only two things that we can really do about it. We can allow the planning authority to acquire where there is blight and give loan sanctions, or we can leave the position as it is.
  The people who are not moving, and who do not intend to move, may find the situation worrying, but they are not discommoded to the extent that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is fairly clear from the plans that these are proposals which will not happen tomorrow. They are in the second phase of the plan, that is for 1972 to 1981, so it is not an immediate disaster which is going to
  1884
  happen, and therefore people who are wondering whether they can take a job tomorrow are getting their perspective a little out of focus.
  It is true that people who want to move are in a difficulty, and this is the point in giving permission to the planning authority to acquire if the property is offered to it.
  Mr. Braine: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in the present economic circumstances, with an acute housing shortage, not only in my constituency, but in other parts of the country, loan consent will be given to the local authority to acquire houses which in some cases are worth more than £4,000 if the owner wants to emigrate or move somewhere else in the country, and that the authority will then be able to rip off the roofs of these houses? Is he saying that that sort of thing can be justified? Surely the obvious thing to do is to treat this as an exceptional case, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say that he will.
  Mr. MacColl: What happens to the houses, whether they can be occupied temporarily or not occupied, is for the planning authority to say. The hon. Gentleman must not put the direct blame on my right hon. Friend. It is his county council and the electors who have voted for it who have the direct responsibility, not my right hon. Friend. We do not like giving loan sanction to planning authorities to acquire land for blight. We do not like acquisition in advance of requirements, because it has inflationary effects, but when we are faced with severe hardship it is only reasonable that we should give permission for the planning authority to help in this way.
  The hon. Member may well say that this is a very unfair and difficult procedure and may suggest that it leads to many hardships. You would frown on me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I launched into any general anticipation of legislation on the matter. I will only say that because of these difficulties with development plans, the time taken to amend them, and many other major planning problems, the planning advisory croup was set up.
  The hon. Member will be familiar with the P.A.G. report and my right hon.

  1885
  Friend and his colleagues are considering what can be done to bring that into operation. There are difficulties about the working of this machinery, because plans are very detailed and the machinery to deal with them is slow and people are caused worry and concern.
  In the meantime, all my right hon. Friend can do, governed by his legal responsibilities, is to hold the balance fairly as between the planning authority, which thinks that this is the right solution for Essex, and the individual objectors with whom the hon. Gentleman agrees who think that it is not. There is a clear dispute. It is quite wrong to regard this as a completely arbitrary and unreal situation. It is a clear difference of opinion between two sincere collections of people who have different views about the future of this area. My right hon. Friend's duty is to hold the balance evenly between them and to do his best to help when he can to deal with hardship.
  Mr. Braine: I hope that this is not the last word on the matter, because it
  1886
  is not just a difference between two sincere groups of people. It is a difference between planners looking at a map and drawing a line and people whose homes and futures are at stake. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a planning blight. It would not be any exaggeration to say that the delay over the last two years has been a blight upon the hopes of these people. Will the hon. Gentleman say whether he will consider treating this as an exceptional case because of the human factors involved?
  Mr. MacColl: I would not shut my mind to the possibility of doing anything if it could be done, and I have said that I think that it could be done within the law. However, there are great practical difficulties and it would be unreal to pretend that they could be overcome. We shall certainly consider the situation to see whether anything can be done.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Industry (Women)
  Agricultural Industry (Women)
  British Egg Marketing Board (Price Policies)
  British Egg Marketing Board (Price Policies)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Beef Herd (Dorset)
  Beef Herd (Dorset)
  Pigeons (Cartridge Grants)
  Pigeons (Cartridge Grants)
  Corn Subsidies
  Corn Subsidies
  Butter and Cheese (Production)
  Butter and Cheese (Production)
  Home-Grown Fruit
  Home-Grown Fruit
  Feedingstuffs (Price)
  Feedingstuffs (Price)
  Fertiliser Subsidy
  Fertiliser Subsidy
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Committees)
  Meat and Livestock Commission (Committees)
  Annual Review (Net Award)
  Annual Review (Net Award)
  Provincial Offices (Cost)
  Provincial Offices (Cost)
  Allan West, Brighton (Canteen Prices)
  Allan West, Brighton (Canteen Prices)
  Low Ground Sheep Farmers (Financial Return)
  Low Ground Sheep Farmers (Financial Return)
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow University (Agricultural Courses)
  Glasgow University (Agricultural Courses)
  Burrell Collection (Gallery)
  Burrell Collection (Gallery)
  Agriculture (European Economic Community)
  Agriculture (European Economic Community)
  Local Authority Rents (Compensation)
  Local Authority Rents (Compensation)
  Police Forces, Renfrewshire and Bute (Amalgamation)
  Police Forces, Renfrewshire and Bute (Amalgamation)
  Paisley College of Technology
  Paisley College of Technology
  Cairngorm (Report)
  Cairngorm (Report)
  Rent Act, 1965 (Designated Areas)
  Rent Act, 1965 (Designated Areas)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Home-Produced Textiles (Contracts)
  Home-Produced Textiles (Contracts)
  Mr. Leslie Parkes
  Mr. Leslie Parkes
  Military Medal (First World War Holders)
  Military Medal (First World War Holders)
  Private R. W. Grisman
  Private R. W. Grisman
  Army School of Chinese, Hong Kong
  Army School of Chinese, Hong Kong
  Royal Navy (Assault Ship)
  Royal Navy (Assault Ship)
  Helicopters (Ambulance Purposes)
  Helicopters (Ambulance Purposes)
  H.M.S. "Londonderry" (Refit)
  H.M.S. "Londonderry" (Refit)
  Ex-Servicemen (Employment)
  Ex-Servicemen (Employment)
  Service Families, Aden (United Kingdom Housing)
  Service Families, Aden (United Kingdom Housing)
  Exercise (Tamar Bridge)
  Exercise (Tamar Bridge)
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  Fishery Protection Squadron
PORTS
  Bristol (Imports of Grain and Feedingstuffs)
  Bristol (Imports of Grain and Feedingstuffs)
ROADS
  Harrogate-Skipton Road (Improvements)
  Harrogate-Skipton Road (Improvements)
  Neasden Underpass
  Neasden Underpass
  Classified Roads, Northern Region (Expenditure)
  Classified Roads, Northern Region (Expenditure)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Vehicles (Direction Indicators)
  Motor Vehicles (Direction Indicators)
RAILWAYS
  Tracks and Stations (Map)
  Tracks and Stations (Map)
  Passenger Fares and Charges
  Passenger Fares and Charges
BOARD OF TRADE
  Coastal Resorts, Lancashire (Development)
  Coastal Resorts, Lancashire (Development)
  Comecon (British Exports)
  Comecon (British Exports)
  Advertising Association (Deputation)
  Advertising Association (Deputation)
  Investment Grants (Accountants)
  Investment Grants (Accountants)
  Turnhouse Airport (Banking Facilities)
  Turnhouse Airport (Banking Facilities)
  Export Credits Guarantee Department (Bad Debts)
  Export Credits Guarantee Department (Bad Debts)
  Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians Association (Agreement)
  Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians Association (Agreement)
  Chemical and Power Industries (Imports of Equipment)
  Chemical and Power Industries (Imports of Equipment)
  Protection of Depositors Act (Prosecutions)
  Protection of Depositors Act (Prosecutions)
  Finished Goods (Exports)
  Finished Goods (Exports)
  Tourist Industry (Beaches)
  Tourist Industry (Beaches)
  World Exports
  World Exports
  Tinplate Mill, Scotland
  Tinplate Mill, Scotland
  Lancashire Cotton Industry (European Economic Community)
  Lancashire Cotton Industry (European Economic Community)
  Foreign Eggs (Dumping)
  Foreign Eggs (Dumping)
  Danish Bacon (Imports)
  Danish Bacon (Imports)
SHIPPING
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Aberdeen Trawler "Juniper"
  Aberdeen Trawler "Juniper"
HOUSING
  Burnley (Newcomers)
  Burnley (Newcomers)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Wash Barrage Scheme (Feasibility Study)
  Wash Barrage Scheme (Feasibility Study)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Agricultural Colleges (Women Sudents)
  Agricultural Colleges (Women Sudents)
POST OFFICE
  Printed Matter (Increased Postal Charges)
  Printed Matter (Increased Postal Charges)
  Special Stamps (Road Signs)
  Special Stamps (Road Signs)
  Post Office Engineers (Pay Claim)
  Post Office Engineers (Pay Claim)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Public Telephones
  Public Telephones
HOME DEPARTMENT
  False Fire Alarms
  False Fire Alarms
  Gold Coins (Circular)
  Gold Coins (Circular)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Magistrates' Courts (Fines)
  Magistrates' Courts (Fines)
  Prison Service (University Graduates)
  Prison Service (University Graduates)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Gold Coins
  Gold Coins
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Court Fines
  Court Fines
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Petrol Tax and Purchase Tax (Cornwall)
  Petrol Tax and Purchase Tax (Cornwall)
  COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE
  COMMONWEALTH INSTITUTE
  SULTAN OF LAHEJ (SLAVE)
  SULTAN OF LAHEJ (SLAVE)
  LEGAL AID COMMITTEES (CONSTITUTION)
  LEGAL AID COMMITTEES (CONSTITUTION)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Marcus Thomas
  Mr. Marcus Thomas
  TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS (COPY NUMBERING)
  TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS (COPY NUMBERING)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Meals on Wheels and Home Help Services (Wales)
  Meals on Wheels and Home Help Services (Wales)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Shipbuilding Employers Association (Lock-Out)
  Shipbuilding Employers Association (Lock-Out)
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engine Industries (Redundant Workers)
  Shipbuilding and Marine Engine Industries (Redundant Workers)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Caribbean Federation
  Caribbean Federation
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Brymbo and Round Oak Steel Works
  Brymbo and Round Oak Steel Works
GAS
  North Sea Supplies (Balance of Payments)
  North Sea Supplies (Balance of Payments)
TECHNOLOGY
  Official Documents (Classified Waste)
  Official Documents (Classified Waste)
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
WALES
  Clayton Report
  Clayton Report
  Welsh Language (Legislation)
  Welsh Language (Legislation)
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Roads
  Roads

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
The VISCOUNT CLIFDEN—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

TURNHOUSE AIRPORT: FLIGHT DIVERSIONS
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: 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 what percentage of the flights in and out of Turnhouse were diverted in the ten days beginning February 27, and how many passengers were inconvenienced.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, 27 per cent. of air transport flights were cancelled or diverted during this period; 2,486 passengers were affected.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the figures, which I am sure all your Lordships will agree are very shocking for a ten-day period. Do Her Majesty's Government realise that, with the tendency to use bigger planes and faster planes, the figures are going to get worse in the coming years, and this is of particular importance regarding flights from Europe? I therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider the situation very seriously.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, perhaps it would put the matter in a slightly better perspective if I were to give the figures not simply for the short period which the noble Earl asked about but for the three years, 1964, 1965, and 1966. Only 0·7 per cent. of all scheduled air transport flights were cancelled or diverted because of cross-winds. I agree
736
with the noble Earl that this is a matter which requires serious attention, and it is being looked at very carefully, particularly in view of the flights coming in from Europe which he mentioned. I think it would be unfortunate if people got the idea that the high percentage figure I gave for the ten days beginning on February 27 was in any way representative of the longer period.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the Minister this further question? While there may be some justification for saying the past record has not been too bad—though it has been bad enough—is the Minister aware that by 1969–70 British European Airways hope to be operating new aircraft, which will accentuate the present disadvantage unless some action is taken before then?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I would not accept that the new aircraft will be less capable of landing and taking off in cross-winds. But, again, I accept that this is an undesirable situation, and it is hoped that a decision will be taken in the fairly near future to improve it.

TURNHOUSE AIRPORT: SECOND RUNWAY
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: 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 how long it will take to construct the second runway at Turnhouse, once the decision has been taken to go ahead.]
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it will take about four and half years.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, this is a most shocking figure. May I ask whether it includes the time needed to deal with such items as the acquisition of the necessary land and the drawing up of plans and specifications?—because your Lordships will know that if there were any objection to the acquisition of land the need for a public inquiry would arise and the delay could be even greater. Could the noble Lord tell us whether this matter of the acquisition of land is

737
included, and, if not, whether the Government would now start taking the necessary steps to get the land for the purpose?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, that figure takes account of all the operations that would have to be done. The actual detailed engineering, planning and construction would take about three and half years. Land acquisition and planning approval, which of course would include a public inquiry, if one were considered necessary, would probably take about 18 months to two years. But those periods could to some extent overlap, and, as I said, the overall time would be in the neighbourhood of four and a half years from the time the decision was actually taken to go ahead.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, have I heard aright? Would it really take four and half years to construct another runway? I heard on the radio this morning that the United States have constructed a 9,000 ft. runway in three months.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the noble Lord did not hear exactly right. It will not take four and a half years to construct the runway; it will take three and a half years. Twelve months makes some difference, I submit. The three and a half years period includes the detailed' engineering planning, as well as the construction. I can certainly hold out no hopes that we can emulate the United States and construct this runway in nine months.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord see to it that these preliminary matters are gone ahead with at once, so that it will be less than four and a half years before the runway is operating?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, as I said earlier, I hope that the decision as to whether or not this plan should be proceeded with will be taken in the very near future; and from then on it is estimated that four and a half years will elapse before the runway becomes operational.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, do the Government appreciate that if there is to be no new runway until 1972, that will mean that British Euro-
738
pean Airways will have to operate their new aircraft, and indeed their Tridents as well, in and out of Edinburgh with a severe economic penalty? Is that not a crazy way to try to run an airline?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord say what are the major factors which lead to a period of three and a half years being required to design and engineer such a project? Surely this is not the first runway that has been constructed in this country.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it is not the first runway, but every runway is individual. We cannot buy them "off the peg" and lay them down; they have to be planned for the particular place in which they are being laid down. Indeed, unless this scheme were given absolute priority, not only over runways, but over many other schemes of civil engineering, which I think many noble Lords would feel at least equal with this, it would be impossible to do this in significantly less time.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether this period would be reduced if we introduced a Bill to nationalise land?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, could the noble Lord at least give an assurance that the three-and-a-half years period includes all necessary works, including any necessary diversion and reconstruction of roads?
LORD WALSTON: Yes, my Lords, it does. That is a relevant point, because as the noble Lord well knows, there is a main road which at present conflicts with the proposed new runway, and therefore a new roadway would have to be built.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say how long the idea of having a new runway has been under consideration?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give any specific answer to my noble friend, because a good deal of thought was given to this matter before the present Administration took office.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord admit that the American construction industry is more than twelve times as efficient as ours?
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords, I certainly would not admit that.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: But the figures show that.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would my noble friend ask the Department to look at the time it took to construct runways during the war, particularly for heavy bombers, to see whether this period could possibly be reduced?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I have already made it clear that the period could be reduced if this matter were given absolute priority over various other objectives. But, as I say, I think that not only noble Lords on both sides of the House, but the public at large, too, would complain, and justifiably so, if many other valuable and important civil engineering projects were pushed aside in order to make this runway.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, since it is possible to start at once on the necessary acquisition of land, may I ask once again that that be proceeded with now, rather than continuing the delay for an indefinite time?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, this will not be delayed for an indefinite time, but I think the noble Earl realises full well that many interested parties have to be brought into consultation. In my view, it would not be right for Her Majesty's Government to ride roughshod over all those interests, and simply issue an edict that to-day this will be done.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, will my noble friend make sure that he does not give this runway exceptional priority over roads that would be used by many more people than would a runway in this situation?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, this runway will not be given undue priority; it will be given the priority which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it deserves.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us by how many yards the proposed runway will overlap the present aerodrome?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I think I have that information here. Certainly
740
I have seen it myself on a map. It will be a considerably longer runway, and will require the acquisition of a considerable area of land. The new runway will be 8,400 feet long, and will be limited at one end by the existing railway, and at the other end by the proposed motorway.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM: My Lords, if this is as serious a problem as it appears to be, would my noble friend give me some indication of what will happen when the Concord becomes operative?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the Concord will not operate at this particular airport.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, but there will be other parts of Great Britain where it will become operative. How long will it take to build a runway from which it can be operated?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I suggest that that is another Question.

I.T.V. BROADCAST: EFFECT ON YOUNG CHILDREN
2.48 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that items broadcast on I.T.V. on Tuesday, March 14, between 6.5 p.m. and 6.35 p.m., when many little children were listening, contained words of an offensive and obscene character; and whether measures can be taken through the State schools to counteract the effects which the use of this kind of T.V. language may have on small children.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord refers to the television programme, "Three After Six", broadcast on March 14. The Government are aware of the content of the programme, but it is for the Independent Television Authority to consider what was said in the course of it. They, like the B.B.C., are a public corporation, wholly responsible for the content of their programmes and with full authority over the services they provide.

741
The Government do not believe that it would be proper or sensible for them to seek to take measures through the schools as the noble Lord suggests. Control of the curriculum in schools is the responsibility of the local education authorities and the teachers. The best action the schools can take is to guide their pupils generally to acquire soundly based standards of usage, taste and judgment, rather than to try to react to particular incidents. Much current educational practice is directed to this end by means of relaxed and frequent conversation and discussion between staff and pupils on a wide range of topics and by the exchange of ideas and comments in an easy and natural atmosphere.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, philosophically, of course, that Answer, is an ideal one. But does my noble friend not feel that, although the kind of language used on that occasion might be acceptable in newspaper offices or sergeants' messes, it was hardly the kind of language for little children to hear between 6 and 6.30 on the night in question? Would my noble friend please ask the Government nominees on I.T.V. to give this matter their personal attention?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think that I have nothing to add to what I have said in relation to the Government's concern in this matter; namely, these Corporations must control the contents of their own programmes. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, is in his place and will be listening to this discussion, and I am quite sure that he will take note of it. From my own recollection, when one appears on any Independent Television programme one is given a form to sign stating that no obscenities or unfortunate language will be used. Incidentally, I believe that another thing one must not do, is to incite to riot, and one has to sign to this effect. I hope that the programme authorities will look into why the undertaking I have mentioned was contravened on this occasion. But, as I have said, we must leave it to them.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, is it possible that on this occasion I.T.V. were being guided by the words of the Post-
742
master General who recommended the use of four-letter words on television?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Of course, this is quite incorrect. As the noble Lord is well aware, the Postmaster General did not recommend the use of these words. I did take some note of that speech. The Postmaster General was making the same point as I am now making on behalf of Her Majesty's Government: that the Corporations themselves must be masters in their own house and control their own programmes.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the three words in question, according to my information, contained more than four letters?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I was waiting for some noble Lord to ask me that. One contains four letters; one contains seven letters and is a reflection on one's parentage, and one contains six letters, and I believe is used as a term of affection in certain counties.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I quite understand noble Lords finding this matter highly amusing, but I happened to be sitting with my little grandchildren looking at that programme and it filled me with disgust. As I am a former company sergeant major, that is saying something.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to say that I have the greatest personal sympathy with the noble Lord.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness if she will do what she can to help? While I do not think that anybody in this House wants to enforce a puritanical censorship, nevertheless those of us who are concerned with young people are deeply concerned when things like this happen on our broadcasting system. What is more it does very little to win the respect of people who come to this country from countries overseas.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I would, of course, endorse everything the right reverend Prelate says, and I think he will find that noble Lords who are members of the authorities can probably do more in this matter than the Government.

WAR DEFENCE WORKS
2.54 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any of the defence works constructed during 1939–1945 in Great Britain have been scheduled for preservation as being of historic interest.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, no defence works constructed during 1939–1945 in Great Britain have been scheduled, but there are a number of such works which have been superimposed on scheduled monuments. If the noble Lord has any such work in mind which he feels is worthy of preservation, owing to its historic interest, we shall be glad to consider whether it should be scheduled.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, although I have no particular example in mind, would the noble Lord agree that future generations will be interested in the way in which the people of this country prepared to defend themselves in 1939–1945, and that it would be right for us to try to ensure that the best examples of the preparations that were made are preserved, rather than to leave it rather haphazardly to the passage of time?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a general problem, which applies not only to the 1939–1945 war but also to the 1914–1918 war and earlier periods. We have only comparatively recently started to take an interest in the preservation of monuments of historical interest. If I may turn specifically to the noble Lord's Question, there are reminders or records of the Second World War at Pendennis Castle, Dover Castle, Hurst Castle and Pevensey Castle. Coalhouse Fort, which is owned by Thurrock Urban District Council, and Cardiff Castle, which is owned by the
744
City Council, also retain changes in their fortification which were brought into being for purposes of defence during the war mentioned. The principal problem we have to face is that the main defence fields set up during the war tended to rely on such things as barbed wire, mines and anti-landing obstacles, which are the sort of thing we want to get rid of as soon as possible and which cannot be retained.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government of Malta are in fact scheduling defence works of the last war where they consider them to be of historic interest? If they can do it in relation to the fortified island of Malta, should we not try to do something on the same lines in this island?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is an important point which I shall bear in mind.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that on my farm on the South Coast I have a gun emplacement which we have retained out of interest? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Alport, would be glad to know that it has remained. If he wishes to schedule it as a national monument, I shall be delighted.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, among the defence works which might be considered for preservation, the Government will include that hideous building which continues as a blot beside the Horse Guards Parade over twenty years after the end of the war?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question. We are trying to cover it up with verdure. The actual removal of it would cause a major financial problem which we are not yet ready to face.

BUSINESS STATEMENTS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. I shall be making a Statement on prices and incomes, and then my noble friend Lord Shackleton will make a Statement on Bristol Siddeley Engines, Ltd.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Fourth Report from the Committee.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
HYBRID SPECIAL ORDERS
The Committee considered certain procedural difficulties inherent in the provisions of Private Bill Standing Order 216 relating to hybrid Orders; particularly in respect of the passage through the House of Orders which are in force when made and which expire unless approved by both Houses within 28 days.
To expedite procedure in respect of "28 day" Orders the Committee recommend that the Petitioning time prescribed in the Standing Order (paragraph 4) should be abbreviated from 14 to 10 days except by leave of the Chairman of Committees.
The Committee also consider that procedure, in respect of all opposed hybrid Orders, could he expedited if the Special Orders Committee, when examining a Petition, were able to consider representations in writing from the Minister responsible for laying the Order and the petitioners; and that parties should only be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents by leave of the Committee.
The Committee therefore recommend the following two amendments be made to Standing Order No. 216:—
(1) At end of line 51 insert:—
"Provided that in its application to a Special Order whose continuance in operation is conditional on an affirmative resolution, the last preceding paragraph shall have effect as if for the word 'fourteenth' there were substituted the words tenth or, by special leave of the Chairman of Committees, fourteenth'."
(2) Line 92, leave out from "Order" to the end of line 95, and insert:—
"the Committee shall consider any representations made to them in writing by the petitioner and the Minister of the Crown responsible for laying the Order before Parliament and may allow the petitioner and the Minister to appear before them in person or by their Counsel or Agents."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES:My Lords, in asking your Lordships to approve this Report I should like briefly to explain the reasons for, and the effect of, the two proposed Amendments to our Standing Orders. The Procedure Com-
746
mittee at their last meeting considered various difficulties which have arisen, and which are likely to continue to arise, in applying the provisions relating to hybridity of Private Business Standing Order 216 to the passage of Special Orders through this House. They considered first the special difficulties which arise in respect of Orders which are in force when made and which expire unless approved by both Houses within 28 days. The main difficulty here is simply that 28 days is not long enough to allow full compliance with the provisions of Standing Order 216 if a Petition is deposited and a Select Committee is set up.
Your Lordships may remember the recent case of the Solus Petrol Order which the Government withdrew and repaid, because otherwise the original Order would have expired before the Select Committee had considered it and reported to the House. To expedite our procedure in respect of 28-day Orders the Committee recommend the first Amendment set out in their present Report. The effect of this Amendment will be to shorten the petitioning time from 14 to 10 days, unless in exceptional circumstances the Chairman of Committees gives leave for a Petition to be deposited within 14 days. It will be appreciated that this is a small saving of time. On the other hand, it might make all the difference in getting an Order through the House within the prescribed time limit. The Committee are confident that any party affected by the provisions of the Order will be well aware of the circumstances and should not be in any way prejudiced by the shortening of the petitioning period.
The second Amendment in the Report provides for the Special Orders Committee, when examining a Petition, to consider representations in writing from the parties concerned, and removes the existing right of parties under the Standing Order to be heard by themselves, their counsel or agent. It is hoped that this Amendment, which will enable the Special Orders Committee to meet as soon as written representations have been received, will effect a further saving in time. The Committee felt that the second Amendment should apply to all hybrid Orders and not only to 28-day Orders, as it would be anomalous to give petitioners against other Orders the right

747
to appear by counsel, while only allowing petitioners against 28-day Orders the right to appear by leave of the Committee.
I should like to emphasise that both alterations in our procedure can be reviewed if they are found in practice not to effect a worthwhile saving of time. The Committee propose these Amendments as an interim measure, pending a general review of procedure in respect of hybrid Orders. My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure the Whole House will be grateful to the Lord Chairman for having explained these Amendments to the House. I think the Whole House will also agree that it is a very courageous and ingenious attempt to get over what is a real difficulty in regard to these Orders which have to be considered in only 28 days. The kind of Order which involves the possibility of difficulty in carrying out the procedure within the time limit of 28 days is one regarding which there has been no departmental or local inquiry after the Order has been drafted and before it is laid before Parliament; for example, Orders made under the Monopolies and Mergers Act. Such Orders are liable to lay on individual persons or companies obligations or restrictions not laid upon persons or companies in general. In other words, they are of a discriminatory character. It is therefore of the utmost importance for Parliament to ensure, as it is entitled to do, that the discrimination is both fair in itself and entirely necessary in the public interest. There should be no question of the Legislature acting as a rubber stamp for the Executive in these matters. That is why I personally attach considerable constitutional importance to these Amendments.
May I ask the Chairman of Committees how he expects that the Special Orders Committee will in fact operate the procedure if the Report is agreed to? At present, as I understand it, every Special Order stands referred automatically to the Special Orders Committee, and that remains. I believe I am right in thinking
748
that the Government Department concerned invariably provides for the Committee a note or a memorandum explaining the background of the Order and its effect. Any Petition received by the Committee against the Order will obviously state the reason for objecting to the Order. If these are all the documents that the Committee have to consider, then the Committee may well be able to report without calling on the petitioner or the Minister to appear in person, or by their counsel or agents.
I conceive that the Committee's function is to recommend where there is aprima facie case to be considered by a Select Committee. If this is so, if these are all the documents, there will be a very considerable saving in time, especially since it may well be that in such cases the petitioners will be able to present their Petition some days before the new normal period of 10 days within which it must be presented has elapsed. The reason for this is that the Department will normally have consulted the parties affected, and they may know in advance the purport of the Order, or at least have a pretty good idea of it. In other cases—cases which the Chairman of Committees did not mention—where the purpose of the Order might be defeated if the parties affected were given an inkling of its content in advance, it might be necessary for the Committee to allow them the full 14 days as at present. Therefore, it is clearly wise to keep as well the full 14 days as a possibility.
The difficulty which I find in the second Amendment is in the reference to representations. I can see that the Minister might want to submit representations objecting to the facts as stated in the Petition. If so, will the petitioners be served with a copy of the Minister's representations, and be given the opportunity to submit counter-representations? It seems to me only right and fair that they should. But all of this would take time, with an interval between each set of representations, and it would probably leave inadequate time for a Select Committee to be set up and for them to consider the Petition and report to your Lordships' House. It seems to follow that, unless the Special Orders Committee are able to report on the Order in the light of the Minister's explanatory memorandum and of the Petition alone, it would be quicker for them to hear the

749
Parties than to proceed by way of written representations and counter representations.
Here I would ask: is it expected that the parties will be ready to appear, either in person or through counsel, at short notice after the consideration of the initial documents? I hope that the Minister would not wish to delay matters by submitting written representations, but would allow the Special Orders Committee to make up their mind upon the Order, as explained by the Minister and the Petition and report whether in their opinion there ought to be a further inquiry. If that is done, then there should be enough time, though not much more than enough, for a Select Committee in the House to consider the matter. If, on the other hand, the Minister prolongs the proceedings of the Special Orders Committee by making representations in writing, he will have only himself to blame if the Order lapses at the expiry of 28 days before the House has had time to consider the Report of the Select Committee.
I feel constrained to ask the Chairman of Committees for an assurance that, if any representations are submitted to the Committee by the Minister upon the Petition, they will be made available to the petitioners, and that the petitioners will be given the right to reply to them either by written or by oral representations. Given this assurance, in my view the House could safely accept the Report, as the noble Earl described it, as an interim solution to a difficult problem.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I shall certainly do my best to reply to the noble Lord's questions, and I should like to start by saying that I entirely agree—and I am sure that members of the Procedure Committee would also agree—with his view that the House attaches a very great deal of importance to its responsibility for protecting private rights and interests. The noble Lord asked me first of all how it is envisaged that this new procedure of written representations will work. I think it will work as follows. First of all, as soon as written representations have been received by the Committee, both from the petitioner and from the Government Department concerned, the Committee will meet to consider whether or not a further inquiry is required by a Select Committee. If it
750
decided that a further inquiry was required by a Select Committee, then a Select Committee would be appointed and would report to your Lordships on the Special Order. The saving of time there would be that the Special Orders Committee would meet as soon as the written representations had been received, instead of having to wait, as they have done hitherto, until the expiry of the 14-day petitioning period. The noble Lord also asked—
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? He is using the word "representations" now to mean the original documents, as opposed to subsequent representations. Is this what the word "representations" was intended to mean? As I understand it, he is using it to refer to the Order and the explanatory note of the Order and the Petition itself, which incorporates, of course, the reasons for the Petition. Is this what he is meaning by "representations" in this sense?
3.10 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for raising that point because I should like to make this matter as clear as possible, both to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who may be interested. I was not using the word "representations" in that restricted sense. I was using the word "representations" qualified by the epithet "written"—that is, "written representations"—to include all the written representations by both parties. That would include, first of all, the exchange of representations between the petitioner and the Government Department concerned, and then the answer, if the petitioner wishes to make one, to the representations of the Government Department on the petition. That is the stage at which the Special Orders Committee would meet to consider all the written representations that had been received, and to decide whether or not a Select Committee should be appointed.
I think this answers the noble Lord's question as to whether or not the petitioner would receive a copy of the Department's written representation on the Petition, and would have the opportunity to submit an answer to these representations. The answer to that question is, of course, Yes. The petitioner would

751
have an opportunity to make any answer in writing that he wished to make on the objections of the Government Department to his Petition.
I am not certain that I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asked, because I think what he wanted was an assurance about both oral and written representations. The object of this Amendment is to avoid the present necessity for oral statements by the parties represented by counsel. If this Amendment is carried, there will be oral statements by the parties represented by counsel only if the Committee wish to have them; that is to say, if, having considered the written statements, the Committee are unable, without a further oral statement from the parties, to decide the question as to whether or not a Select Committee should be appointed. I should like to emphasise that this proposed procedure is experimental and that its object is to save time. We shall try it out; but, of course, if it proves that there is no worthwhile saving of time, the position will then be reviewed by the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords. I beg to move that this Motion be agreed to.
Moved, That the Lord Merthyr be appointed a member of the Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
3.13 p.m.
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to, and certain other Amendments disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments to the Iron and Steel Bill be considered forthwith. It may be for the convenience of the House if the main discussion takes place on the next Motion which I propose to move, which is that this House doth not insist on Amend-
752
ments Nos. 1 to 3, to which the Commons have disagreed. When I come to my second Motion, I think it will probably be for the convenience of the House if I deal with all the Amendments. Meanwhile, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons Reason be considered forthwith.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (165) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1–3]
Clause 9, page 7, line 27, leave out ("securities") and insert ("ordinary and preference stocks and shares").
Clause 10, page 8, line 30, leave out ("securities") and insert (" stocks and shares").
Line 39, leave out ("securities") and insert ("said stocks and shares").
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because the Amendments would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as I assume that the House is acquiescing in the suggestion to take these Amendments together, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, to which the Commons have disagreed. This House sent down to another place 44 Amendments to the Iron and Steel Bill. Of these Amendments, the other place have agreed to all but three. I think this shows how the Bill was improved in many respects by its passage through your Lordships' House, and confirms what I said on Third Reading of the Bill about the useful and constructive nature of our discussions. At the risk of repetition, I would again pay tribute to noble Lords opposite for the help they have given.
There are now only three Amendments in question, and all of them are essentially on only one point. They are the Amendments which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the question was whether or not debentures (I very nearly found myself saying

753
"debutantes") should be nationalised. On both Committee and Report we had a very full debate on the issues raised by these Amendments. It was recognised that they gave rise to very real differences of view; and as I told your Lordships on Third Reading the Government considered the question very carefully in the light of the arguments then made. Nevertheless, they still found it impossible to accept these Amendments for the reasons I gave on Report, and as I told your Lordships the Government decided that my right honourable friend the Minister of Power would advise their removal when the Bill was sent back to another place.
Another place gave an exhaustive consideration of two and a half hours to these Amendments. I cannot honestly say that I think they added much to what we had already said, more succinctly, in your Lordships' House. My right honourable friend's advice was accepted by the other place, in which, I must make it clear, there was still no agreement on the issue involved. This will disappoint some of your Lordships, but at least it achieved the main objective which the mover of the Amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, set himself, which was a discussion of these matters on the Floor of another place.
I have mentioned the questions of substance raised by these Amendments because of the strong and powerful arguments which were put forward, but in moving that your Lordships do not insist on these Amendments it is not on considerations of this sort—and I repeat that they have been very fully discussed both here and in another place—that I want to rest my case. I warned your Lordships on the Third Reading of the Bill that the Amendments might raise the question of Commons privilege, and the Deputy Speaker has in fact since ruled that they do infringe this privilege. The reason for that is that, by changing the amount of compensation payable, they would affect the charge on the Consolidated Fund.
My Lords, as your Lordships will see, the Message from the Commons hints that the Amendments infringe their privilege. This has, of course, happened before, and Erskine May says that
"this hint of privilege is generally accepted by the Lords, and the Amendment is not insisted upon"
754
In view of this, and in view of the fact that I think the mover of the Amendments and those who supported him have achieved their objective of giving scope for further discussion on the Floor of another place, I now move that this House doth not insist on these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think it will be a matter of some regret to a number of your Lordships that another place was not able to accept these three Amendments. They were put down, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, has said, by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, and were argued both on Committee and on Report. However, my noble friend Lord Conesford made it clear that one of his motives in pressing these Amendments to a Division at the Report Stage in your Lordships' House was to allow the subject to be debated thoroughly in another place. That aim was undoubtedly achieved, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has just said, yesterday afternoon. In view of the Deputy Speaker's ruling that these Amendments affect the financial provisions of the Bill and therefore involve the privilege of another place, I would advise your Lordships that we should accept what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said. Having said that, it is the case that 41 Amendments made by your Lordships to this Bill were accepted in another place yesterday. The Bill has undoubtedly been improved, although, as we made clear on the Third Reading, we still deplore it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read 1a.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 16), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

CIVIL DEFENCE
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE rose to call attention to the organisation of Civil Defence; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name, and in doing so I would remind the House that so far as my researches go it is almost exactly five years since the last debate took place in your Lordships' House on Civil Defence. That debate was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, on April 5, 1962. Unfortunately, Lord Lindgren is abroad and cannot be with us to-day. But I have read the debate, and what Lord Lindgren said at that time is as true now as it was five years ago. I think he would agree that the main point which he made was to call for greater effort to make general information about Civil Defence available to the public. It is a great pity that successive Governments have failed to take his advice. The result is that there is still widespread ignorance on the whole subject, and unlimited scope for misrepresentation. It is for this reason, among others, that my noble friend Lady Swanborough and I thought it time that we had another debate on it. With that view the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has agreed.
May I say here how pleased we are that Lord Stonham is sufficiently recovered to take part in this debate on a subject on which he is an acknowledged expert. I hope that he will give us a re-statement in unmistakable terms of Government thinking on Civil Defence and on the tasks which the Government wish the organisation to fulfil. He can perhaps also tell us something of the higher level of Civil Defence, with which I myself shall not be dealing, and of any new developments of importance which have taken place since we last debated the subject.
My own interest is at a much lower level. For the last five years I have been a volunteer and a controller-designate, as they call it, at county level. I make no apology for the fact that most of my remarks will be made from that point of view; particularly because the principal changes which are proposed by Her Majesty's Government are almost entirely effective at local authority level. The
756
instructions for implementing these proposals have been issued in Home Office Circular No. 1 of 1967 and its Scottish counterpart, which were published on January 31 of this year.
It would, I suppose, be justifiable for me to complain of the extraordinary time that has elapsed since the cuts were first foreshadowed in this House, as long ago as July, 1965. We realise, however, that behind the scenes a fierce battle has no doubt been going on with the Treasury, and possibly even at Cabinet level. Therefore I think it is sufficient if I simply say that by the time the new arrangements come into force, which will be at the end of next September, the whole Civil Defence organisation will have been in a state of suspended animation for well over two years, with local authorities unable to plan, paid staff uncertain about their jobs and volunteers in doubt about their role. This, needless to say, has led to great uncertainty for the local authorities, for whom, it seems to me, Civil Defence means often just one more responsibility to add to their already long list of priorities.
I think it is the general experience that in most authorities Civil Defence is kept going by a mere handful of elected members and officials; and great credit, I think, is due to them for the extra trouble they take on this rather unpopular subject. Certainly, without their support the Civil Defence Corps could get absolutely nowhere. The full-time Civil Defence officers of the local authorities, on the whole, do a very good job, not only with confidence but with enthusiasm—and frequently for somewhat modest remuneration, considering that much of their work takes place at weekends and in the evenings.
In Scotland we have a very special reason which does not apply in England and Wales, to be grateful to the police, because in Scotland they have up to now been responsible for the recruitment and training of our wardens. I do not know whether they have made a better job of it than is made in England and Wales. I think it is possible. Certainly I have been greatly impressed with the quality of the instructors they provide. We are particularly grateful to them and very sorry that our official connection with them is now to be terminated, although I am sure that we shall still have their

757
help. But, my Lords, in spite of these good points, the weak point at the local authority level has always been the same: the tremendous variation between the effectiveness of one local authority and another. I do not think that is surprising in an organisation which covers the whole country; but if we could get the standard of all authorities up to the standard of the best, or even to the standard of the average, we should have little to worry about.
As regards the proposed economies, I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to give us a detailed breakdown of the Civil Defence expenditure as of now, and to indicate, so far as he can, where the proposed economies are expected to be made. The need for economy must of course be accepted by us. I gather from the local authorities that they are confident that they can meet the Government requirements in one way or another. Nevertheless, I hope the Government will remember that this is a service which has never enjoyed a very high priority, and therefore a good deal of ingenuity is going to be needed in effecting these economies. It is important, I think, that Her Majesty's Government should leave a good amount of latitude for individual local authorities to effect these economies in the detailed ways which suit their particular circumstances.
My Lords, some of the proposals in the Home Office circular can be welcomed unreservedly. The intention seems to be to call for increased training of local authority staffs. That is something for which we have been asking for many years. There are also proposals for more thorough and more frequent inspections of the emergency plans of local authorities, and this too is to be welcomed, because it is probably the best way to bring the weaker authorities up to the level of the better ones. Incidentally, I note with some regret that there is no mention of this inspection in the Scottish circular.
A third point which I believe might escape notice in a casual reading is the proposal to build up a substantial reserve of people who have passed through their active Civil Defence training. I think this a most important provision. These people are going to keep their uniforms; they are fully trained; many of them
758
will have been in the Corps for many years. I think that if local authorities use their initiative they will be able to keep in touch with these people and give them the opportunity of an occasional participation in training; and particularly to have in their mobilisation schemes provision whereby these people can be called upon in an emergency not simply as a few isolated individuals but perhaps in some organised detachment.
Regarding the proposals to make further use of local authority staffs, I hove told the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that I am not entirely happy that the implications of this have yet been thoroughly worked out. I have no intention of pressing the noble Lord to-day for detailed facts and figures about that, but I hope he will be able to tell us that he will have further talks on the subject with local authorities to see how this is going to work out.
It may be helpful if I call attention to one or two aspects of this matter. The staffs are not obliged by their conditions of service to undertake Civil Defence training. Therefore we have to rely on volunteers, the supply of which, as is the case everywhere, is limited. In fact, we probably have already a large proportion of local authority staffs who are prepared to volunteer. It is therefore important, I think, that the Government should get their priorities right. I wish only to submit that the overriding priority, in my opinion, for local authorities is to have sufficient people on their own staff trained in dealing with problems of Civil Defence in their own departments as these would arise after a nuclear attack.
This is particularly so of the three key departments—health, welfare and roads—which would be absolutely overwhelmed with work and would have to operate on a 24-hour day basis. I believe they require not only their own emergency trained staffs but also a substantial number of people from other departments not so directly involved, who would be available to be drafted in to help through the emergency period. My Lords, until these priorities are met, I suggest to the Government that it is surely unwise to contemplate taking local authority staff to learn the unfamiliar techniques of an operations room and signals office, which has no bearing on their normal local authority training and is a service which

759
the Civil Defence Corps is fully trained to give.
That is all I want to say on the detail of these proposals, and now I should like to turn to the wider issues which are really of greater importance. A decision has been taken that if drastic economy is necessary, the one thing we must retain is a system of control and communications. This is clearly right, because no matter whether the resources available are large or small, they cannot be efficiently deployed without an effective communications system. Nevertheless, this decision has implications which are of great importance, but I cannot find much evidence that it is fully appreciated by the Government; I am sure that it is not fully appreciated by the public. I think that the public tend to identify Civil Defence almost entirely with rescue work, because that is what they see in peace-time emergencies such as Aberfan. The public may therefore be somewhat shocked, I think, to learn that the whole of the rescue forces—that is to say, the rescue, first-aid and welfare sections—of the Civil Defence Corps are to disappear completely.
I am not going to refer in detail to the first-aid and welfare functions, as the two noble Baronesses who are on the list of speakers, the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading, and Lady Hylton-Foster, will, I hope, give us expert advice on how far the voluntary societies can help out the Government with these functions. I would only say that in my opinion it is most public-spirited of these voluntary societies to offer their help to the Government in this way when already they have so many peace-time commitments. I can assure them that the Civil Defence Corps will co-operate with them in every possible way.
The position of the rescue function is not so happy, and it is far from clear, at any rate to me, that any adequate substitute is available for the rescue section of the Corps. It is said in paragraph 10 of Appendix B that:
"rescue operations could make only a limited contribution to the saving of life after a nuclear attack."
This may be true if one regards the saving of lives, possibly in thousands, over the country as a "limited contribution". Perhaps it is in comparison with the
760
millions which we hope to save in other ways. Nevertheless, this decision to scrap the rescue section is one which we can receive only with great regret. Here is one more public-spirited activity which appeals to young, strong, fit men, and it is going to be lost. I think it a very great loss.
This brings me to the whole question of life saving, which is of course the all-important means to our objective of national survival. I doubt whether it is generally understood that the major contribution to life saving is likely to be made not by rescue work but by the prevention of deaths from the secondary effects of attack. We must get the public to understand this, because they have a major part to play in it. I expect that most of us are familiar with the danger, after any bombing attack, of death from hunger, from disease or from lack of medical attention. But nuclear weapons have introduced the new danger from radioactive fall-out, which is not only a lethal danger in itself, but of course complicates and enormously restricts the measures which would normally be taken to deal with the more familiar dangers. Fortunately, on the other side of the picture there are features about fall-out which make measures to protect the public possible. Once the bombs have fallen, fall-out is both predictable and measurable, and after a certain time it decays with very great rapidity. Civil Defence has the scientific staff, the instruments and the trained personnel to take advantage of these features. But it is a colossal task, a task for which first-class communications with the public, and indeed willing co-operation by the public, are absolutely indispensable.
Hitherto, we have placed much reliance on the wardens' service as our link with the public and to some extent, also, on the considerable number of uniformed Civil Defence workers who would be in touch with the public on the ground. The present proposals greatly weaken these links with the public and also the communications between the control system and whatever rescue workers may happen to be available. I would ask the Government: how do they see these links being strengthened? For instance, what plans, if any, have they for local broadcasting? Are these only paper plans, or are they in a reasonable state of readiness, so that

761
they could be called upon at short notice? For the same reasons, a much greater load than we had hoped in controlling the public under fall-out will fall on the police. Can the Government say, for instance, whether special constables are receiving Civil Defence training? On this question one could also speak of military assistance, but I intend to leave that to subsequent speakers.
If we fail in this task of controlling the public under fall-out, we face the possibility of a large number of unnecessary, avoidable casualties from radiation, not only among members of the public but also among members of the rescue forces. However well planned our measures may be, I do not believe that they will achieve their object unless the public have been prepared beforehand—and by beforehand I mean in peace time—to understand the simple, basic facts about fall-out. Almost everything we shall ask the public to do to protect themselves against fall-out will be either difficult or unpleasant, or both. It will often involve real hardship, discomfort and squalor; and it will certainly call for a high degree of readiness to help one's neighbours. To make this task even more difficult, as your Lordships will be aware, fall-out cannot be felt, seen or smelt, and my fear is that people will simply not believe in it unless to some small extent they have been familiarised with it beforehand.
I would ask that the Government make a break with the past about this. The first essential, in my view, is that Governments should be more forthright in their statements on Civil Defence policy. I think, too, that they must be prepared to contradict misrepresentations when they are made by responsible persons in Parliament, on T.V. or on other public platforms. But they could do more than that. It had not been my intention to say anything about the so-called one-in-five scheme, which some noble Lords may know about, and which my noble friend Lady Reading has asked me at least to introduce—and I hope that she will fill in some of the details when she comes to speak. I believe that this scheme was, in fact, her brainchild. At birth the wretched infant was not looked upon entirely with favour by the powers-that-be, but it has since grown up, under my noble friend's tutelage.
The scheme amounts roughly to this: that the W.R.V.S. have appointed selected speakers, trained to give brief talks, the contents of which have been approved by authority, to voluntary audiences of women. The objective has been to bring this message to one woman in five of the adult population. Believe it or not, my Lords, the target has been reached in a great many parts of the country. The talks have been remarkably successful, so far as I have heard, and I should imagine have cost virtually nothing. I strongly urge the Government to consider whether they could not initiate and give their approval and support to local authorities in introducing a system of this sort to a wider range of voluntary audiences. I know that this is being done here and there. Many societies like to have talks on rather abstruse subjects such as Civil Defence, and a great deal can be done in this way; but unless any effort of this kind has Government approval and support, it will not be thoroughly widespread. I submit that this is a worthy cause.
I have tried to introduce this debate in a matter-of-fact and undramatic manner because I think that this is the way in which the Civil Defence forces have to approach their formidable task. But, of course, the very idea of a nuclear attack on a heavily populated country like ours is a horrible and dreadful one; and no one knows this better than we do in Civil Defence. We know that we cannot hope in peace time to simulate the appalling conditions under which we should have to work in war, but there is something we can do: we should set our standard of training sufficiently high to stand up to the strain of war. And that strain will be a severe one—the strain of exhaustion, of hunger, of fear; and also, I have little doubt, of great personal anxiety and tragedy. To my mind, there is only one way to meet that—by high morale based on confidence in one's training and confidence in one's colleagues. If we can get that, then we have some chance of maintaining the morale of the public, without which, I am afraid, all our plans for national survival will be doomed to failure. If Governments and the public will give us their support in peace, I believe that they will get their reward in war. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY
3.50 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if, with your Lordships' permission, I were to repeat a Statement that has just been made by my right honourable friend the First Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government has been considering in consultation with representatives of management and trade unions the lines on which the prices and incomes policy should develop after the end of June. I am laying before the House this afternoon a White Paper summarising our views on this question, copies of which may now be found in the Printed Paper Office. But the House will wish to have a brief indication of the main points in it.
The essence of a prices and incomes policy is that growth of money incomes should be related to growth of real wealth, and that movements of prices should give adequate return to producers while ensuring that consumers and workers share in the benefits resulting from improved methods of production. The value of such a policy is that it can give everyone in all walks of life and every place of work a clear interest in increased efficiency; and that it can so safeguard our balance of payments as to make possible sustained economic growth and a high level of employment. In the last six months of last year the policy took the form of standstill; at present it takes the form of severe restraint. These forms are a temporary product of necessity. As growth proceeds, prices and incomes policy can become less restrictive till it reaches its full stature as one of the instruments for ensuring that wealth is more efficiently produced and more justly shared. We have yet to reach that stage; but after the middle of this year it will be right to have more flexible arrangements than those now in force.
On the prices side, the Government attach great importance to continued efforts to restrain price increases and to
764
encourage price reductions. The criteria which should govern price behaviour will be those laid down in the White Paper of April, 1965 (Cmnd. 2639), which were agreed between Government, management and unions. A necessary part of prices policy is that the voluntary arrangements for early warning of proposed increases should continue to apply and where appropriate we will be discussing development of the arrangements with the C.B.I. and interested trade associations.
On the incomes side it would be inappropriate in our present economic circumstances to reintroduce a positive norm on the lines of the annual norm of 3–3½ per cent. which prevailed up to July, 1966. In the 12 months beginning on July 1 next we do not think any group of workers ought to expect to receive an increase in pay simply and solely as a result of the passage of time. Any proposed increase ought to be justified against specific criteria. As in the case of prices, these will be the less restrictive criteria which were laid down in the White Paper of April, 1965. The White Paper which I am presenting this afternoon also draws attention to certain additional considerations which need to be taken into account.
The continuation and development of the voluntary early warning arrangements for pay are of great importance. We welcome the decision of the T.U.C. to strengthen its own arrangements for securing notification and vetting of pay claims. A successful prices and incomes policy depends on a wide measure of agreement between Government, management and unions. It is our intention to encourage the voluntary operation of the policy, and in this context we attach great importance to the role of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.
As the House is aware, Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act will expire on August 11, 1967. The Government's objective is to achieve a return to full reliance on a voluntary operation of the policy as quickly as possible. On the matter of reserve powers the Government are consulting further with the C.B.I. and T.U.C. and I shall make a further statement after Easter.

765
I do not underestimate the problems of achieving an effective policy for productivity, prices and incomes, but I believe that the whole nation now recognises the need for such a policy and will not be content to return to a so-called "free-for-all" which is in fact injurious to all, and strikes its hardest blows at those who are least able to defend themselves."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.55 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement that has been made by the First Secretary in another place, and we shall, of course, study with the greatest interest the White Paper that has become available this afternoon. But it seems to me that the only comment one can make on this Statement of so-called policy is that it is a Statement of non-policy. We are referred back in the Statement on both prices and incomes to a White Paper of April, 1965 (I have just refreshed my memory of it), which amounts to little more than a series of pious aspirations, and which did nothing to enable the Government to avoid a serious crisis last year. Are we to understand that the Government have learnt nothing since April, 1965?
More particularly, are we to understand from the verbiage contained in this Statement that the absence of a positive norm means, in simple language, that for the 12 months beginning in July this year the norm is to be zero? And, in turn, does this mean that for the same period the Government estimate that there will be no measurable increase in gross national product in this country? If this is really the case it means that at the end of nearly four years of Socialist rule this will be the sum total of their efforts.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? I think that when he has had an opportunity of reading the White Paper—and I fully understand that he has been unable to do so—the noble Lord will regret the words that he has used this afternoon. We have sought since we came into office—and I think those who have any interest in
766
industry will recognise that there has been a great achievement by management, unions and Government—to find an agreed policy. In a free society this takes time. I think it would be utterly irresponsible of anyone to suggest that we have not achieved a very remarkable acceptance by the three partners in industry and in the control of our national economy.
I would ask the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, to read this White Paper very carefully. The noble Lord mentioned the fact that we are suggesting that on the overall question the rise in incomes should be zero. This is correct. When he sees the White Paper he will recognise that there will be increases for some who come within the criteria, and in particular for those who may be involved in true productivity agreements. But if we look at the results when we set the previous norm at 3–3½ per cent., the nation as a whole seemed to believe that that figure was to be the norm for each and every individual worker in the country, when clearly this was not so.
Therefore, what we are seeking is that our workers should recognise that incomes can rise, if they are not to cause difficulties in our balance of payments and general inflation, only with the rise of productivity. In these circumstances, we have set the total figure in the sense of zero norm in order that people will realise that there should not be increases in salaries by right, or simply and solely as a result of the passage of time. There will be increases in salaries and wages, but they should be judged against the criteria in the White Paper.
The Government have learned a great deal, but when I listen to the noble Lord, and particularly his right honourable friend who I believe is the spokesman on Defence in another place, who referred to a prices and incomes policy as "Fascism", I feel that the Opposition have learned nothing.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that there are other people in the House who find this Statement somewhat puzzling? Would it be possible to clarify one particular point? The Statement says:
"We welcome the decision of the T.U.C. to strengthen its own arrangements for securing notification and vetting of pay claims."

767
It goes on to say that it is the intention of the Government:
"to encourage the voluntary operation of the policy, and in this context we attach great importance to the role of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C."
That I think is quite unexceptionable. But where in the Statement is the role of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. specified?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the role of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. is well understood by both these bodies and by the Government. They are seeking to co-operate on the notification of rising prices and encourage, if they can, the reduction of prices and, so far as the T.U.C. are concerned, the notification of increases in incomes. We wish this to continue, and we have no reason to believe that it will not do so. I hope that our discussions with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. as to further measures which may have to be taken will be continued, and that we shall be able to make a statement shortly after Easter.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, have I perhaps missed the point? Is there any reference in the Statement to the role of the Prices and Incomes Board?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is no specific statement, but it is in the White Paper.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, the Minister appeared to rebuke my noble friend and to suggest that he was not making a very responsible comment. May I ask Her Majesty's Government this question? Having clamped down strictly on the spending in the private sector of industry, when are they going to show a little responsibility by clamping down on public expenditure, which is under their control?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord should not abuse the system which is normally followed in your Lordships' House. We are to-day dealing with a Statement on Prices and Incomes. The noble Lord is going very much wider than that, and I certainly do not intend to break the rules by following him.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord whether, in view of the fact that the norm for the 12 months from July of this year is to be zero, this is an indication that the Government do
768
not expect any measurable increase in the gross national product in the 12 months from July?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Government certainly expect that there will be an increase in production, as I think I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the other day at Question Time. By a nod of his head the noble Lord approved of what I said. There are already signs of increased production. If we take the motor car industry as one of the guide factors, their production is increasing. Therefore from the Government's point of view we have every reason to believe that production over-all throughout the country will increase during this year.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, is the noble Lord prepared to give an estimate?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, I do not intend to be as foolish as that.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I do not know about being foolish, but the noble Lord was responsible for a National Plan which purported to suggest what the total national product was going to be in 1970.
LORD CARRINGTON: Answer!

BRISTOL SIDDELEY ENGINES, LTD.
4.4 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Technology regarding Bristol Siddeley Engines. It was as follows:
"I think the House will wish to know that Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd. have repaid to the Department a sum of £3·96 million. The effect of this repayment has been to reduce the profits which the firm made on sales at fixed prices, totalling approximately £16½ million, under a number of contracts for the overhaul of certain types of aero-engines in the years 1959 to 1963. The repayment also includes an adjustment for the fact that, by mistake, double payment was made for certain work carried out on some of these contracts.

769
"The Department's staff had called in 1964 for information about past costs before agreeing further prices. The attention of the senior management of the company was then drawn by their staff to the high profits and they very properly brought this matter to the attention of the Department.
"The cause of the excessive profits was that in each year the firm submitted very high quotations which the Department's cost estimating staff did not detect as being above a fair and reasonable level. I have been assured that the Board of the company who, of course, carry the ultimate responsibility for this repeated over-quoting, have given it their particular attention. The Department itself might have been expected to notice this over-quoting; I am satisfied, however, that to some degree this lapse can be attributed to pressure of work and staff shortages at the time.
"This case emphasises how necessary it is that Departments should obtain the right to equality of information with contractors when prices are being negotiated. This is an issue on which Her Majesty's Government has been in negotiation with industry for some time and on which clearly an early decision should be taken."
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement to your Lordships. It discloses an extremely serious fault in the administration of a Government Department and the failure to control costs. It also raises the much wider and more controversial question of excess profits, whatever they may be, (the words "fair and reasonable" appear in the Statement), on contracts with public bodies, as in the Ferranti case. Although the failure to detect the over-quoting is serious enough, in all conscience, the double payment that is referred to in the early part of the statement suggests incompetence on a totally different scale, and I think the House is entitled to a little further information on the comment that by mistake double payment was made for certain work carried out on some of these contracts.
The second question I have to put to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, concerns the doubt that is left in the mind
770
of anyone who has heard this Statement as to the dates when these errors took place. The period 1959 to 1963 is referred to. Does this mean that the contracts were signed in this period for aeroengine maintenance and overhaul, and that work has been going on beyond 1963, and perhaps is still continuing to-day, or does it mean that all the work was completed in the years 1959 to 1963?
The Statement also makes reference to the fact that in 1964 the Department called for information about these costs. They first got wind that something was wrong in 1964. We are now in March, 1967, which at the very least is three years further. So what has been happening since then?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is putting a very bold face on it. It scarcely needs me to refer to the laxity—if there has been laxity—of the Department under the previous Administration. Indeed, I will spring to their defence. I understand that these overpayments took place in the years 1959 to 1963; and the excessive charging took place during that period. The extent to which, without equality of information, it is possible to detect an excessive rate of profit where information is not readily available seems to me to be a difficult question to answer. To my mind it raises quite serious and, I believe in this respect, personal issues of commercial morality. Certainly as one who has had a good deal of experience in business, I make this particular comment.
The fact is that when the matter was brought to the attention of the board of Bristol Siddeley Engines, Ltd., they then saw fit to inform the Ministry of Aviation. In fact it came about as a result of the Department's insistence on being given certain information so that they might judge the suitability of future contracts—information which they had some difficulty in getting. This information came to light early in 1964. The full extent of it was not then realised and there was a good deal of discussion as to what the appropriate rates of profit should be. I would not suggest for one moment that there has not been some failure on the part of the Department. I would certainly accept this. They have, of course, as was made clear at the time of the Ferranti case, had to cope with

771
great difficulties, shortage of staff and very heavy pressure. Such failures as there have been are not considered to warrant disciplinary action. I am only glad to say that in a situation in which we have regard to prices and incomes, the £4 million which would otherwise have been lost to the taxpayer has been regained.
4.11 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we on these Benches are disturbed at the Statement which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. In the first place, we should like to know, as this apparently all took place during the period of the late Conservative Administration, whether the present Labour Administration are taking any steps to see that it does not happen under them. Secondly, we should like to know whether there is any fraud in this case. It seems to us rather odd that there can have been a double payment. It might be possible to have an excess payment, but how somebody can be paid twice for the same engines is very difficult to understand.
Thirdly, it seems to us disturbing that when the matter was discovered it was not discovered by the Department or their officers; it was presumably discovered by the company's officers, who very rightly and properly brought it to the attention of their seniors. Does not that indicate a great lapse of zeal and expertise on the part of the officers of the Department themselves? I do not think it is any use for the Government to try to shuffle off liability and responsibility by saying that the officers had a lot of work to do. We all have a lot of work to do. This is what they are paid for. We should like to know why it was the company who discovered it and not the Department.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I was not sure which Government the noble Lord was referring to. I must stress to the noble Lord that for a long time, certainly over many months, the Government have been asking for equality of information, and talks have been going on in regard to this matter. It is an established practice in relation to contracts, for instance, in the United States. The noble Lord asked me, in particular,
772
whether unfortunate events like these, of which the Ferranti case was a much more acute example, for it occurred in a single payment—this, after all, arose over a four-year period—could occur again. I would again stress the extreme importance of obtaining equality of information. Certainly it is necessary for the Department, and therefore the Government, to accept responsibility for part of this.
Bad bargains were struck for a number of years. The contracts required that prices should be fair and reasonable, and the profits in this case clearly indicate that they were not fair and reasonable. Measures have been taken to improve the efficiency of the Department and to strengthen it. I can only say that the long-term solution is the one I have suggested. Certainly the Department, and no doubt also those who deal with Government Departments, are aware of this. Let me add that of course the Auditor-General would in due course have had access to some of this information, but it came out sooner through the voluntary initiative of the company.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask a further question? To be honest, I do not think that there is really much Party political capital to be made out of this sort of issue. These things, regrettably, happen under all Governments, and I think the noble Lord might be a little careful. I think it might even happen under a Liberal Government—if one can conceive of such a thing. It is quite a long time since this over payment was first discovered; it is getting on for three, years. Can the noble Lord say why it has taken so long for this to be investigated, and for the matter to be put right? And can he say whether additional steps have been taken, other than the steps taken at the time of the Ferranti overpayment, to prevent this sort of thing happening again?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I certainly follow the noble Lord in what he said. I may have made one misstatement. I think I said early in 1964; in fact it was late in 1964. So it is a period of two years. The Department did put in hand an investigation, but the work of checking through transactions covering several years, and in a Department which was already overworked, was

773
complicated. The check was not completed until September, 1965, and subsequently the final figures were agreed with the audit of a well-known independent firm of auditors.
Steps have been taken, following the report of the Lang Committee on the Ferranti case, to improve the position in the contracts department. I must say that I think the department is under heavy pressure; and while it is inconceivable that this sort of thing could ever happen under a Liberal Government, I agree it is conceivable that it might happen under a Conservative or Labour Government. I can only repeat that the answer must, in the long run, be equality of information. Steps have been taken to improve the position. I should not like to suggest that the Government are entirely satisfied about the position of the department concerned, which carries very heavy reponsibilities and discharges them, I think (and I have gone into this at some length on earlier occasions), with great expertise and thoroughness and public spirit. The fact is that the department is not as strongly organised as we wish it could be.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I ask two questions? First, how many contracts are involved; and secondly, could my noble friend say something in reply to Lord Ogmore's question about the double payment?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord how many contracts were involved. I will say something about the double payment—and I apologise to the noble Lord for not having dealt with this point. Separate contracts are placed for the stripping and overhaul of engines and for the repair of engine components, and because of a change made by the firm in their procedures some part of the work of stripping assemblies into components ready for repair was charged for under both contracts. This was brought to light in the course of a full investigation carried out by the Department's staff. The agreed refund effects complete repayment of the sums charged twice, and it is estimated that this double charging amounted in all to about £½ million. The noble Lord will recall that the total repayment is £3·96 million.
774
There has been no difficulty in settling this part of the matter. As soon as it was established that there had been overcharging, and the figures had been sorted out, there was immediate repayment; and there is, of course, no suggestion that this was done other than by mistake on the part of the company. The extent to which the Department ought to have spotted the double payment is very difficult to say now. It is, of course, possible to confuse a situation of this kind. I do not doubt that in the long run the Auditor General would probably have got on to this, but on the whole it is clearly a matter in which, as between customer and supplier, the customer relies on the fact that he will not be charged twice for the same item, even if he goes only into a department store.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, has not a great deal of the trouble which has arisen in this case, and in similar cases, been due to the abolition by the previous Administration of the Ministry of Supply, the dispersal of highly skilled staff among a number of Departments, and the insistence of these Departments on managing their own affairs when it would continue to be done better by the Ministry of Supply? Has not the result been that the job has not been done so efficiently? In view of the fact that there was, and so far as I know still is, a most efficient Government aero-engine maintenance factory at Treforest, might I also ask whether their services could not be used to greater effect, rather than that these excess profits should be paid back to private companies?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, although interested in the noble Lord's suggestion, coming from his great experience, I should not really have liked to conclude that it was as a result of the abolition of the Ministry of Supply. But certainly I note the point he has made. It may well be that there was some rundown of essential staff. So far as maintenance is concerned, there are a number of different repair and maintenance arrangements for all three Services. I rather think that the Royal Navy do their own engine servicing, but probably not all. The Royal Air Force puts the work out to the industry and where a particular firm is the maker of the engine there is an obvious advantage in putting it there. It is a long while since I heard

775
the argument on Treforest, but I note the noble Lord's point, and I will, if he wishes, go into it further.

CIVIL DEFENCE
4.22 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, now we can revert to Civil Defence. Even if the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, had not delivered so responsible, so well-informed and so impressive a speech, he would have put us all in his debt by creating this overdue opportunity to discuss this most important subject. My connection with Civil Defence has continued ever since the last war, when I had the honour to represent in another place a much-bombed constituency in South-East London, so that I became closely in touch with many Civil Defence workers there; and ever since I have never ceased to support and admire all of those who have kept the Civil Defence flag flying through difficult years, not only those in positions of responsibility, but the many volunteers to whom the country cannot express sufficient gratitude.
In the seven years when I was head of one or other of the Departments closely concerned with Civil Defence, I was so conscious of this difficulty that it was almost impossible to believe that the fantastic contingencies against which one was planning might one day become realities; and I think all of those at the head of Civil Defence activities are deeply affected by that. But, so long as nuclear weapons exist in conceivably hostile hands, then these almost unthinkable tragedies might happen. That is why it has been common ground among successive Governments that plans must be made accordingly.
All Civil Defence plans cost money. The money is an insurance premium, and we always like to pay as low insurance premiums as we reasonably can. But if in this case the premium we pay is insufficient, it would be better, maybe, to pay none at all. There are two fundamental questions here. First, is the total amount of money made available each year sufficient to produce a Civil Defence foundation that is large and strong enough in peace time to bear a vast expansion in the case of emergency? Secondly,
776
do all the plans fit well enough together to be effective if they had to be put into action? If I may give an example, just as in battle guns are useless without ammunition, so in Civil Defence the fire services will be useless without water supplies and water pipes.
The second question is really an adjunct of the first, because there is no doubt that the planning has been done responsibly and admirably in the Home Office and at the Staff College at Sunningdale and elsewhere; and yet plans may break down if money has not been found for some essential basic needs or equipment. Financially, Civil Defence is being run on a shoestring. It is terribly irksome and frustrating for the volunteers and for those who hold paid appointments alike. They get little recognition or gratitude from the Press or the great British public, and they realise they have far too little money made available to them for all the action and preparation which they know to be desirable.
I cannot help thinking that the Government's latest cuts have snipped so much out of the shoestring that it could now be broken by the slightest strain. The figures that have been given in successive Defence White Papers have been an estimate of £24 million for Home Defence in 1964–65, £22¾ million in 1965–66, £19¾ million in 1966–67, and I think that the strictly comparable figure is £18 million in 1967–68; there is an additional £2 million which now falls on the Civil Votes which used to fall on Defence Votes. The Civil Defence budget was small enough, in all conscience, in 1964. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has effected a 25 per cent. cut in it since then. The present Home Secretary has accepted this. I am bound to ask whether Home Office Ministers think that what will be left of Civil Defence after these cuts will retain its credibility.
May I say that we all look forward greatly to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. We are delighted that he is again able to take part in a major debate. It would have been a tragedy if we had had to debate this subject without his assistance. As Civil Defence has not been debated here for the past five years, and I believe it has not been debated in another place for 10 years, the noble Lord will realise that we must ask him a series of probing questions.

777
If one may approach the matter chronologically, decisions on dispersal will have to come early, should the threat of a nuclear attack ever rise above the horizon. What are the Government's plans for dispersal now? The Home Secretary said in another place on February 2, 1966:
"We consider it desirable to continue with plans for the dispersal of at least certain priority classes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; Commons, col. 1094.]
May I ask how far these plans have now been carried? How long will it be before they reach a point where they can be put into practical effect, if the emergency arises? Broadly, the priority classes were those under eighteen, the mothers of young children, and blind or crippled or aged and infirm people dependent on the care of someone in another of the priority classes. The Home Secretary's statement, which was in answer to a supplementary question, was slightly ambiguous, when he said:
"at least certain priority classes."
I am not sure whether he meant that the list of priority classes was now being cut down. If so, which are not now included any longer?
Is it still the policy to carry out most dispersal by rail, in spite of the abandonment of many railways that lead to the more thinly-populated areas? I am well aware that it is expected that dispersal could only be over relatively short distances compared with former ideas, but nevertheless the rail network will be intensely important. Although successive Governments have struggled with these dispersal plans, it would not surprise me if one day a Government came to 'the conclusion that the best advice to be given to everybody was that they should stay put. I have always felt that it is almost inconceivable that any Government would take upon themselves the colossal responsibility of ordering dispersal, bearing in mind that it would virtually bring the economic life of the country to a standstill before the attack had taken place.
Now I come to the matter of warning of attack. Warning is extremely important because if you are caught in the open you have no chance at all, and even a short period of warning may enable a very
778
large number of people to get under some kind of at any rate semi-effective cover. Is the warning and monitoring system now complete? It should be by now. Are any of the Government's current cuts falling on that system?
If I may refer to a booklet The Hydrogen Bomb, which was published by a previous Government first in 1957, and then reprinted in 1963, on page 28 it says:
"After a hydrogen bomb explosion vast numbers of people would be in dire need of help. In the immediate vicinity of the bomb crater there would be few survivors. Farther out, however, there would be people trapped in damaged buildings. Others would be injured and needing urgent first aid."
As the noble Viscount said, the Government have now decided that there are no longer to be special sections of the Civil Defence Corps trained in the different techniques. I think they also say, or at any rate imply, that it will be impossible to rescue people who are trapped. I cannot believe that the Government will withhold the money, if it is a question of money, for people to be trained and equipped to rescue those who are trapped.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, we have never said that. There is no publication in which we have said, nor has any Minister ever said, that we shall not have an organisation to rescue people who are trapped.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am seeking to make a probing speech, as the noble Lord will recognise, and one has to try to elicit from the various statements which have been made what is the truth about the Government's thinking. I should like to refer now to paragraph 10 of Appendix "B" to the recent Civil Defence circular of January 31. It says, speaking of rescue work:
"Extensive specialised Corps activities in this field can no longer be justified."
Is it on money grounds, or is it on a new assessment of rescue possibilities? If so, I wonder whether we can hear more about this new assessment, because until fairly recently the Home Office experts told us that very large numbers of casualties, including trapped people in the less damaged areas, could be enabled to survive.

779
If I may refer again to the pamphlet The Hydrogen Bomb, it says on page 31:
"… improvisation would not be enough … adequate help for the victims of attack could come only from people trained and organised in advance. An efficient Civil Defence organisation, linked with a public that knows the facts, could save millions of lives."
I find some difficulty in appreciating just what the Government envisage. I am not suggesting, as the noble Lord thought, that there was an attitude of callousness, but in reading this new policy it certainly appears sometimes that now the concept is that those who are trapped or seriously injured at a distance of miles from the burst will have to be left to die because they cannot be rescued. What matters to Parliament above all is whether the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, can satisfy us that there will still be an efficient Civil Defence organisation, and that the Government are not saying that improvisation is now all that we can manage.
The Government have announced the abandonment of national recruitment and publicity campaigns for Civil Defence. I myself regret this. It is also announced that there will be no more expenditure, save in the most exceptional circumstances, on buildings for Civil Defence training. I do not know whether the Government are applying any stimulus at all to Industrial Civil Defence, which seems to me to be lagging far behind what is required. I appreciate that the Government want to concentrate the effort of the Civil Defence Corps on helping the local authorities to man the control system and on providing limited numbers of specialists to organise first aid and welfare. By this means they expect to cut the active strength of the Civil Defence Corps by one-third. The noble Lord will not mind my asking whether this is a plan for more effective action or a counsel of despair, because if it were a counsel of despair one wonders whether it is worth spending even the £18 million a year, and whether we might not indeed abandon Civil Defence altogether.
It is made clear in the circular and in the appendix to it that local authority staffs are to be called on for a great deal more at many levels. The noble Viscount from his special knowledge said a good deal on that. I have not so far been able
780
to discover from Government statements or publications what are the financial arrangements proposed if expenditure which has hitherto been financed centrally is in future to fall on the local authority. In connection with this new policy of integrating local authority staffs much more closely with the Civil Defence effort, it seems to me that almost everything will turn on securing the keen co-operation of the local authorities. That co-operation will only be forthcoming if there are no financial problems left outstanding and if the local authorities are left in no doubt as to where the burden of cost is to fall.
The noble Viscount spoke of the training of these local authority staffs. I am not clear whether they are to be trained in normal working hours, or whether it is to be a compulsory obligation on them outside normal working hours. The noble Viscount suggested that under the existing terms of service of local authority staffs this would be entirely voluntary. I see from paragraph 8 of Appendix "B" that the Secretary of State will seek Parliamentary approval for new regulations making explicit the duty of local authorities to train their employees for control duties. Can the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, explain exactly what will be the position of the individual member of the local authority staff in future as regards training?
Also, who is to direct all these extra activities within the local authority? In my experience in urban areas, generally speaking the town clerk has assumed voluntarily considerable extra responsibilities in connection with the overall supervision of Civil Defence in the area. Those duties will become very considerably more burdensome when local authority staffs are to be integrated so much more closely with the work of Civil Defence. It would seem to me, at any rate, that if this combined operation is to work out successfully there will be many town clerks who simply will not be able to give the time to all the Civil Defence side of their duties, and will need extra high-level staff to relieve them of some of the work. That, of course, will cost money. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, can explain what larger part he anticipates the town clerks or, indeed, the clerks of councils will have to play under the new plan, and what

781
additional staff it is contemplated by the Government that councils will have to employ at a high level, and at whose expense. I am not sure whether all this was hammered out by the Government with the local authorities before the Government announced their plans.
I myself have never been in the slightest doubt about the intense importance of restoring law and order as quickly as possible after an attack, together with some semblance of tolerable life for the less damaged parts of the country. The stake, after all, is nothing less than the survival of the British race. If, after nuclear attack, all communications were to break down, if millions of lives were to be lost through sheer ignorance of the whereabouts of the fall-out danger, the whole population of this island might be nearly wiped out, and the British race as such would virtually disappear from the face of the earth. That would be a heavy loss to the future of the world.
There is one further most important question which I want to raise. If there will be any danger greater than fall-out, it will be fire. We know from the last war how the immediate blast effects of an ordinary bomb can be vastly worsened and extended by the uncontrolled spread of fire. A nuclear attack, far outside the range of total destruction, is going to start sporadic fires by heat radiation an immense distance away from the burst. For the last time, may I quote this booklet, The Hydrogen Bomb, which I can see will need to be revised and re-issued in the new circumstances? It states, on pages 29 and 30, that the peace-time fire brigades will be formed into a National Fire Service, which:
"would be greatly expanded by the mobilisation of several thousand R.A.F. reservists, trained in fire fighting."
The fact is that those R.A.F. reservists do not now exist. The peace-time fire services throughout the country are highly trained, but in war they will be far too few, and the Auxiliary Fire Service is short of volunteers. I would judge that unnecessary loss, through small fires which establish themselves and spread unchecked, will be appalling unless the Government in peace-time see to it that thousands more people are trained in fire fighting. What are the Government's intentions in this matter?
782
None of us could make a comprehensive speech on all the aspects of Civil Defence without taking up far too much time, and I am conscious that on a number of aspects the noble Viscount has spoken much more knowledgeably than I could have done. I am quite sure it has been right in these last ten years progressively to break away from the old-time concepts of the purpose of Civil Defence in the last war. I am sure it has been right to lay progressively more emphasis on the survival and recovery period. But I do not believe that we have yet thought through all that would be essential for enabling the nation to rescue itself from that strange, almost sub-human, form of civilisation which for a time might follow a widespread nuclear attack. I am sure the Government recognise that it will be a colossal task to keep the survivors alive, with uncontaminated food and uncontaminated water; I was going to add, "uncontaminated milk", but it will probably be impossible to get any of that at all for a long time. But it is right to ask the Government whether they have planned adequate preparations for keeping the people alive, apart from maintaining law and order, in this post-explosion period. Is the stockpile of food adequate, for instance?
One could ask so many more questions. If all these plans were not properly made, the suffering of the millions of survivors might be more poignant than the fate of the millions killed outright. This is one of the reasons why we owe so much to the W.R.V.S. and to other voluntary organisations, who address themselves to the immediate emergency after the attack. But it must be the Government who co-ordinate and plan all that, and what Parliament needs to do at this stage, I submit, is not to run away from the horror of it all, but to ask the Government responsibly whether they are satisfied that their plans are adequate and comprehensive.
4.49 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the whole House, and indeed the whole country, has reason to be very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for providing this opportunity to discuss this vital question

783
of Civil Defence for the first time for five years. As a Controller-designate, he is one of the people on whom a great and truly awful responsibility would descend if there were a nuclear emergency or attack. His speech was informed, since he spoke with knowledge, with a complete consciousness of his responsibilities and of many of the things which he would have to do. I am extremely grateful to him personally for that, as also for his kindly references to myself.
I am also extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, whose speech I regarded as most helpful. One would have expected an informed speech on this subject to come from a former Home Secretary, and indeed from one who, as a Minister, was responsible for some seven years for various aspects of Civil Defence, or whose Department had to deal with those aspects. I therefore very much welcomed his questions and, indeed, the observations tha he made.
Although we have had two speeches from noble Lords who know a great deal about this subject and who are fully informed of the need for Civil Defence, may I say that I give place neither to them nor to anybody else in this country in my belief that an efficient Civil Defence Service is a vital necessity under present conditions. In answer to one question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, I may say that I would not be standing at this Box and would not be a Minister if I did not believe that the task of Civil Defence, which I am about to explain, was not viable and credible—and it is not only here that I would say this.
As the junior Minister responsible under the Home Secretary for Civil Defence, I gladly accept the invitation of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, to re-state Civil Defence policy and, as he put it, to set out in unmistakable terms the Government's thinking on this subject; and I hope to explain in some detail the changes on which we have decided in the light of the recent review and of the current strategic assessment. I have already been asked a great number of questions, to most of which I hope to be able to reply, but as my speech is the first from a Government spokesman on this subject for five years, I want to
784
set out the whole thing. However, I shall try to answer the questions as I go along, although the answers may not necessarily be in the order in which the questions were put. Although one talks, as it were, to your Lordships and also, if they will listen, to the nation, I am personally conscious of the need to be talking now to the local authorities, to those with responsibility, to the members of the various Civil Defence forces, and to all those who make up the machinery that comprises our great force of Civil Defence.
The noble Viscount has opened this debate, whether through kindness or by chance, on the eve of the season for anti-nuclear marches and demonstrations. We all agree that the principle behind the slogan, "Ban the Bomb", is fervently supported by all the peoples of the world. Unhappily, the Governments of the nations of the world have not yet been able to agree on the means to implement it. Fortunately, as the Defence White Paper made clear, tension in Europe has relaxed, and there is at present little danger of nuclear aggression. Indeed, in the present state of deterrence it is difficult to believe that any rational Government would seek to expose its land and its people to the appalling risks of a nuclear exchange. But no one can say that all danger of a nuclear attack has disappeared, and until we can say that with certainty no Government worthy of the name could leave its people helpless in the aftermath of such a disaster. That is why, I am glad to say, Her Majesty's Government insist on the need for Civil Defence, and on the maintenance of an effective programme of Civil Defence preparations. My first point, therefore—because we are not always preaching to the converted; very far from it—is that, on the basis of these indisputable facts, the continuing need for Civil Defence is alike indisputable.
My second point is that if we ever suffered the horrors of nuclear attack, only Civil Defence could ensure the survival of the nation. There are those who say that in such a disaster we should be helpless, that nothing would avail or survive. We totally reject that view. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, asked: but how are we going to inform the public? I will ask my noble friend Lord Hughes to give some detail on that

785
subject later, but the Government have never sought to conceal or minimise the terrible consequences of nuclear attack. Official publications on sale to the public put the position very bluntly. There can be no certainty about the form of an attack or the weight of the bombs which would be used, but in training Civil Defence personnel we spell out the areas of total destruction, the blast damage and the fire hazard for various sizes of weapons, including the worst.
Perhaps I may take the extreme example, the worst that could happen: an attack with 10 megaton bombs, each of which is equivalent to 10 million tons of T.N.T. Each would totally destroy an area with a radius of three and a half miles, an area in which no living thing would survive. This has some impact on our thinking about heavy rescue, which I shall come to later. Each bomb would create a belt of fires measuring from 7 to 20 miles across, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, mentioned, and would cause varying degrees of blast damage over a similar, possibly a wider, area. Our planning also assumes that wide areas of the whole country, including many not suffering fire and blast damage, would be subjected to the hazards of radioactive fall-out. This is the situation we should face, and we make no secret about it. It would be a man-made holocaust, exceeding in its effects the worst natural disasters in recorded history.
But there would be many areas with millions of people living in them which would suffer only supportable, or even minor, damage. It is the task of Civil Defence to ensure that these people survive, and that orderly government continues wherever there are people to be helped. Our plans provide for the achievement of this task. Without them, millions who survived the first onslaught would undoubtedly perish. Our plans provide for a series of options open to the Government of the day. We are talking about a period which could be one day, ten years or thirty years hence. Therefore, it is a question of a strategic assessment and of making plans to provide the Government of the day, whenever it happens, if it happens, with certain options. And in the course of our review we have greatly improved the
786
options open to the Government at a time of emergency.
Our current planning takes account of the fact that the period between a declaration of a state of emergency and an actual attack may be considerably shorter than that which has previously been assumed—I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, guessed that this was so—and we have accordingly concentrated on those protective and control measures which can be maintained in a high state of readiness. I am not referring to the four-minute warning, which some people mistakenly declare to be all the warning we should receive. We think that a "bolt from the blue" in the sense of an attack being launched without a preceding period of international tension, is highly improbable. The time from what I might call "press button"—the Government decision—to readiness would be all too short, but with realistic preparations it would be enough.
My Lords, I think it has already been made clear by the two noble Lords who have spoken, but I cannot emphasise strongly enough, both to the public and indeed to some Civil Defence personnel that I have met when going round, that our preparations are not to be judged in terms of the A.R.P. of the last war, of the rescue worker in the damaged area, of the welfare worker at the rest centre and, as it were, of Government functioning from Whitehall in the usual way. Under nuclear attack, Civil Defence means nothing less than the maintenance, at all levels, of the whole machinery of government, and it involves the control of all services essential to the community, whether in public service or in nationalised or private industry. The vast scale of damage and casualties and the disruption of ordinary communications means that we must have instruments of government able to carry on wherever government is possible. There must be provision for the creation of an authority which, in a given area, could of its own volition marshal resources for the maintenance of law and order, and of food, water, shelter and medical supplies and deploy them to the best advantage for the continued survival of the community.
The foundation for these preparations (and I put this control at the very peak

787
of everything in civil defence; for nothing is of any use without it) is the effective emergency system of decentralised control which we have developed and are continuing to develop at all levels. The largest units are Regional Governments under Regional Commissioners. They and their key staffs have been designated, but the actual seats of Regional Government would, for obvious reasons, be established after attack, in the light of prevailing circumstances. Meantime the sub-regional Government controls—two or three to each region—which will be manned on a declaration of emergency before attack, will be responsible for communications, life-saving operations, and initial survival measures. They will be staffed by the main Government Departments, and the Police, Fire Service, Armed Forces and public utilities. Sub-regional control premises are now available in most of the sub-regions, although some are improvised, and will need to be improved or replaced in the longer term. But they are there.
The next link in the chain of control below sub-regional level is the local authority administrative area. Steady progress is being made with the provision of protected accommodation to provide controls for county borough and county authorities, and for county sub-controls within the larger counties. So far, about one-third of the permanent controls have been provided in England and Wales, and two-thirds in Scotland. Those I have visited, though spartan, are excellently equipped and sufficiently staffed for the job they would have to do (uninformed people have said that these are a sort "funk-hole" for the selected; but they are far from it), but they would not survive in an area of total destruction. That is why the emphasis must always be on flexibility, and on the units of Government operating where and how they can.
In 1964 local authorities were advised to base their plans on the assumption that emergency legislation would provide for the delegation of their peacetime powers to a small emergency committee of about three elected members, and they were asked to nominate one person as Controller. I am glad to say that Controllers have now been designated for all county and county borough areas. The Controller will exercise, in addition
788
to his local authority duties, some central Government functions, and will have powers to co-ordinate central Government and public utility functions at county and county borough level with those of the local authority—for example, to determine priorities in the allocation of labour, materials or transport. In Scotland, planning is adapted to the somewhat different local authority control structure.
The effective discharge of these functions depends on the Controller having close touch with those with the expert knowledge needed for restoring essential services and supplies. For this reason we propose that local authority controls should be manned before attack, with experts drawn from local and central Government, and public utilities, as well as with an operational staff for life-saving. Guidance on the staff needed for the exercise of these controls was issued to local authorities on January 31 last in the circular to which frequent reference has been made. In Scotland it is being prepared, I understand.
Parallel with, and complementary to, the emergency control system we have the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, about which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor asked a question. I can tell him that there have been no cuts at all in this Organisation. Its purpose is to provide public warning of an actual attack, and afterwards to provide information about the location and power of the nuclear weapons exploded, and the distribution and level of radioactive fall-out. This vital part of our home defence preparations is now complete and could be brought to operational readiness within a matter of hours. The system provides for attack warnings received by the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System at Fylingdales, and other military installations, to be transmitted immediately to 24,000 warning points all over the country so as to give the public a minimum four minutes' warning of actual attack, whether by missiles or by aircraft.
In addition, the well-manned Royal Observer Corps is trained and equipped to track and measure radioactive fall-out. Five Home Department sectors (manned by civil servants), 29 Royal Observer Corps group headquarters and over 1,500 underground Royal Observer Corps posts have been built and are provided with communications and essential

789
equipment. I have visited some of these 1,500 holes in the ground and met the devoted local men and women who man them. No words of mine can pay adequate tribute to their efficiency, dedication, and unswerving determination to play their full part if the need should ever arise. Theirs is a highly efficient organisation. It is there; and, as the Home Secretary made clear last year, we intend to keep it so. Possibly it is true that, so far as the ordinary public are concerned, not one person in twenty knows that this work is going on, day in, day out, week in, week out; but it is. It is there to be used if wanted.
My Lords, coming now to the various elements of the Civil Defence organisation, I would first refer, briefly, to the Fire Service and the Police. Here we have the advantage, in each case, of an existing peace-time service which is being prepared and trained to meet emergency conditions. In the event of war, all local authority fire brigades will be brought under national control. The main part of the Fire Service, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made special reference, would be formed into mobile fire columns, constituted from the regular Fire Service, recalled personnel (which he omitted to mention), and the Auxiliary Fire Service. It is true that we do not have the number of trained personnel that we should like; but those we have are well trained and are far from being a negligible quantity. These columns would be based outside the probable target areas. Ail members, both regular and auxiliary, of local authority fire brigades receive training in the special techniques of emergency fire-fighting, and use the special equipment and vehicles provided for the purpose.
Another thing I am glad to say is that we have large stocks of equipment for this purpose. This, of course, as noble Lords will be aware, is equipment that we do not use now, except for exercise, because there is no present need. But it would be used in emergency because, for example, there might then be no other means of conveying water. General training takes place within fire brigades, but we at the Home Office Fire Service Training Centres provide specialist courses; and liaison between the regional Governments would be maintained through regional fire commanders all of
790
whom were appointed some time ago. as were the regional police commanders.
In the case of the police, we propose that the bulk of the service should, in the event of an emergency, remain as home cover forces in their own areas. A substantial proportion of police manpower will, however, be withdrawn from police operations prior to attack and formed into mobile police columns. Their task would be to provide a mobile reserve of trained manpower for use after attack, wherever the need was greatest. To assist in training police officers for their war-time duties we have at present one mobile training column, and we shall have a second column by the end of the year.
In the maintenance of law and order the police will have the support of the Armed Forces, including the invaluable assistance of the 23,000 men of the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve III, whose training will be designed to prepare them to co-operate with the police in a variety of ways. And here I would say how glad I am to think that we shall have that support which would be so badly needed for the maintenance of law and order. I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, on this subject; but we have the system there and we shall have the means, certainly the framework and the structure, which will bear, as the noble Viscount asked, the sudden necessary expansion.
My Lords, so far I have filled in the background to the whole field of Civil Defence policy and tried to illustrate the total concept and the change of governmental control right down. I come now to the reorganisation of the Civil Defence Corps itself which the Home Secretary announced to Parliament last December. This inevitably took longer to decide, and I make no apology for the delay. After all, I have suffered more than most. For two years I have been going around the country making speeches on Civil Defence—and did not say a word; and therefore it is a great relief for me to be able to say something at last. But in a matter as important as this we did have to make the most careful and searching study. It was important to be certain that the foundations we were laying for the future were sound. We had to secure the widest measure of agreement among

791
all the interests concerned, which necessarily involved long calculations; and I want to say how grateful we are to the representatives of local authorities who worked so hard on the Working Party, which is in itself an assurance, because of these consultations, that they think our decisions are on the right lines.
In his Statement my right honourable friend said that the Corps was to be reorganised and its numbers substantially reduced. Its future role would be to help local authorities man the control system and provide a limited number of specialists to help organise the first aid and welfare resources of the community. He mentioned that, after the period of adjustment, the active strength of the Corps throughout Great Britain was likely to be 75,000 to 80,000 compared with about 122,000. A Parliamentary Statement was necessarily short and I am glad to have this opportunity of speaking more fully of the nature of the changes to be made, and our reasons for them.
My Lords, bearing in mind that the overall purpose of the vitally important control system is the carrying on of government in war, it is obvious that local government staffs are specially well fitted for this task, and local authorities will be expected to make the fullest possible use of their own staffs in manning the control system. The numbers of local authority staffs required to fill control appointments will not be large. In the extreme case, that of the very largest county controls, the maximum would be 90, and of course correspondingly less in county boroughs and county districts, but we recognise that they may need help. The position will vary from one area to another. Some larger local authorities may be able to manage; the smaller ones will certainly require assistance. At nearly all controls scientific support and help with signal staff (a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie) in manning communications of course will be needed—we recognise that—and the smaller authorities may also need operations, information, intelligence and administrative support. Provision of this help is, in our view, the principal future task of the Corps.
The system of control extends still further downwards from the local authority controls to sector posts and
792
control posts. Hitherto it has been the role of the warden section to man these lower levels in the control system. The word "warden" has an honoured place in the history of Civil Defence, but it is no longer entirely appropriate to the role now envisaged, which is essentially that of a local leader, responsible at these lower levels for the mobilisation of community resources. The term "warden" has therefore been replaced by "control officer", and the "warden post" has become the "control post". At sector and control posts, as at the local authority controls, the task of the Corps will, in principle, be to supplement the resources of the local authority, but the manning of many of them is likely to fall largely on the Corps, which will therefore play a vital part in the system of public control at local level.
The remaining task of the Corps in the future will be to provide limited numbers of specialists to help organise first aid and welfare resources, but they will no longer be expected to provide large numbers of "pairs of hands" for these tasks. Reliance will now be placed in the main on the voluntary organisations. The St. John Ambulance Brigade, the St. Andrews Association in Scotland and the British Red Cross Society have agreed to assist local authorities, I am glad to say, in carrying out their first aid functions.
The W.R.V.S. has always made a considerable contribution to the welfare section of the Corps and has trained its own members and other women in welfare duties. They have now expressed their willingness to expand their instructional services and to make them available to more women so as to help local authorities to discharge their welfare functions in an emergency. We have made it clear in our circular that we look to local authorities to avail themselves of this valuable assistance. My Lords, the nation is extremely indebted to the W.R.V.S. for their tremendous work for Civil Defence—A.R.P. at it was—over a period of some 29 years. Now, as has already been mentioned, they approach the conclusion of their great enterprise in conveying the essential facts of Civil Defence to 3 million women in all parts of the country.
We may add to the Civil Defence workers 3 million women who have been

793
given the facts, or the essential facts. True it has been done through the great enterprise, determination and devotion of the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading, and her members, but there are a lot of people, fortunately, who do know the essential facts about Civil Defence. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, asked about local authorities carrying this matter wider. Local authorities can conduct talks on the facts of life in the Civil Defence if they wish to do so. We certainly would not discourage that. But we are glad to know that we can look to the W.R.V.S. for indispensable assistance in preparing women for the manifold welfare duties which would be required in an emergency, including emergency feeding, care of the homeless, billeting, and (a point that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, put to me) if the Government of the day decided to exercise another option that we shall provide, dispersing mothers and children from the main centres of population.
The noble Lord was right to suggest that the system we had in mind meant shorter distances, and there has been no change in our minds as to the classes which should be regarded as priority. I agree with the noble Lord that this is an option that we should provide. We propose to provide that option. It might well be open to the Government of the day faced with the emergency to decide to advise people to stay put. But it is up to us to provide that option and to be ready, and in that case the W.R.V.S. and other voluntary bodies will have an enormous part to play.
Scientific assessment, on which we must rely, shows that rescue operations can make only a limited contribution to the saving of life after a nuclear attack. This is inevitable, given the size of the task, the limited time available for operations owing to the fall-out hazard, and the scale of resources necessary to make any appreciable impact on the situation. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, spoke about saving the lives of a few thousand people, and suggested that if it was only a question of money it should still be done. If your Lordships can conceive of an area of total destruction, a wider area ravaged by fire, and the whole area under fall-out, you will appreciate that a
794
considerable time will elapse before anyone can get near it.
We are being realistic in our preparations. We are not thinking in terms of the A.R.P. of 1939. We do not propose to meet the conditions envisaged, as has been done three times this century, by starting a war on the basis of the techniques of the previous one. We have made a scientific assessment of the situation, subject to constant review and consideration, and what I am now putting before your Lordships is our best assessment of what should be done and of the instruments which should be created to meet the situation envisaged.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord has said. May I ask him whether there has been a substantial change in policy, thanks to relatively recent scientific assessment? I remember the time when it was expected that rescue workers would have to operate under fall-out with clear knowledge as to the amount of exposure which could be permitted, but it was then hoped to be possible to rescue a substantial number of people. Is it the case that the newest scientific assessment suggests that it will be impossible to rescue as many as had been hoped?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am speaking of heavy rescue. It is still envisaged that Civil Defence workers with protective clothing will work under fall-out, and they are being trained for that purpose. But the noble Lord must have looked at this many times and he will appreciate that radioactive fall-out is only one of the difficulties in connection with heavy rescue. Our assessment of the situation is that vast-scale resources would be needed to make any appreciable impact on the situation at all, apart from those people, many of them in the areas of lesser destruction farther away from the centre, for whom we intend to provide rescue arrangements.
In future the main provision for rescue will be led by those whose peace-time work and expertise fit them for it—for example, a local authority's own labour force, perhaps supplemented by industrial resources, depending on the circumstances at the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, suggested. Now that decisions have been made, I hope that

795
they will continue to grow in strength. The Fire Service will also render valuable assistance. Extensive specialised Corps activity in heavy rescue can no longer be justified, but the more elementary rescue skills will be taught to every member of the Civil Defence Corps, and provision will be made for a limited number of members of the Corps to receive further rescue training, which will enable them to act as leaders and to give special advice to Corps members and others made available for rescue tasks.
Augmentation of the ambulance services in England and Wales will no longer be a function of the Corps. The Minister of Health is planning new arrangements for the expansion of the service and the local authority associations will be consulted as soon as draft plans are complete. Because of these fundamental changes in the role of the Corps, it will no longer be divided into sections. The tasks hitherto discharged by the rescue, ambulance and first-aid and welfare sections will not in future fall to the Corps on a scale sufficient to justify a continuation of separate sections for these purposes. I think that that must be generally accepted. If the Corps is not divided into sections, there will be far greater scope for local discretion in deploying its members to supplement the staffs of local authorities, and it will help to simplify training arrangements. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, mentioned the training arrangements, and I am sure that he has studied our proposals. They are being adapted to these new roles, and I think adapted effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked how we were relating scientific assessments to training. The latest training manual for instructors, which was published in January of this year, brings our information right up to date.
The conditions of service of members of the Corps have been modified to meet the needs of its revised functions and structure. Class A will continue to provide a nucleus of highly trained volunteers to fill key posts, but a reserve which could be utilised in any emergency will also be built up to provide a source of trained manpower to deal with the many tasks arising within control post areas. Accordingly, mem-
796
bers of the Corps will be enrolled on a short service active engagement and will ordinarily pass to the reserve on completion of a single term. The normal term of active engagement will be four years, composed of one year's recruit service followed by a three-year period in Class A.
The reserve will be divided into two classes. Emergency List I will consist of members who pass to the reserve on completion of their period of engagement in Class A. Emergency List II will comprise those who have completed recruit training, but not training in Class A. All possible links between active and reserve members will be preserved, and reservists will from time to time be asked to take part in exercises or to attend a refresher session of training. I attach great importance to the maintenance of a large, well-trained reserve, who would all have a vital contribution to make in an emergency, particularly in helping to man the sector and control posts and so provide local leadership. Indeed it is for this reason that the reduction in the size of the Corps and the change in its functions in no way reduces its importance—quite the reverse. Under the new arrangements, members will need to be able to turn their hands to whatever task is most necessary at the time, and all volunteers will be trained in more than one function so as to provide the greatest flexibility in their use. For these tasks we shall continue to need volunteers of a high calibre, with qualities of leadership and versatility—in fact, a corps d'élite, backed by a substantial, highly trained, and constantly refreshed reserve, which in my view, having regard to the remarkably good morale which prevails, will provide an even more efficient service than we have at present.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, asked me to say something about the cost of Civil Defence. I think your Lordships will agree that my speech is already overlong, and I propose to leave it to my noble friend Lord Hughes to give details of finance when he winds up the debate. But perhaps I might say that, while we have necessarily had to review expenditure both in the light of the current strategic assessment and of the need to restrict Defence expenditure as a whole, we are continuing to ensure

797
a viable and comprehensive Civil Defence organisation. This has been achieved by the most thorough revaluation of all previous plans to ensure that every measure would still earn its cost on current planning assumptions, and that our available resources were concentrated on the really essential tasks. Excluding the £2 million contribution to the cost of T. and A.V.R. III, the cost of Civil Defence in 1967–68 will be £18 million. This compares with the cost of £30 million which, at current prices, was the figure forecast for that year before we began our review and reorganisation. In these days of inexorably rising estimates it is an achievement which I am glad to place on record. The £18 million covers the Home Defence expenditure of all civil departments.
I have only had time this afternoon to discuss the preparations of the Home Departments—the control system, the Civil Defence Corps, Police, Fire and warning and monitoring. But those of your Lordships who have studied Appendix "J" of the White Paper on the Defence Estimates will have seen the number of other Departments included and the diversity of matters covered by what we call Civil Defence. The Minister of Transport's emergency port scheme, the Minister of Power's emergency plans for the gas and electricity industries and the supply of oil, the Minister of Agriculture's plans for food—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, mentioned stocks of food—all these and more go to make up the complete picture. The price of all this is certainly the cheapest and one of the most important insurance premiums of which I have knowledge. And it has only been made possible by the selfless devotion of an army of volunteers, who year in year out train and equip themselves to face a dreadful emergency that we all pray will never happen. They deserve well of their country.
5.32 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, so many people have spoken so much about Civil Defence, yet some people wonder what Civil Defence really is. I think we should make it clear, both to ourselves and to other people, that broadly speaking Civil Defence is the emergency service that one gives to the nation in a time of great trouble. As
798
the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, whom we are all so pleased to see here to-day, said, in its final analogy Civil Defence is essentially the carrying on of Government in war. But this is obviously, and should always remain, in the final sense only. Civil Defence is perhaps the most difficult of any task that any human being can undertake. It is so for a great many reasons, and primarily because it is hard to translate in its local application, because nobody ever believes that the worst can happen to him. This is true of so many things, and it is particularly true of Civil Defence.
The second reason is that it demands a great sacrifice of leisure from those who serve it; and people, although they know they should have an insurance, are slack and lax about paying the instalments on it. Thirdly, it should be the responsibility of everyone. But many people evade their responsibility until the very last moment, and then it is too late because of their unpreparedness. I do not say this in the way of just voicing words. I say it after many years' experience of Civil Defence. I feel that this is one of the prime difficulties that we always have to face as we discuss and, even more, as we operate Civil Defence itself at the local level.
Civil Defence as an arm of defence has, like all of Her Majesty's Services, gone through many phases of change. The present movement to prepare and shape a system with lines of communication, with an observer and warning system, with trained, responsible officers, is something which seems to me not only wise, but practical and workable. It means decentralisation, so that local self-reliance and local delegation of responsibility can be assumed. This is surely what we want if we want local participation, because with modern methods of communication, public utilities and transport, the local unit must to-day be self-sufficient.
It is therefore right to my mind that Civil Defence should be handled by local authorities so that they can take responsibility for the local unit. Those of us who work with this arm of defence know that the survival of public utilities is of the greatest importance. I know that I, for one, would never have realised this had I not met it head-on. And local

799
authorities often have the full responsibility for, and always have the full knowledge of, public utilities. These, and communications at local level, are much less likely to be dislocated if they are operated at their lowest common denominator, rather than from a distance. This gives the merit of independence and the generating of a self-sufficiency which in the ultimate should be of the greatest value.
It is necessary, I am sure, to recognise that the greatest necessity of all is to have people trained at every level in every area. It is no earthly use having a lot of highly trained and highly skilled people in one area who cannot move into another one. Therefore, it seems right that local authorities should now be occupied, as they are, with the problem of changing the shape of Civil Defence in their own areas, and finding out how they can effect the economies they have been asked to make, so that a plan can be ready to dominate as from the end of September.
Many things could be overlooked if we did not suggest them ourselves. One of them, I think, is the interest that could be encouraged in youth. Too often people suggest that youth should do jobs which have no challenge. Today we know that much of youth has played an invaluable part in the past in connection with all kinds of emergencies. They could play this part in the future if those who are responsible took the trouble to encourage, to train, to guide and to meld them in with a sense of responsibility into the general structure. Local community effort and local community service could be stimulated through youth, and the initiative and the provision of minimum necessities to them for doing their work is something that should be thought about carefully.
I do not think your Lordships will expect me to be so ungenerous as to pay tribute just to Civil Defence and not to Civil Defence workers in the welfare section. I have worked with them and for them since 1938, and my interest, which I should declare, is that I am at present the Chairman of the W.R.V.S. Workers up and down the country—not just the W.V.S., but all sorts of workers—have done so much more than could have been expected of them; and words as
800
tributes seem so very inadequate. The one-in-five scheme which the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, mentioned was merely an effort to make men realise that if they would listen to women most of their troubles would be dispersed. Therefore, knowing which was the wiser of the two, we thought that if just one in five of the adult population of women could know the basic facts of what an attack on the country could mean, this would be a help to men! We thought we must be practical in doing such a thing, and therefore we realised that it would not be any good having a target of three million. We should have to work right down to the village target figure, so that in fact, if there is to be an informed public, it will be on a local basis and not where they cannot be of use at the moment when the need arises.
Nobody so far in this debate has spoken of the fact that these are days when those of us who are old in years have to withdraw from Civil Defence. This is a truth. There are too many old people in Civil Defence, and I would boast that in fact I am no longer in charge of Civil Defence in my own service; and I would say with misery that I have to answer to one of my juniors who has now taken over the responsibility. I do not know that she enjoys it entirely; but still, I do my best.
I should like to devote my time this evening to the question of welfare, because I know that someone who is much more qualified than I am will speak on behalf of the voluntary aid services. Whether one is working in welfare or in any other field of Civil Defence work it is absolutely essential for everyone to qualify well and truly in first aid. In the field of welfare there is a body of people who will be playing a big part in survival, and I think the people who are to-day in the welfare section should have an opportunity of becoming the officers of to-morrow in connection with welfare work. Many of them will go on to the emergency list, but many others will retire, either because of age or for some other reason, and I should like to plead that it be never forgotten that all persons who have once taken a proper training are informed members of the public and therefore, wherever they lived, would be of value in playing their part if ever the dread moment were to come.

801
Experience has certainly taught me, and I am sure it has taught many other people, even if it were not self-evident, that at any time of emergency it is necessary to have additional and trained support for all services, whether in the field of welfare or elsewhere. For this reason, training must be carried out to a tremendous extent. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has stated, the W.R.V.S. has undertaken to do training on a very big scale, and I need hardly say that the content of the syllabus has been agreed with the Government Departments concerned. I hope that all W.R.V.S. members will, as members of the women's auxiliary to Civil Defence, prepare themselves by training for the kind of service that they may be called upon to give.
As an auxiliary, W.R.V.S. have lived through the changes which started with A.R.P. and we have reached a belief that the approach—where women are concerned—is to prevent them from feeling that each individual woman is being asked to sign a "life sentence". This may be a feeling that women have more than men, but the difficulty in getting a woman to sign on the dotted line in connection with any sort of service is great. For this reason, we have undertaken, in addition to training our own members, to give elementary welfare training to those women who would like to have an opportunity to take this training but who are unable to undertake any specific commitment and who do not wish to join W.R.V.S. itself. We shall urge everyone who is taking such training to go on and take training in first aid. This would mean that a great mass of women, because they had taken some slight training, would be of value at the local level, if in no other way, by knowing what to do for themselves and their families.
Training will be on three bases; that it will be practical; it will be where the volunteer wants it (not making her go a distance for it), and it will be when she wants it, which will mean that it will stop a lot of quarrels with her husband. This will be a convenience to women who cannot travel distances in order to fulfill the present regulations of a class of so many people at such a place and at such a time.
802
I believe that this service to the "consumer" will be made possible by a great increase in the number of women who will come forward to be qualified. It can be attained only by having a sufficiency of qualified and authorised trainers, who will manifest the third letter in "W.R.V.S." and will not receive any fees, although the standard of training will be as high as it is to-day, if not higher, All trainers will have to he qualified and authorised, and, in addition —and this is a new thing which does not operate at present—they will have to be retested periodically, so as to obviate that ghastly "waffler" who always sends the audience to sleep.
Women at the ordinary local level who are doing day-to-day work will, in fact, be of great value; they are operating today in the field of welfare, and in practically every case they are working to a statutory body. Those who are doing meals-on-wheels are working ultimately to the local authority officer who is responsible for this particular phase of local authority work; those who are doing housing work are working ultimately to the housing manager; and those who are doing work for old people are working to the welfare service. This day-to-day work has unconsciously taught the worker lines of communication, chains of responsibility and local authority machinery, and this has given them their contacts with the person in control, as well as the general "know-how" of their own locality. These women are known locally and have earned the confidence of those they serve, and the type of service they have learned to give —"blown up" in an emergency and under the control of skilled persons—is not only possible but desirable from the point of view of work, of morale and of survival. What we envisage is, of course, recognised as being full of difficulties. Obstacles will be legion and will have to be overcome; but women do understand women, and we believe that the objective of this scheme can be achieved.
5.49 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, my contribution to this debate will be a brief one because there is only one particular point that I wish to make. However, I should like to begin,

803
speaking on behalf of the Churches, to express our gratitude to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for initiating this debate to-day and for the most important statements which have followed. The conditions under which we might have to try to exist, if such a terrible thing as we have been contemplating should fall upon us, are so dreadful that it would be highly difficult to imagine them, and it has rightly been stressed in this debate that it is no use our thinking of Civil Defence in terms of what was done in the last war. Obviously this is an entirely different matter. Nevertheless, the basic human needs remain the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, spoke about the need for uncontaminated water, food, and so on, thus satisfying bodily needs. There are also the spiritual needs, and the question of the maintenance of morale. I believe that in this matter of the maintenance of the morale much can be done by those who are accustomed to working among the people, and who know them and are trusted by them. Here I would come to the part that the clergy and Ministers of religion might well play in this and would wish to play in this.
Naturally, one thinks about what happened at the outset of the last war, with the evacuation of the children and then the onset of the bombing. I found myself in those days as the vicar of a parish in Southampton, and we had both those experiences; the evacuation of the children and then, subsequently, what in those days was very heavy bombing. I know that the fact that the clergy were in the closest touch with the Civil Defence organisation in those days was of very great value. Looking back on it all, I am pleased to think that the Civil Defence organisation of those days told us in the Churches that they valued the contribution we were endeavouring to make. I remember that shortly before I left the Civil Defence organisation of the town held a special parade service in my church, and we had many contacts together which we greatly valued; and I know that the Churches were able to play a most valuable part because the people knew the clergy and I think they trusted them.
804
When we come to what might happen in the future, it will be appreciated that, having had all this close contact in the past, I was particularly pleased to be invited to serve on the committee which in 1963 was called together by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to consider the whole question of the part which the clergy and ministers of religion might play in war. This committee, which was under the chairmanship of a high official in the Home Office, was fully representative of all the Churches, and it included the Secretary of the Churches Main Committee—that is, the body which in these matters represents all the main Christian denominations in the country; and in this matter the Jewish community also is associated with it. We had a number of meetings at the Home Office. We went into this aspect very thoroughly, and we produced a report. It will therefore be understood that there was considerable disappointment among some of us when the Government decided, in the end, that they were not going to publicise this report, and nothing further was done about it. I am not complaining about this matter, because it is fully understood what the reasons for this delay may have been.
In 1965 the Churches Main Committee to which I have referred issued a circular setting out that it had been decided by the then Government that it would be premature to issue a report at the present juncture, in view of the further consideration which the Government were giving to the whole question of defence policy. This further consideration has been given by the Government over the last two years, and we hear that various circulars have been issued. I hope very much that we shall soon hear from the Government what they would wish the clergy and Ministers of religion to try to do in this matter; because since then we have not heard anything. I believe that it is folly not to call on people of good will who might be of the utmost assistance. We should like to play our part. Before the last war we all went to the Civil Defence courses; we went to first aid courses; we went into the examinations, and I well remember how hard I tried, because I thought it would be disgraceful if my curate passed the examination and I failed. I mention this merely to show that we were really trying.

805
In the awful conditions we are contemplating I believe that the spiritual needs of people will be very great, and I believe that the clergy can do much to help them at that time. But we, the clergy and ministers, will be far more able to help the people if we are given the necessary instruction and given the lead for which we are asking. This report tried to give that lead, and we worked very hard. Perhaps the report that was not published may have been no good, but I certainly hope that something will be done in order that we may be given the lead for which we are asking and pleading.
I should like to touch on one other matter, and that is the question of premises. Again, we are thinking in different terms altogether from those of the last war, but I know that at that time premises owned by the Churches were very valuable in moments of stress. How well I recall, for instance, my own church hall suddenly having a whole lot of French troops billeted there after they had been withdrawn from Dunkirk! I am sure that the Churches would like to play their part in being as helpful as possible in this matter of the use of premises. The present position is not over-clear, and if the Churches could be helped a little more in this matter by the Home Office it would assist us.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I intervene?—because I am not sure why the position is not clear. In any case, as the right reverend Prelate will be aware, he and other Bishops have been invited to let us know if there were any points which were not clear.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD: My Lords, perhaps if I could have a word with the noble Lord at a later stage I could make it plain why it is not quite clear.
Finally, I would say this. It has been my duty and privilege during this week to take the Prayers in the House, and I always feel that they are magnificent Prayers: that Prayer for the Parliament is most moving, and in it we speak of "the peace and tranquillity of the realm". The subject we have been discussing this afternoon is one which concerns the very life and death of the nation, and while obviously, as is rightly being stressed to-day, we must take all possible steps to see that we meet such a calamity as efficiently as we can, what I would
806
ask is that we should pray that this calamity may, by God's mercy, never come. I therefore feel that I should be remiss if I allowed this opportunity to go by without saying that I hope that all believers in God in this country—and I trust in many other countries too—will continually pray that men may not be so led along the paths of folly and wickedness that such a disaster as this ever overtakes the human race. And in that effort all of us can surely play our part.
5.58 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I will only detain the House for a few minutes, as most of the points I wanted to make have been made, and probably better than I could have made them. I would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who I am delighted to see back in his place, and quote what he said, that Civil Defence was "a vital necessity". "Vital" is the right word. Where a country is threatened with attack, only two things are vital, and the rest are merely mightily important. The first is the will to resist, and the second is possession of the training and equipment with which to resist. We are a little apt to think of Civil Defence in the present day as entirely our own affair. It is a preoccupation of a great many of our allies as well.
No two countries have quite the same problem. In Canada, where you have 13 large centres of population, strung along about a 3,500 mile border, and a wind that blows predictably evenly so that you can guess where the fall-out is going, and with a car to every three and a half people, some possibility of evacuation might very clearly be considered. Whether they will consider it I do not know. But we, I think, with this overcrowded country of ours, have to budget to stay pretty well where we are. As noble Lords have said, we depend on two things, a large force of trained volunteers—and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, said, properly trained in every area—and a public that knows what to expect, what is expected of it, where to go, and what to do in a survivable situation. That is what we are dealing with—the area beyond the ring of fire, the survivable belt.
I think the first thing that I would press on the Government is the urgent

807
need for much more publicity. I join the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, who made a most earnest plea for this. It must not be local publicity, where some authorities do it and others do not. It must be national publicity, however contentious, however horrible, and however unpopular. The right reverend Prelate has made a most eloquent plea for this very thing. Governments did not flinch before the war to tell the people of Britain the full horrors of mustard gas, Lewisite gas, and all those other things to which we were going to be exposed.
It is possible to reduce one's commitments in the foreign field, and consequently to reduce one's armaments, by shrinking these overseas commitments. But this is an absolutely unshrinkable commitment to the people of Britain, who stay there in their same numbers, and to whom we owe the maximum protection that we can properly give them. This is not anything absolutely new. I think it helps to see this threat in some kind of historical perspective. There always has been a threat. I was reading the other day a letter to the journals from a gentleman who was most concerned about the invention of a new death dealing weapon. He picked up his pen and he wrote to the paper as follows:
"If, moreover, this new system is applied to the military, war could shortly become so frightful as to exceed all bounds of imagination, and future wars would threaten, in a few years, to destroy not only armies, but civilisation itself."
That letter to the papers was written in 1817, by a man who was immensely concerned to read about the invention of the percussion lock; and it was thought that that would be the result if it ever succeeded the old flint lock.
I have only a word or two to add to that. I think it is well worth remembering what tremendous achievements Civil Defence has had in this country. It has now become accepted by the civilians of this country, like the fire brigade and the police, as an arm of public service which is there to help. They felt that, I am sure, at Aberfan. We in Scotland certainly felt it in Aberdeen some few weeks ago when a large building collapsed, burying a number of people. The Civil Defence people were on the spot quickly, and undoubtedly they
808
helped to save a number of lives. I see Lord Hughes in his place, and I would ask him to comment, if he would, on an article which appeared in the Aberdeen Press and Journal of March 10. It was an interview with Mr. James Smith, the Civil Defence officer there, who said that in the event of a nuclear attack Aberdeen would need 3,000 workers. He said he had 1,000. Perhaps Lord Hughes could comment on that, and say when we could possibly hope to recruit the rest. Mr. Smith, I may say, expressed the greatest possible confidence in the Government's new plan. What sometimes clouds our thinking is only considering the blazing centre of a nuclear explosion. There must be an enormous area around it which could be called survivable.
I would venture to say two further things before sitting down, just to remind your Lordships of two calamities which have happened in my lifetime and that of most other noble Lords, too. One was the Napier earthquake, and one was the flooding of the Fraser River in British Columbia, the first in the early 1930s and the second in early 1948. Napier was a town of 19,000 inhabitants in New Zealand. With a most law-abiding people, they had but a small police force, and, I imagine, not a large fire fighting force. They had no soldiery anywhere about. They had not been needed. They had in fact no formed body to deal with the calamity. That was one of the most terrible earthquakes that has ever occurred in history. In a trice the water-mains were broken; there was no food, water or transport; and there was no light. Two warships reached there the following day and brought some kind of government structure to help out. But of the 260 people who perished in that earthquake, I feel that had there been a chain of command many of them would have survived.
Then in 1948 the Fraser River came down in tremendous flood, sweeping away whole villages and parts of townships, flooding farms and a great deal of the country. The flood waters were rising. It was only three years after the war, and they got hold of three or four militia regiments—territorials, as we call them here—who were battle-hardened men for the most part, strongly disciplined, and they took over the entire

809
fight. It was they who rescued the people; it was they who dealt with the sandbagging of the river banks, preventing the flooding getting worse. It was they who kept law and order. It was they who produced medicines, food, rescue, communications and everything. It happened in a part of the world where they had these trained people, and an almost inconsiderable loss of life resulted, whereas if they had not been there, the loss of life would have been something terrible.
In bringing my remarks to an end, I would just say (as I think many noble Lords have already said today, but it bears repeating) that this intractable commitment to the people of Britain depends on the morale and training of volunteers; and it depends on the level of information of the public. I wish Her Majesty's Government extremely well in putting through their policy, and in bringing to an end this uncertainty which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, has mentioned, has hovered over us for the last two years. I end by saying that perhaps not everybody quite realises that one of the most significant deterrents to prevent an aggressor nation going to war is the realisation that the nation they intend to attack is determined to survive, and that, I believe, is our resolution here.
6.8 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, it has been communicated to me that, at a certain time of the clock, we shall have to adjourn during pleasure, so I shall endeavour to trim what I had intended to say into the time that remains. But I do want to declare where I stand to start with, by saying that I believe that an adequate, but not necessarily extravagant, Civil Defence organisation is necessary. I greatly admire the men and women who serve in it.
One particular difficulty in the Civil Defence movement is that it is an organisation without glamour, particularly in peace time. But a week or two ago I discovered one quarter where the Civil Defence organisation was appreciated. It was in Chelmsford Gaol. They had enjoyed a lecture from one of our Civil Defence officers. He found that they were far more attentive than the normal audience which he addressed. Whether they thought that he would be training
810
them in the use of ladders for rescue purposes, I do not know.
However, I do not want to argue about ideology or psychology, except to say that I think it would be stupid to create the impression that if we have a Civil Defence service we can almost shut our eyes to the menace of the H-bomb. There is no complete defence against that weapon. We have to face it. All the same, an efficient Civil Defence service can save a large number of lives, and could keep the community running; and in the present state of the world, some form of Civil Defence is most certainly necessary.
Let us look round the world. America has some 1,700 bombs of the biggest size. Russia has about the same. De Gaulle is experimenting by blowing them up in the Sahara. Even China is discovering the secrets of nuclear weapons. And in Germany there has been really alarming progress in the technique of making bombs and putting plutonium to warlike uses. My attitude to Germany is a friendly one. But will Germany always be friendly? We are hearing quite a lot about the Oder-Neisse line, about the eastern provinces and about new Nazi leaders who are trying to drive the band-waggon. I do not feel quite so comfortable about the future as I should like to be.
However, at the moment we are living in a relatively peaceful present, and I think we can take a broadly calm and rational view of the situation. I do not think that any of us fears a Russian offensive. I think a new era has dawned in Russian relationships with the West. But to get rid of Civil Defence now, in a somewhat uncertain state of the world, would, in some respects I think, be like getting rid of our dog and hoping that burglars will never visit us. A word has to be said about the value of the Civil Defence organisation in dealing with what one might call civilian catastrophes. We have seen much of their efforts in recent months, and they will always be a valuable reinforcement for the civil forces of law and order, to use the term in its broadest sense.
What kind of Civil Defence organisation do we need? We want to have our minds on two things. We must not spend more than we can afford. On the other hand, what we do spend must

811
assuredly yield us a service which we can regard as efficient. I think that the scheme which the Government are now considering is justified on both those grounds. But there are some rather jagged edges which will have to undergo close examination in the next few months. First of all, there is the question of money. If the cuts are made too drastic, we might have chaos. We might not be saving money, but might be wasting the whole of the money which has been spent on the Civil Defence force. There is more sense in spending 10s. and getting 10s.-worth of real value, than in spending 8s. and wasting the lot.
We have already had cuts of £4 million in the last three years. The large shelter system has been abandoned, quite rightly, and the dispersal system has been restricted and limited. The spending on training centres has been cut, and I would ask my noble friend what the position is about the famous training centre at Warley which was to cost £60,000. Is my noble friend able to assure us that the Warley Civil Defence training centre will now be abandoned or postponed?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is my noble friend speaking about the shattered village?
LORD LEATHERLAND: Yes.
LORD STONHAM: I can give him that assurance.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I think that is pleasant, having regard to the present state of people's minds.
As we know, 45,000 people are going to be sacked from the Civil Defence force, with some considerable saving of money. Personally I do not like the way we say to these 45,000 people, "You have sacrificed your time, you are serving well, you will probably be useful. But we cannot keep you—go away!" I do not like that, but I realise the inevitability of it. We are now asking for a cut of £1 million, which brings the cuts up to 20 per cent. since 1965. I doubt whether that £1 million saving will be achieved. If it is achieved it might be counterbalanced by extra work and expense which will fall on staffs of local authorities and the ratepayers.
Cutting off £1 million is not an easy task at the moment. There will have to
812
be control rooms built in council offices, and that will cost money. There are many leases which are now running for premises built for Civil Defence and which will have to be surrendered. There will also have to be compensation. There are many Civil Defence officers whom we shall have to suspend, and they will have to receive redundancy pay. Many voluntary organisations will be called upon to put in more work in the future than they have done in the past, and probably there will have to be some subsidies or subventions. Many Civil Defence centres are going to be closed, with the result that volunteers will have longer distances to travel to the centres, and we shall have to meet the extra travelling expenses. Therefore, this cut in expenditure to the extent of £1 million is not going to be an entirely one-sided operation.
Incidentally, I would ask whether the Home Office have yet completed the costing operation which they told us a few months ago they were undertaking. If some of this counter-expenditure eats into the £1 million saving, I hope the Ministry will not come back in a few months' time with a programme for another set of cuts for local authorities to put into operation.
My main interest is to see whether the exercise will result in more efficiency. I think it will. I think we may need a longer transition period in order to get into full working operation. There are many difficulties associated with it, there will have to be many delicate negotiations, but I think that it will be a good thing. As noble Lords are aware, at present the Civil Defence bodies are the county councils and county boroughs, and quite rightly under the new scheme they will continue in that capacity.
In this new scheme there is a considerable change in the whole emphasis and orientation. The councils will have direct responsibility to undertake more work, and there will be a change in emphasis all round. The local authorities will be made more responsible for manning the controls and for constituting the system of civil government in an emergency. It is right that they should be the linchpin, for they know the areas and the resources and people in those areas. But much will depend on the amount of time which the employees of

813
councils put in. In one of the documents issued by the Ministry this passage appears:
"Local authorities should as far as is practicable provide from their own resources the staff required to man the controls and posts in the control chain."
I think we are going to encounter some snags in that regard, and I will say a word or two about that later.
The uniformed Civil Defence Corps is to be cut by 45,000. I think this involves some radical changes in our conception of the organisation and its composition. The rescue sections will be abolished, as will the ambulance sections and the welfare sections. The Corps is to become a kind of general duty Corps, with some elementary rescue and first-aid training. The ambulance work is to be handed over to the Red Cross and St. John, and the welfare work to the W.R.V.S. I am sure that they are capable of rising to the occasion, as they have done so many times in the past.
I am rather doubtful about sacking so quickly the 45,000 men who are to leave the Service. It does not necessarily follow that in a particular district there will be in the Civil Defence Corps the kind of man who can fulfil the needs of the particular technician required in that district. I feel that there must be a certain amount of elasticity when cuts of this kind are being imposed. I wonder whether we are not embarking on the sacking too soon, especially in regard to the Class A men, who are very superior trained people, and three-quarters of whom will be denied the opportunity of re-engagement. The scheme will also involve the sacking of a number of Civil Defence officers, some of them municipal employees, some not. They have been trained in all the duties of the Corps, and they will be very steadily lost when new people are taken in to learn the new duties of the revised Civil Defence Forces. Having said that, I would add that I believe the scheme is on sensible lines and will ultimately result in a far more efficient organisation.
But there is one matter that must be tackled, because it goes to the heart of the whole problem, and that is the
814
manning of controls. My own chief Civil Defence officer was good enough to give me a report on this matter—I shall not quote it, as I have only a few minutes left before the ceremony which is to take place in a moment. However, it is quite clear from his report that those controls are not properly manned, and he insists that there must be more volunteers from the local government service to man them and to put them in a workable condition.
There were many more things that I wanted to say, my Lords, but I will take only a few more minutes.
At the present moment, the grant to local authorities for Civil Defence purposes is 75 per cent. of the sanctioned expenditure. I feel that it should be 100 per cent. The local authority is not called upon to pay the cost of the local Army unit, of the naval ships which happen to be standing in its harbour at the moment, or of the aircraft which happen to be standing on the airfield within its boundaries. But this Civil Defence force is, as much as those other three Services, one of the defence forces of the nation; and it is not right that, whereas with the other three Services the Government pay the whole of the cost, for the Civil Defence Service the local authority itself is required to pay a quarter of that cost.
There are many other things to say, but as a company sergeant major, I was reared in a good disciplinary atmosphere, and I shall strictly obey the time limit which was given to me. I would close by saying that, on the whole, this changeover of the system will involve some pains somewhere: we have to face that. But when the changeover is completed we shall have a far more efficient force than we have at the moment. I hope that if the Minister finds that he cannot complete all these changes by the deadline of September 30, he will allow a little more time so that the job can be done properly, as it should be if it is worth doing at all.
House adjourned during pleasure:
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.30 p.m.
The following Bills and Measure received the Royal Assent:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2),

Misrepresentation,

Plant Health,

General Rate,

Forestry,

Export Guarantees,

Teachers' Superannuation,

Parliamentary Commissioner,

Licensing (Certificates in Suspense)
(Scotland),

Post Office (Borrowing Powers),

Teachers of Nursing,

Iron and Steel,

Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation,

Greenock Corporation Order Confirmation,

Tees Valley and Cleveland Water,

Clergy Pensions (Amendment) Measure.

House adjourned during pleasure:
House resumed.

CIVIL DEFENCE
6.45 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for introducing this Motion to-day. It is extremely valuable that we should review the situation after five years have elapsed and hear what has been done since we last debated this very important subject. I am very heartened by much of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said and by his obvious dedication to this important problem. It is six years since I was closely connected with Civil Defence in the No. 1 Region, and I am impressed with quite a lot that has
816
been done. I should like to add my tribute to all those devoted people who keep the Civil Defence organisation going: the Civil Defence workers, the W.R.V.S., and I should like to add also the officials of the Home Office, who do not get many thanks, for continuing for a very long period a very difficult job.
I regret to see that the Government plan a reduction in costs of 20 per cent. on the expenditure for 1967–68. This is overall; so that some authorities will probably suffer even greater cuts. For these, even more than others, this reduction, that has to start on April 1 next, is virtually impossible as leases cannot be terminated and any employees who are redundant must be found other jobs, if possible. The new organisation, in which local authorities are given the important responsibilities, has been touched on by several noble Lords, and I do not intend to say anything more on that except to wish the scheme well. It is so important, first of all, that they have the time to devote to this and that they take to it enthusiastically. I hope that they will be able to do the very important job that they have now to take on.
In addition to the local authorities, there are the education authorities, and I want to say a word about them. In March, 1964, the Ministry of Education issued Circular No. 3 of 1964, in which it was stated that in the first, or planning, stage it will be necessary to earmark those educational premises which would be needed for specified Civil Defence purposes and to decide, so far as may be practicable, the duties to be carried out by educational staff in an emergency. Under the Civil Defence emergency feeding regulations, emergency feeding authorities, the county councils and the county boroughs, are required to prepare plans for the emergency feeding of the civil population. Schools and the school meal service play a prominent part in these plans. The Circular continues:
"The staff of schools and colleges which were closed would be available for other duties. Teachers might be asked to help in dealing with members of the public attending emergency feeding centres, in the issue of ration cards, in the work of rest centres, in arrangements for dispersal"
and so on. All this is sensible and efficient, if it works and if everyone plays his part in it. But I should like

817
to ask the Minister what progress has been made as a result of the circulars. Have local authorities and educational authorities prepared plans? They have now had three years in which to do so. Are they giving this scheme their wholehearted support? What has been done and what remains to be done?
My Lords, I want to say how impressed I was with what the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading, said about youth. I think there are great opportunities for the youth of this country to take part in voluntary training in Civil Defence. There is no doubt at all, if this appalling tragedy fell upon us, that they would be able to do a very large amount of work. I should like to see this followed up, and I hope that the Minister who is to reply could say that those proposals—which, like all the noble Lady's proposals, are so very good—could be taken seriously and put into effect. I should like also to underline what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield said about the part that could be played by the clergy. As a son of a parson, a vicar in the town and a rector in the country, I know well what the clergyman and his wife can do in the leadership of our communities. Most of them take the lead in many ways and they can do a great deal. I hope that the Government will take very seriously the recommendations of the clergy in this respect.
I want now to say a word about the Army. So far as home defence is concerned, the Territorial Army has been reduced to A.V.R. III, whose role is to support the civil authorities in the maintenance of law and order in the event of an actual nuclear attack or a national emergency. The A.V.R.III, as well as being very small in numbers compared to what the Territorial Army was before, are the very simplest type of infantry; just riflemen, in fact. All the other arms and services which used to exist in the Territorial Army have disappeared, or will do so very shortly. So this force cannot undertake many of the tasks they could in the past. The numbers are greatly reduced, so it is unlikely that they could be much more than just a support for the police. Their duties might include a little traffic control, acting as cordoning guards at vital stops,
818
and limited reconnaissance. They are armed with rifles only and with no automatic weapons, which is a disadvantage, as in their guard duties they may well be confronted by saboteurs or looters armed with superior weapons.
In peace-time, training would be easier if they had more wireless sets and more transport, and on mobilisation they would certainly require more sets. Their transport requirements would be made up by requisitioning. It is no good giving them wireless sets unless they are trained to use them. A slightly better scale of vehicles and equipment, especially automatic weapons, would make training much more attractive and would lead to better recruiting. Has the Minister any plans to make training more attractive? Regarding wireless sets, there must be a vast number of old War Department wireless transmitter-receiver sets in depots. They are now obsolete for the Regular Army and the Volunteers, but they are perfectly serviceable over short ranges, and I should think that it would be a very good idea, and most encouraging, to issue these to Civil Defence sections.
Regarding command and control, I am very worried about the effect on Civil Defence of the disappearance of the territorial Divisional Districts. England is at present neatly divided up into Civil Defence Regions which correspond, and the military organisation was made to correspond, with Divisional Districts. These become one entity in war, with operation rooms presided over by the Civil Defence Director alongside the District Commander, heads of Police, Fire Service, Post Office and other departments which could be involved. It was an efficient organisation which showed up well in combined exercises in which I have taken part in the past. The Divisional District has provided a complete communication network for the Civil Defence organisation of wireless, trained staff officers, transport drivers and orderlies. When these disappear, as I understand they will this year, what will replace them? Is the Minister confident that other arrangements are adequate?
My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor referred to the pamphlet called The Hydrogen Bomb, and I should like to refer to words which appear on page

819
31 about which I am a little alarmed. The words are:
"… all the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom who were not required actively to engage the enemy would have the responsibility of assisting Civil Defence. Because of the planning and training now in progress they would be to undertake a wide variety of tasks."
Of course all troops in this country, Army, Navy and Air Force would take part, but I hope that the Minister does not think that the Regular Forces will have very much knowledge and will know really what to do.
I should like to know whether, as part of the ordinary training of a teeth-armed unit when it gets to its barracks, say, in Edinburgh, Fort George or Wellington Barracks in London, it is given a Civil Defence scheme and exercised in that scheme. I very much doubt it, in which case the Regular troops may not be the asset that they are being counted upon to be. Of course, in war there will be various mobilisation tasks which may take them away, and it would be difficult to count on them; but I appreciate that if they are looked upon as a "bonus" to the existing organisation, it is all well and good.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that is precisely what we have in mind, and we realise, of course, that the exigencies of the moment, or the points of attack, may mean that units of the Armed Forces may not be available for that purpose.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, despite the little money which is available there is in this country a vast network of authorities who can be used if they are told what to do and how to do it. Most important of all, if their interest is encouraged they could be a source of volunteers; but I think that a little more equipment and more realistic training is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was not present in the Chamber when I said that we know of the noble Lord's immense keenness and enthusiasm for this job. I believe that publicity is needed, as was said by my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir, and it would be very encouraging if the Prime Minister would make some personal effort to show that what is being done by these Civil Defence workers is appreciated by the
820
Cabinet and the Government. We know that the Home Office and the Ministers concerned are most encouraging and take the greatest interest in it, but I think that a lead from the head of the Government would give a great deal of encouragement.
6.59 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, I also am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for moving this Motion, for it gives me an opportunity to explain the new role to be played by the voluntary aid societies in helping fill the first-aid gap in the Civil Defence services. Before I go on, may I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that, owing to the late start of this debate, I shall not be able, alas! to hear the end of it.
Both voluntary aid societies, the Order of St. John and the British Red Cross Society, in this country, have accepted the Government's request to make our organisations available to the local authorities for first aid throughout the country. We are also helping in Scotland, but the final arrangement with the Scottish Office has not yet been settled. This differs from the old arrangement, under which members were free to join Civil Defence as individuals. Now the voluntary aid societies are responsible for numbers and not for names. This means that we shall not now have to serve two masters, which was the unsatisfactory feature under the original plan.
We know that recruiting for Civil Defence has for some time been difficult, and I see no reason why it should be any better now, unless some purpose is put into it. So far as the first aid side of Civil Defence is concerned, many more people trained in first aid will be needed. Those who belong to the voluntary aid societies do training all the time and keep up to date with new methods, but in the past Civil Defence recruits took one first-aid course, and that was that. The same thing is again proposed for those members of the public who are trained through their local authorities. That sort of training may or may not be better than nothing, but I feel that unless there is some purpose besides a problematic atomic bomb, few people will think it worth while to give up precious spare time to train. That is why I respectfully

821
suggest to your Lordships that this is a wonderful opportunity to link Civil Defence in peace time with disaster training, safety in the home and road accidents —with any or all three of these.
As regards disaster training, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, as head of the W.R.V.S., will agree with us in the Red Cross that the training and discipline of our organisations was of great help at Aberfan. Safety in the home affects all of us, especially the very old and very young. It happens that yesterday evening I was talking to a doctor about first aid, and he said that he wished every mother and housewife could be trained in first aid. Hardly a day passes without some sort of accident on the road. Basic first aid should be taught to all of us, and the fruits of that training would be there if there were an atomic disaster.
How can we get over to the public the idea that training in first aid is worth while and not just a waste of time? This question applies also to Civil Defence. I suggest that we ought to start with the schools, as they do in the United States and Canada. I would also suggest that some sort of national service after school might be considered. Such service could include not only basic first aid but possibly Civil Defence training also, because there are young people who are bored with the jobs they do every day and want a worthwhile outlet after work. I think that could help.
Saving lives and preventing accidents is not dull, but training for something we all hope will never happen is something about which it is not easy to enthuse. Those who have taken part in Civil Defence exercises will agree that they are realistic, and more of this kind of active training in other fields would make all age groups realise that accidents can and do happen to people. Could the Minister tell us how the National Health Service Reserve fits into the new Civil Defence organisation? I speak here as an interested party, because I am a member of the Reserve. I am sure that this Reserve could be used mach more now for emergencies, and if it were so used it would give the members much greater interest in training.
May I digress for a moment to what other noble Lords said about the Press and public relations of Civil Defence? I
822
feel that if only a quarter of the space in the Press and a quarter of the time on television and radio that is given to exaggerated news of strikes, "sit-downs", drugs and other people's misfortunes, were given to the achievements of Civil Defence in peace-time, a great service would be done to this country. But of course, as has already been pointed out, Civil Defence would have to co-operate. Finally, I hope that the Government will not turn down all these ideas on the ground of cost, saying that the reorganisation of Civil Defence is designed to save money. In the long run, the saving of lives and the prevention and treatment of accidents would reduce hospital costs, and it would also link Civil Defence training with a really useful purpose.
7.6 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, those of us who vigorously opposed the mutilation of the Territorial Army used as one of our most telling arguments that Civil Defence could not work properly without the Territorial Army. In my time of commanding units and formations of the Territorial Army, I did the Army Civil Defence courses at Millom and at the Civil Defence Staff College at Sunningdale, and everything I picked up only went to support the arguments that we used. Just last week, at the farewell to one of the formations which the Government are abolishing this month, a senior police officer reinforced these views from the police point of view. This month sees the end of a large number of famous names in the history of voluntary service to this country. They are to be replaced by such exciting initials as "A.V.R. II" and "A.V.R. III"— and I am pleased to see that the band I helped to reform after the last war has been allowed to stay on as—your Lordships have guessed it—A.V.R. IV.
To cap it all, the Civil Defence Corps is now also being mutilated. I think that a small but somewhat voluble section of the community speak from two basic misapprehensions. They seem to think that anything traditional must be conservative, and therefore must be wrong, and that anything voluntary must smack of "blacklegging" and must also be wrong—or perhaps it is not considered right to have anything done except by a professional. I certainly shall never forgive the Government for

823
what they have done to the Territorial Army; I hate and detest it. But I realise that it is our duty to see that the small crumb which our masters have permitted to exist specifically to help in home defence should get all the support possible, so as to be efficient and, what is even more important, appreciated. I refer to the A.V.R. III.
The Government have been so niggardly towards these new babies of theirs that one is tempted to believe that they want them to fail. With all the disbanding of units that is going on, could the Government not at least make them Landrover-mobile? Could they not at least give them adequate communications? Could they not at least provide them with light machine guns as well as First World War rifles? Without light machine guns, as anyone who knows anything about soldiering can tell them, the men cannot do even the basic military manœuvre, which is fire and movement.
I maintain that these people must be made to think of themselves as soldiers, because in times of crisis the veneer of civilisation wears extremely thin. If there is one lesson that I learned in the 15 months that I spent with the partisans in the mountains of Italy, behind the lines, during the war it was that once law and order break down, then man becomes a disgusting animal. I think the only hope here is to build up A.V.R. III so that if we ever become reduced to that state the police have at least that unit with the necessary discipline behind them. That is the Territorial Army side of the defence point.
What about the Civil Defence organisation itself?—and, naturally, I shall refer mainly to my own county of Devon. It was reorganised in 1962, with the reorganisation due to come into effect by 1964–65. The delays and the Press rumours started long before—and I think it was on September 4, 1965, that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, made a speech in Poole, which he will no doubt remember. I think it was made with the object of alleviating the uncertainty that existed at the time among the volunteers to the Civil Defence Corps because of the delay. In November, 1965, the Civil Defence Committee of the county publicly expressed their concern on this subject. On February 2, 1966, the Home Secre-
824
tary issued a statement which said inter alia that the Government had decided to maintain an effective Civil Defence policy.
On March 23 the Devon County Civil Defence Committee, because of the announcement of odd plans, began to make their reductions in Civil Defence. On September 1 last the Chairman publicly expressed his anxiety about all this uncertainty and the effect it was having on the volunteers, and requested a meeting with the Minister. The meeting eventually took place with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on October 29. The result was reported to the Committee when the members returned on November 2, and they passed this resolution:
"That this Committee greatly deplores the Government's attitude and inactivity on the future of Civil Defence, and requests that, as a matter of urgency, much more information should he made available to the public about measures which they should take for their protection in the event of emergency."
It was not until December 14 that the Home Secretary made a further statement, which mainly emphasised the part to be played by the local council. Then, after two years of loyal Civil Defence service and uncertain waiting by over 3,000 volunteers, on February 1 Home Office Circular 1/1967 arrived.
The reaction was as follows—and I will put it in a series of 10 questions. First, is this the end of the Civil Defence Corps? Secondly, if not, why should 75 per cent. of the volunteers, after four years' intensive training, be transferred to the emergency list when in the prime of their volunteer service? Thirdly, why is not their £10 bounty free of tax? How niggardly can you be? Fourthly, what is to happen to the Civil Defence Corps when the new local government structure is produced? Fifthly, the Government say that there will he another review in 1970. Do they expect that there will be any loyal Civil Defence volunteers left by then? If so, what further tests of their loyalty will there then be? Sixthly, why is there no mention in the circular of the civil disaster role, of prime importance to counties like Devon? And following from that, do the Government still support Home Office Circular No. 5 of 1957?
Seventh, what happens if the council employees refuse to do the training allocated them in the new scheme? Eighth,

825
is it true that their union is already expressing doubts on this subject? Ninth, how does the rate of pay and overtime which will go to the council employees compare with what the volunteers were getting before? Finally, what will be the effect on the overall system if councils refuse to co-operate?—if they had a CND clerk or something like that? Was there not a relevant case in Coventry a couple of years ago? However, those are the reactions in the Civil Defence organisation in my particular part of the world.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to suggest to him it is truer to say that that is the reaction of some Civil Defence personnel in Devon. I do not claim to know Devon as well as he does, but I know the Devon people very well. I met the deputation from Devon, and we had a most friendly and fruitful discussion. I have also read the Tiverton Gazette and other newspapers, and there are some very balanced comments from members of the Civil Defence forces there, as well as uncomplimentary ones. I think it does no good service to give what sounded to me rather like an unbalanced picture of the situation in Devon.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He is extremely popular in Devon. If I may refer to the report issued after the visit of the noble Lord, the delegates were all extremely appreciative of his behaviour and kindness to them. His personal views on emergency planning and the Civil Defence Corps seem to coincide in many ways with those expressed in the past by members of the Civil Defence Committee. I am trying in these questions to give the reaction. I do not say that everybody reacts in the same way, but this is the overall reaction. I should not like to quote it in public, but I can tell the noble Lord personally, if he would like to know, how it arose.
The great things that this country has done in the past have generally been done in spite of our laws: as an example, the volunteer movement which started in 1852. I hope that we shall not go to the extreme now and do irreparable damage to our volunteer system, whether it is on the military side or on the Civil
826
Defence side. Finally, mention has been made in the Press and in another place of various questions of alleged breaches of faith on the subject of gratuities. I implore the Minister to use his influence with the Government to err on the side of generosity when dealing with those who have given loyal service, either to the Civil Defence Corps or to the Territorial Army.
7.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, when I first saw the Statement made in this House on December 14 last I feared very much that the Government had fallen into the same error as they fell into when dealing with the reorganisation of the Territorial Army—that is to say, first, that they had started their reorganisation before they were quite firm on their operational plan; and, secondly, that they had based its implementation on saving, which is, after all, a negative aspect. I still thought so when I saw the last Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham—who we are all glad to see back again in the House—has only partly persuaded me that there is a definite operational plan to work on.
Chapter 11 of the Statement on Defence starts by saying that in the last year—that is, 1966—home defence plans have been revised. It then goes on to say
"Since then we"—
that is, Her Majesty's Government—
"have decided, after consultation, that the Civil Defence Corps should be reorganised".
On the face of it that does not lead any ordinary person like myself to suppose that the reorganisation followed a change of plan. I feel and have felt—and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, touched on this when he was talking about the A.V.R. II and III—that it is no good trying to collect and inspire a keen, loyal and well-trained set of people unless one can tell them precisely what to do. Some indication of that came out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, but not, to my mind, quite enough, partly because I am one of those people who do not believe that measures to deal with nuclear warfare should be the be-all and end-all of the Civil Defence organisation.

827
The noble Baroness, Lady Hylton-Foster, made an important point about the use of the Civil Defence organisation and the practice they have in dealing with disasters and floods, as did my noble friend Lord Tweedsmuir. Then there is that borderline between armed action and Civil Defence, with which the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have never been able to come to terms, because they will insist on assuming that the enemy, whoever he may be, will be obliging enough to respect the borderline drawn by the two Government departments. Thus two important matters, sabotage and espionage, get left out. Just think what would happen if the brains of the people who organised, we will say, the Great Train Robbery, or the escape of Mr. George Blake, were turned on the planning of subversive activities. It has been a gap in our plans since the end of the war, but a clear statement of the operational need would go a long way towards producing the effect that we all want, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to get the reorganised Civil Defence organisation off to a good start.
I must return to the problem of trying to do what I would call "exercising leadership by negative". The Statement of December 14, and the circular, dealt with the whole matter as something which has arisen because of the need to cut expenditure. That may be so, but as one who has had a certain amount to do with leadership and its problems for a good deal of my life, I would say that that is the very last way to begin and the very first way to make sure that things do not go right—and that is the atmosphere in which circular No. 1 has been received.
I am not saying for a moment that it was not right to reorganise or reduce the Civil Defence organisation. I have no doubt that there is a great deal to be said for it. I do not think that the matter is being entirely correctly handled at the present moment, and I am not at all sure that sufficient attention is being paid to the need to allow for a sufficient expansion factor in the various parts of the Civil Defence organisation which have been cut down. There is a point beyond which they cannot go, and in fact the instructions to local authorities to make an overall cut do not tend to improve
828
the handling of that particular factor, because if they were interpreted literally (which I do not think they Will be for a moment) those local authorities who have been economical and good housekeepers will be penalised, and those who have been extravagant will be favoured. This we do not want. However much the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may shake his head, that is an extremely serious danger.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves that point, which I found interesting, could he explain what he means by "limiting plans for expansion"? He did not develop that point.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. What I meant was that if we reduce any force to a small number, we must take the greatest care to see that it is sufficient to provide an expansion factor for any needs; not necessarily needs which are likely to arise in the near future, but needs which might conceivably arise later on. That was one of the reasons why I was very glad indeed to see that more use was going to be made of organisations like the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John. To my mind, they have been under-employed so far, as, I think, have the Women's Institutes, which have not been mentioned in this debate. If an evacuation were to take place their services would be invaluable, and the expansion factor in those organisations is extremely high. Therefore their use in Civil Defence will be extremely helpful, in more ways than one.
I now want to go back to the point of saving money and cutting down expenses. When all this began, which was about 18 months ago, it seemed to me that the whole thing was being done in a manner which was far from being objective. What happened—and I am not speaking entirely without some knowledge—was a kind of game of departmental "old maid", where the great object seemed to be (to anyone who had a seat in the second row of the stalls) to pass the expenditure from the Home Office to the local authorities, or from the Ministry of Defence to the Home Office. A great deal of time was taken up with that, to the detriment of the consideration of the role of the Corps in the future.

829
I am greatly concerned that this should not happen when the Ministry of Health is brought in—as I think it is now being brought in—in order to deal with the problems of the first-aid organisations—such as the British Red Cross Society and the Order of St. John. For heaven's sake! let the Government lay down the law about it and say which Department shall bear the cost. Do not let us spend any more time in arguing about which department shall bear the cost while all the Civil Defence Corps personnel wait on the touchline to see what is to happen. As the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, said, now that we have come to the time when those who were recruited in 1947, when Civil Defence was restarted after the war, are about to retire, new people should be brought in, and this should be done in the right atmosphere. I think this right atmosphere has to be produced. It is not there yet.
As a last point, I feel that the business of settling the exact part that the local authorities will have to play warrants a little firmer handling than it has had up to now. Unlike a number of other questions, such as, shall we say, diseases of animals or public protection, which can be handled by local authorities by and large in the way they want, this question of Civil Defence has a national aspect and cannot be left to the opinions of one local authority or another. It must be mandatory on local authorities to carry out certain directions of the Government. A moment's thought will convince any local authority that that must be so. It is not a local plan, not local administration, except in the sense that it is local administration of a national plan which is essential to the defence of this country.
That leads me to wonder how far the Government have the balance right between volunteering and the use of local authority staffs. I was not absolutely clear what was meant, and I am sorry to say that I may not be here to hear the answer. It seems to me that if, for example, you made the roads and bridges department of the Salop County Council responsible, then it ought to be part of the duties of a certain number of those employees to do that work. Put the other way round, if it is not made part of the duty of the roads and bridges department, then we are back to the
830
position where you are at risk as to whether the work is done properly or not. That has been the position in the rescue sections up to now, where you have local authority A, with someone very keen on it doing what is wanted, and local authority B doing nothing of the kind.
I am not putting these points by way of criticising, but in order to point to certain aspects of the present plan which I think will need a good deal more attention if the plan is to work in the way we all want, and if the transitional period is to be carried through in the way that everybody wants, in the same way that the transitional period between the Territorial Army and Army Volunteer Reserve is being carried through now. If the points which I have ventured to mention are attended to, if the emphasis by the Government Departments concerned is made more objective, and if more time is taken with singing the Civil Defence song in a major key instead of having very boring, perhaps sordid, arguments as to who shall bear the cost, I, for one, have great hopes for the future of Civil Defence.
7.34 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, the task that I have been given in replying to this debate is, for once, one which I find both attractive and comparatively easy, not because the problems which have been discussed have been simple, but because of the tone of the whole debate. With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, I do not think there was any hostility. I do not reproach the noble Lord at all for the tone of his remarks, and when I come to refer to his points I do not think he will find me ungrateful even for the way in which he found it necessary to state his point of view.
First, however, I should like to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, how much we are in his debt, not only for persisting, through grave difficulties, in having this debate held at all, but also for the care with which he prepared his speech in opening, and for the ease, logic and kindness, if I may say so, with which he put it forward. It is a very great comfort to me, as a Scottish Minister, to know that if ever these disasters

831
should arise while I have any responsibility at the Scottish Office (which I may say I do not anticipate), the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, is on my side. I would also pay particular tribute, as did my noble friend Lord Stonham, to the contribution from the former Home Secretary, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.
In singling out the initiator of the debate and a succeeding speaker for special mention, I do not wish to suggest that the other speakers have made less than notable contributions. I do not think any of your Lordships have wasted one minute of the time of this House in the discussion we have had. I would pay particular tribute (I do not think that it is necessarily usual but it is well deserved on this occasion) to the speech of my noble friend Lord Stonham. Towards the end of what was, by your Lordships' standards, a very long speech he apologised for omitting something and explained that he felt he had already spoken over-long. I think the House reacted in the same way as I did: that his speech had not seemed one minute too long. He held the attention of the House throughout, and we enjoyed hearing what he was saying and enjoyed knowing, from the way he delivered it, that he was back to the place and in the form to which we have been accustomed for the past two years.
Perhaps I might touch now on some of the points with which my noble friend asked me to deal, and points which have arisen since he spoke. The question of finance was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. My noble friend Lord Stonham has already referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to the substantial economics which have been made over the years in Civil Defence expenditure. They brought it to the figure of £18 million anticipated in 1967–68, leaving aside the addition of the T. and A.V.R. III.
Both the noble Lords to whom I have referred asked for some breakdown of the expenditure. I may say that the bulk of the further saving of £1½ million expected in the coming year will be found by the Home Departments. By the reorganisation of the Civil Defence Corps we expect that a saving of £1 million can be achieved in the cost of the Corps
832
to the Exchequer. Since more than 80 per cent. of the Exchequer expenditure on the Corps goes in grant to the local authorities it follows that there will need to be a substantial reduction in their Civil Defence expenditure. Authorities have been asked to exercise severe restraint in expenditure, and they have been told that the aim over the country as a whole is to achieve a reduction of 20 per cent. in expenditure incurred by local authorities in 1965–66, which is the last year for which figures of actual expenditure are available.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that I said 20 per cent. over the country as a whole. We recognise that the scope for economy will vary quite a bit, according to the local situation and the level of the current expenditure of the individual authority. Some could not reasonably be expected to reduce by as much as 20 per cent., but there are others who we hope and expect would be able to make a more substantial contribution. A good part of local authority Civil Defence expenditure, of course, goes on running costs. Major items of equipment, like communications, the radiac equipment and vehicles, are supplied by the central Government free on loan. The capital expenditure of the local authorities is therefore comparatively limited—in effect, to the cost of land and buildings—and we expect in the next year on this to pay grants of some £740,000. This compares with the estimated total grant payments of nearly £6 million on revenue expenditure.
Local authority expenditure on the Civil Defence Corps covers a wide variety of expenses, and the proportion spent on each naturally varies from one authority to another. About half the grant goes to the cost of administration and salaries of Civil Defence officers. Other substantial items are the cost of premises—nearly 20 per cent.; and of instruction and training, 15 per cent. In addition, there is the cost of such items as the storage and maintenance of equipment and vehicles, the provision of uniform, publicity recruitment and bounty. We believe that the reduction of numbers, and the simplification of organisation and training, resulting from the changes in the Corps will enable the substantial savings that we require to be achieved.

833
Clearly there will need to be critical examination of local authority estimates and claims for grant aid, and we are considering how our arrangements for these purposes can be approved. Similarly, the annual inspections carried out by Home Office Regional Directors, and—if I may at this point take up the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie—the comparable activities of the Scottish Home and Health Department, will provide opportunities for careful consideration of the costs of each local authority's Civil Defence activities. We have been discussing these and other possibilities with the local authority associations with a view to working out together sensible arrangements for containing Civil Defence expenditure consistent with the need to maintain a viable system of Civil Defence. This brings me back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Leatherland, that the objective should be to get 10s. value for 10s. spent.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, asked about communications. I know that he referred to what would take place after an attack; but could I perhaps go back a little earlier, because what is done if there is an imminent attack has some relation on what may take place afterwards. I can assure the noble Viscount and other noble Lords that in these circumstances the fullest use will be made of the existing communications of television and radio. Of course, we cannot expect that television and radio will remain intact in the situation which arises afterwards. They may be of no use to us at all. But one of the things which will be of use to us is something which many of us—my generation, at any rate, with young daughters at home with a multiplicity of transistor radios—have come to regard as the greatest plague in existence at the present time. These, however, may prove to be a blessing to us at that time, because we are going to rely on the battery operated radio receiver as the principal means of communication so far as we know at this time; and we are drawing attention in times of possible stress to the value that a properly functioning battery operated transistor radio will provide afterwards, and if people take heed of that at the time
834
they will be in communication with the authorities afterwards.
I am glad to say that the point which the noble Viscount asked about has in fact been arranged for. The B.B.C. have completed the work for bringing into operation local emergency radio stations which in these circumstances would be the means of communication. These arrangements are ready now.
The question of local authority staffs was raised by more than one noble Lord. The local authorities will be under an explicit duty to train their staffs. This will be done by amendment of the Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations. The arrangements which should be made for this have yet to be discussed with the local authority associations and with the staff associations, and it would not he right at this stage for me to anticipate any details of these regulations. The local authority staffs will be trained for the particular appointment each is to fill. It is not envisaged that the organisation of this training will throw any considerable additional burden upon local authorities. I should say, however—and I cannot go beyond the wording which I have carefully written down—that that additional, identifiable expenditure in accordance with the regulations will rank for grant. As a former local authority man, I know that that is as much as you can ever expect any Minister to say. I have had it said to me so often in the past. I never thought I should have to say it to anybody in the future. Now it has happened.
On the question of local arrangements, I would touch on one other point which the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, raised. That was the question of the special constabulary. He asked whether they would receive Civil Defence training. The answer is, yes, they would, on the same lines as the regular Police, but in a shortened form.
It was a particular pleasure to me to hear the speech of the noble Baroness whom I cannot think of as the Baroness Swanborough, but as the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading. I cannot remember—and, having regard to what ladies are supposed to feel in these matters, I think it would be probably wrong of me to say—how long it is since I first met Lady Reading in connection with Civil Defence. Certainly it goes

835
back to the time when I was an A.R.P. controller and she was actively engaged in the wartime organisation of Civil Defence, or A.R.P. as it then was. She paid a generous tribute to the welfare work which had been done by voluntary organisations, and in particular by the organisation which we have now got to try to remember with a new set of initials, W.R.V.S. I thought that she was generous in that tribute, but no more generous than the work involved. What she did not say, and what I wish to say, is that she would not have been able to pay that tribute to her organisation if it had not been for the work which she herself has put in so unstintingly, so wisely and so practically over all these years.
I may find myself in a little difficulty with my colleagues when I say that I thought that the proposals which she put forward—the indications of the lines upon which the W.R.V.S. are thinking to-day, and the way in which they are going to work—were so sound, so practical, and I enjoyed listening to every moment of them, and I hope that most of them will in fact come into operation. I have to say "most of them", because I had it whispered to me during the earlier ceremony that it was not absolutely certain that the Home Office and my Department in Scotland would necessarily back every one of them. But if the noble Baroness is to be actively engaged in argument and discussion about this (if this is not an improper thing for a Minister to say), my money would be on Lady Reading to win the argument!
I was also glad to hear that the other noble Baroness who took part was following along similar lines. I was particularly glad to hear what she had to say also about women's organisations, and to know that in the other fields we can expect from them the same degree of worthwhile and invaluable co-operation as we have had in the past. She asked one particular question about the National Hospital Service Reserve which I think I should answer specifically in these words. Plans for the establishment of a wartime hospital service have been drawn up by Regional Hospital Boards following guidance issued by the Ministry of Health and the Scottish Home and Health Department. These plans provide for the ex-
836
pansion of acute hospital facilities in safer areas, for the reception of casualties and the provision of forward medical aid units which would receive casualties brought in by the ambulance service, give essential treatment, and send on patients suitable for admission to hospital. The staff of the hospital service would be increased by calling on the services of a number of doctors in general practice and by mobilising the National Hospital Service Reserve.
I would not necessarily accept what Lady Reading said, that if men would only listen to what women said and follow their advice there would be no problems. I will concede that if we listened to them more often there would be fewer problems, but I do not think that it has yet been given by God to either sex to find a solution to all problems, particularly this kind of problem.
The Bishop of Lichfield will forgive me if, as a Presbyterian, I have not his designation right—he should be referred to, I understand, as the right reverend Prelate. We do not take kindly to Bishops in my part of the world, but I have no hostility to the Bishop personally. But I did appreciate what he had to say, and I wish to assure him that the main point of his remarks about the maintenance of morale, and the part to be played in that process by the clergy, is one which I accept without reservation. I do not consider that all we are doing in all the other directions would have anything like its full value if morale went. I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate when he says that nobody is in a better position to give that lead in morale than the clergymen and the ministers, whom the population know and trust, and to whom they are accustomed to turn in minor family troubles and always in periods of real strain.
On the question of the Report, the reason why it was not published is very simple. The Report became available just at the beginning of this very wide review which the Government undertook. The review took some two years. At the end of that period it would have been rather a waste of time and material to have published a report which, in some senses, had become out of date with the passage of time and changing decisions. What I can say to

837
the right reverend Prelate is that the Report will not be wasted. There will be further discussions and the Report will provide the very useful foundation from which the new discussions can start.
The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, remarked upon the need for more publicity of a national nature. The Government are not in disagreement with that suggestion. But what we say is that, having regard to the new nature of the Corps and the extent to which it has to be related to local requirements, there is now no longer a need for a national recruiting publicity, and that the publicity which should take place should be of a different character altogether. Having made that qualification, I would agree with him that publicity of a national nature is necessary.
With regard to the particular point in Aberdeen, I had not seen the article to which the noble Lord referred until he handed it to me outside the Chamber. I am afraid the necessity for co-ordinating what I was going to say in reply to the debate generally prevented me from taking other than a most cursory glance at the article. I know that the thousand people to whom the Civil Defence officer referred is the present active strength of the Aberdeen Division of the Corps. I do not know about the calculation of the need for 3,000 people which was made, and not knowing the basis on which it was made, it would perhaps be unfair to the Civil Defence officer if I were to offer any comment at this stage. I will examine this matter and if it should prove to be a point which is of interest only to the noble Lord I will deal with it by letter. If it should be a point of general interest to your Lordships' House, I can perhaps arrange with the noble Lord to put down a Question so that your Lordships can all have the benefit of the answer. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept that as a satisfactory way of dealing with it.
My noble friend Lord Leatherland was, I think, under one misapprehension about the reserve. He commented that it was rather wasteful to say to trained people, "You are now fully trained; we don't need you; you can go away". We are not saying that at all. It is because of the reserves, the value of which has been recognised before by more than one noble
838
Lord, that we are able to get what we consider will be a better organisation than we have had before. There has been nothing more frustrating to Civil Defence workers than to come along year after year with apparently nothing new happening. How much more valuable it is that the time should be concentrated on giving training to the new people, with the people who are already trained going into reserve on the basis that they are there when needed, so that they will be willing to come back to have their knowledge refreshed or polished up, or to take part in the exercise which will take place from time to time.
I am reminded of what Lady Reading said, that the more trained people one had the better; that if a person had had training he never completely forgot it, and that this was a fund of knowledge and experience which could be called upon from time to time. Therefore there is no question of "sacking" 45,000 people. There will be considerable elasticity in this matter. On the question of "sacking" of Civil Defence officers (if I could use the rather brutal words used by my noble friend), it is inevitable in an operation of this kind that some people will find that their jobs no longer exist. But I am certain that my noble friend would not have it otherwise if the job is not there. It is no good, either nationally or locally, continuing a job which no longer exists, or to try to find a place for a man who is not needed. What I am certain is that neither Government nor local authorities will find themselves dealing ungenerously with men who have given good and loyal service to their local authority.
Finally, he raised a point which rang familiarly in my ears: why is the grant not 100 per cent.? The answer is, in the words of the song, "blowing in the wind". It has been "blowing in the wind" ever since I first heard it asked and the answer is the same: that the Government do not want to do it. In these times of changing local authority responsibility, local authorities have found in the past, only to their cost, that the first step towards the possible loss of responsibility for a service is to receive 100 per cent. grant in it. So long as the local authority have some contribution to make, they have some say in what is going to be done. I accept that the local authorities will always feel that

839
their say is not so great as it ought to be. But it does work to a certain extent that when they pay they have some say; and the burden is not a large one. If this were the greatest of the local authorities' burdens, I doubt whether they would worry very much about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, had some points to make, one of which related to the question of the progress which had been made by education authorities as a result of the Ministry of Education circular in 1964 dealing with the earmarking of premises, and so on. We have ample evidence that local authorities are planning to make good use in an emergency of the resources of the local education services as provided for in that circular. But short of actually approaching the local authorities—and time has not allowed for this—I cannot give a detailed answer to the noble Lord's question. As the circular intimated, the school meals service and its staff have for long played a prominent part in the plans of emergency feeding authorities—county councils and county borough councils, to use only the English terms—for the emergency feeding of the civil population. The designation of school premises for this purpose was established by that circular.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I say that I mentioned the fact that it is three years since they were asked to do this? Would it not be a help to his Department (I am not criticising in any way) to know what has been achieved in those three years? I feel it is highly unlikely that in every part of the country everything will have been done 100 per cent. efficiently, and it might be important that pressure should be exerted.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I confess that I should be surprised if, even in three years, we had achieved 100 per cent, satisfactory results. It may be that the results are satisfactory. All I can say is that in the time at our disposal it has not been possible to find the answer, nor to furnish it to the noble Lord in this debate, although he was kind enough to give an indication in advance that he might be raising this point. I think it is important, however, that we should have an indication of the extent to which this is being done. If the noble Lord would
840
be good enough to consider putting down a Question at some time after the Recess, my noble friend Lord Stonham, or one of my other colleagues, may well be in a position to give a report on the current state of play.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, both raised points in relation to the Territorial Army. I do not propose to deal with these points, because I do not think that a Civil Defence debate is the most suitable context in which to discuss the future organisation of T. and A.V.R.III. But the Government are satisfied—and this is as far as I propose to go—that the proposed equipment is suitable for the primary role of the new force; that is, the assistance of the police in the maintenance of law and order in war time.
I said that the only contribution which I thought was at all hostile was that of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It was in a way hostile, but understandably so. I have to take the assurance of my noble friend Lord Stonham for this, but I have no reason to doubt his word when he tells me that the Devon authority were, and are, one of the most enthusiastic authorities in the country for Civil Defence. It was natural, therefore, that when we heard of new proposals which appeared to have the intention of destroying a part of what had been accomplished, or at best cutting it down considerably, they should ask critical questions and that those critical questions should appear to be hostile questions.
If I may deal with one or two points raised, I would say that if we had not been prepared to make regular reviews of Civil Defence (both the previous Government and ourselves have followed a pattern of regular review) we should still be thinking in terms of A.R.P. The need for flexibility is inherent in any viable aspect of defence policy, and the reviews in 1955, 1960, 1965, and again in 1970, are a necessary part of maintaining the organisation at the best possible level of efficiency. While I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will not go away from this debate tonight with all his fears allayed, I am satisfied that, with the zeal which the Devon authority have for Civil Defence,

841
they will find that in a year or two from now the worst of their fears were groundless, that even some of their minor fears were groundless, and that they will be given the opportunity of creating and maintaining as good an organisation as they have ever had in the past.
I should like to say that, good as were all the contributions, the debate would not have been so good without the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. We might in six months' time have looked on it rather as a gathering of members of a mutual admiration society, but he reminded us that while we in this House may see the particular merits of the Government's policy, there are some people outside who will have to have it proved to them. I think that in due course it will be proved to them.
Finally, there were the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. He apologised to me and said that, because like me he is dependent on a timetable to get home, he would have to leave before I reached his remarks. But I should like to say that he was perhaps unnecessarily suspicious as to which was the chicken and which was the egg, in the need to save money and the need to have a reorganised Service. But his contributions to debates, either on Civil Defence or on Defence of any kind, are always so helpful, always being a mixture of criticism and advice, that it would be churlish of me in his absence to accept his contribution other than in the spirit which I am certain was intended; that is, as encouragement to the Government in the policy on which they are embarking, as advice which we will be glad to look at, and as criticism which we dare not ignore.
842
Out of all of what he said, and out of all that has been said by all of your Lordships in this debate, I am certain that the Government will find value. I hope that the service which will emerge as a result of this reorganisation will be as good as the debate which your Lordships have had upon it.
8.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, far be it from me to prolong the debate at this hour of the night. I feel that it has fulfilled the objects which we had in mind when we introduced it, and I think the mere fact that we have had it will be of encouragement to Civil Defence workers. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords and noble Ladies who have taken part in the debate, arid I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eight o'clock for the Easter Recess.